La preuve à l’épreuve: trois cas-limites pour le juge international

[Autom. eng. transl.] Fair trial provisions are now numerous and form a corpus juris of well-defined rules in the framework of international human rights standards. Almost all of these rules, and all the underlying legal principles, have been widely applied in the context of the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals. All of these forecasts are characterized by a very strong interdependence. Thus, for example, the presumption of innocence (broad principle) is ensured by the immediate knowledge of the charges (more specific principle), which is guaranteed by the possibility of preparing an adequate defense (even more specific principle), to in turn related to questions of training and evaluation of evidence (even closer principle). It can be deduced that all these principles find application in the discipline of proof. The latter varies according to the model of jurisdiction used as a reference: international military tribunals, ad hoc tribunals, mixed or internationally assisted courts; and is, in turn, organized around different phases: preparatory phase and first appearance, phase of the trial, phase of appeal and review. All this being said, the organization of the probative system of international criminal institutions is also influenced by their own factors, such as their modes of creation, their position in relation to national jurisdictions in terms of primacy, complementarity or subsidiarity, and the place they reserve for taking into account the interests of third parties. In this work, we try to analyze the conduct of the discipline of the evidence in the context of certain cases that took place before the ad hoc Tribunals, where the underlying issues presented themselves in a particularly complicated way. These are the Aleksovski cases (concerning stare decisis), Blaškić (on the re-evaluation standard for appellate evidence) and Barayagwiza (on reconsideration or review). In other words, the approved evidence, the challenged evidence and the indisputable evidence.