A HISTORY OF HEARSAY

This chapter compares the rules of procedure and evidence of international criminal tribunals with those of Anglo-American courts, concentrating on the admissibility of historical evidence and expert witness testimony. In both national and international trials, experts called by the parties are the main conduit for historical evidence. The decision of judges to admit or exclude evidence in the courtroom goes to the heart of a legal system's understandings of probative value and fact, the building blocks of knowledge about an armed conflict. Although international courts are appreciably more lenient with respect to various types of evidence, including historical expert testimony, this varies according to the type of case and is most pronounced in trials of senior political leaders. Before addressing international criminal tribunals, however, it is worth reviewing conventional evidentiary practices in common law jurisdictions. A central defining feature of Anglo-American law is how it assiduously filters and evaluates evidence, and only by grasping this can one appreciate the sharp contrasts that exist with international criminal law.