The very first mention of the evidentiary standard can be traced to the treason trials taking place in Dublin in 1798 wherein it was stated that if the jury has a “reasonable doubt” upon the evidence advanced against the accused, then he must be acquitted. Though the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt existed since ancient times, it did not make its appearance in the courts till the late 18 th century. Thus, the emergence of the reasonable doubt doctrine was not to protect the accused but rather those adjudicating the trial. In order to protect their salvation, jurors were advised to convict the accused only in the absence of any reasonable doubt regarding guilt. The concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt finds its roots in Christian theology wherein convicting an innocent person was regarded as a mortal sin. The article takes into account the origins of the evidentiary standard, the interpretation attributed to it, and the jurisprudence established by ICC’s predecessor tribunals. This article is an attempt to decode the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and analyse whether or not the ICC has been successful in its implementation. ![]() According to the critics, which include the Prosecutor and judges of the ICC, the Court has failed to correctly understand and apply the statutory requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, ICC’s determination of this evidentiary standard is shrouded in controversy. ![]() ![]() Article 66 of the Rome Statute mandates the International Criminal Court (ICC) to impose a conviction only when the guilt of the accused is proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |