Skip to content

A. Videos

Definition

The international courts and tribunals do not define the concept of videos. However, in general terms, video recordings are commonly referred to as 'audio-visual material'1 and as such, videos can be defined as 'visual multimedia source[s] through which a series of images forms a moving picture. The video transmits a signal to a screen and processes the order in which the screen captures should be shown. Videos usually have audio components that correspond with the pictures being shown on the screen.'2

A1. Instead of excerpts, videos should be submitted in their entirety.

Keywords

procedure; excerpts

Submission of videos in full, alongside their respective transcripts and translations, assist the Court in contextualising the segments of the video that have been identified as most relevant by the tendering party.3 The ICC Trial Chamber in Ntaganda admitted a full video broadcast instead of only the excerpts submitted by the Defence in order to provide context to the security situation portrayed by the video in its entirety.4

Excerpts. If, nevertheless, a party seeks to tender excerpts, the tendering party should also clearly indicate whether the full footage was available and who extracted the segments of the video.5 The opposing party may tender additional excerpts to assist the Court in contextualising the segments sought to be admitted.6 The ICC Trial Chamber in Ntaganda granted the Prosecution's request to admit extensions of video excerpts that had been tendered by the Defence in order to illustrate the reason behind the presence of community leaders at an event depicted in the video excerpts.7

A2. A video and its associated transcripts and translations must be seen as forming integral parts of the same evidence.

Keywords

procedure; transcripts; translation

Transcript and translation documents are written records designed to faithfully reflect the contents of the video for better comprehension.8 Consequently, each document and the video are treated as parts of the same evidence. The formal submission of a video automatically includes recognising the formal submission of associated transcripts and translations which have been duly disclosed.9 Similarly, it would be inconsistent to impose restrictions on one part but not the others.10 The ICC Trial Chamber in Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui granted a request to apply the same protective measures to the transcript and translation of a video that the Prosecution had been authorised to apply to the video itself.11 To facilitate the presentation of the evidence in court, the tendering party should, as early as practicable, indicate the segments of the video, transcript, and translation which it intends to use.12 The parties should also consult and resolve any disagreements about the transcripts or translations.13 No transcript is necessary if the purpose of the video is to demonstrate ambient sound;14 the Defence in Mladić before the ICTY was not required to transcribe the ambient sound of a firefight in a video it tendered.15

A3. Videos not in a working language of the Court should be translated into one of the working languages of the Court and made available to the Chamber and all parties within the time limit fixed by the Chamber.

Keywords

procedure; translation; translation accuracy; translation by counsel

Translation. Pursuant to Regulation 39(1) of the Regulations of the Court, all documents and materials filed with the Registry shall be in a working language of the Court. If segments of the video are not in a working language of the Court, those segments must be translated into a working language of the Court before they can be deemed admissible.16 The Prosecution has not complied with its disclosure obligations under Rule 77 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence until the translations have been provided to the Defence.17 The translation requirement is based on the accused's right to be informed of the evidence upon which the Prosecution intends to rely, including the nature, cause and content of the charge.18 Moreover, the Chamber must be in a position to fully understand the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely.19

Accuracy of Translation. Videos must be of a sufficient sound quality to facilitate translation. In Mladić, the ICTY Trial Chamber relied upon a video's English/French subtitles 'in order not to get stuck', although the sound quality in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) original of the video was so poor that it risked inaccurate translation.20 The Defence, however, was permitted to rely upon this video so the proceedings could continue, but it was instructed to find a better BCS version of the video.21 In the absence of a coherent and intelligible version, the Trial Chamber ultimately found that the video did not bear 'sufficient probative value for admission'.22

Translation by Counsel. Videos adduced from other sources and devoid of translation and transcription can be initially translated and transcribed by counsel, so long as they are translated and transcribed with accuracy. The videos should be translated afterwards by a third party (for example, an impartial translator);23 the ICTY Trial Chamber in Mladić allowed Defence counsel to initially transcribe and translate a video of two film crews visiting a humanitarian refugee centre.24

Time Limits. Pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Regulations of the Court, the translations should be submitted by the time limit fixed by the Chamber in order to be deemed admissible. The interest of the Court in receiving the transcripts and translations after the time limit in order to understand the original videos may outweigh their late submission.25 Limited resources and the amount of labour required can constitute 'good cause' for the extension of a time limit under the first part of Regulation 35(2) of the Regulations of the Court. However, after the lapse of a time limit, the fact that transcription and translation are time consuming is not considered an exceptional circumstance for an extension of the time limit under the second part of Regulation 35(2).26 A video may be disclosed after the time limit to substitute the segments that overlap with a previously disclosed video if it is of superior quality but the Court may not admit additional material that does not overlap if the party does not justify late disclosure under Regulation 35(2).27

A4. When a witness appears on a video that the party intends to tender into evidence, the video should be tendered through the witness during the examination-in-chief and not through the bar table.

Keywords

procedure; witness evidence

It is more appropriate for videos to be tendered during the examination-in-chief of the witnesses who appear in the videos. If a party wishes to present a video to a witness, it must first establish that the witness has personal knowledge of the making of said recording or its contents. This can be achieved by playing a brief excerpt of the video, to the extent strictly necessary, for the witness to confirm their personal knowledge of it.28 The video will not be considered for the truth of its contents unless it is admitted into evidence, even if the video was presented to the witness.29 With consideration for both the length of the videos and the procedure for having videos admitted through witnesses, the Court may grant additional time for the examination-in-chief of the witnesses.30 The ICC Trial Chamber in Ntaganda granted a Defence request for an additional 15 minutes for the examination-in-chief of two witnesses so that the video could be tendered through them.31

A5. The Court can make an inference from the content of a video to the extent that it allows the Court to make a definite finding.

Keywords

relevance; inferences

Once a video's prima facie authenticity has been established, the video may be admitted as real evidence.32 If segments of a video are found to be inadmissible, the remainder of the information in the video may nevertheless be found to be admissible.33 The ICTR Trial Chamber in Karemera et al admitted videos which depicted violence and killings in Rwanda, but disregarded any accompanying comments made by journalists in the videos.34

Nevertheless, caution should be exercised when assessing a video since differences in personal perception may cause difficulties in reaching a definite finding.35 It may not be possible to make a definite finding if a subject appears too briefly in the video.36 The Trial Chamber in Lubanga was not able to make a definite finding on the depiction of alleged child soldiers in a video where children who could be under the age of 15 appeared for just two seconds in a video.37

However, allowing for a wide margin of error, it is possible to make definite findings. The Court will rely on the video only to the extent that it can make a definite finding.38 The ICC Trial Chamber in Lubanga relied on video evidence concerning child soldiers only to the extent that it could make a definite finding that it depicted children who were clearly under the age of 15.39 A negative finding based on what was not shown in the video can also, in principle, be substantiated.40 Pursuant to Rule 63(4) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, there is no strict legal requirement that the video has to be corroborated by other evidence for the Court to be able to rely on it and establish a specific fact.41 The ICC Appeals Chamber in Lubanga affirmed that it was not unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to reach conclusions on the age of individuals based on the video evidence provided, given the absence of corroborating evidence.42

A6. Videos can be admitted into evidence if relevance and prima facie authenticity is demonstrated by providing information about the date, the location, the events depicted, the author, the source, and/or the chain of custody.

Keywords

probative value; relevance; authenticity; chain of custody; admissibility

Pursuant to Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute, the Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence.

Relevance. The relevance of a video depends on the date, time, and/or location of its recording.43 As such, the date, time, and location of the video must be stated as precisely as possible. A video is only disclosed from the moment the Defence can fully understand what its exact content is. It will only be possible for the Defence to fully understand the contents of a video after these details have been indicated.44 Investigative techniques can be employed to identify these details.45

Admissibility. Prima facie authenticity must be demonstrated before videos can be admitted into evidence.46 This may be indicated by providing information about the date, the author, the source, and/or the chain of custody.47 In contrast, if the tendering party fails to provide any substantiation of, for example, the time when a video was shot, the video may be considered to have low probative value which might be outweighed by the prejudice that admission of the video would cause, resulting in the video not being admissible.48 The Trial Chamber in Ntaganda declined to admit a video where the Prosecution was only able to provide the date the video had been broadcast, but not the date the video had been shot.49

Open Source Videos of Media Broadcasts. Features such as dates of emission, logos of TV programmes and images and/or voices of interviewees are sufficient indicia of reliability, originality, and integrity, which can lead the Court to accord higher probative value and, as a result, higher weight to a video. Greater weight can be accorded if these elements are shown during the entire duration of the video and if they are uninterrupted.50 To show with sufficient clarity and specificity the relevance and probative value of open source videos, and how they fit into the case,51 the tendering party may also provide verifiable information about where the video can be obtained or, if it is no longer publicly available, the date and location from which it was obtained.52 If the video emanates from a well-known international news outlet, its availability on the official website of the news outlet is an indication of reliability.53 In Mladić, the ICTY Prosecution requested the admission of open source television news reports from the bar table.54 The Defence objected to the reports' admission on the grounds that the author was unknown. This rendered the Defence unable to challenge him or her on the content of the material as well as it being unclear whether the source heard the information from others. 55 The Trial Chamber found that the Defence submissions were insufficient to successfully challenge the reports' probative value, or to preclude admission pursuant to Rule 89 (D) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.56 The ICTY Trial Chamber was satisfied that the Prosecution had shown with sufficient clarity and specificity the relevance and probative value of each of these reports, successfully demonstrating how the reports fit into their case.57

A7. Video evidence of interviews conducted during an armed conflict by a party to the conflict may not be objective and reliable and therefore low probative value may be attached to the video.

Keywords

probative value; armed conflict evidence; interviews

This Guideline refers to interviews conducted by, not with, a party to the conflict. Interviewees' statements taken by a party to the conflict during an armed conflict may be driven by fear, even if there is no corroborating evidence of intimidation or coercion.58 The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber in Bemba attached low probative value to an interview that was produced by the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo (MLC) at a time when the Central African Republic was still under attack and the MLC had been a party to the conflict.59 The consideration of the objectivity and reliability of the interviewee applies equally to interviews tendered by the Prosecution.

Keywords

prejudice, privacy, consent

Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Rome Statute, the Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. Circulation of an individual's image without consent of the individual may constitute a violation of their right to privacy and/or private life.60 Prior to the disclosure of the evidence, the individuals concerned should be consulted, if possible, to ensure that no unaddressed issues, for example security risks, occur.61 A high degree of care should be taken to not unnecessarily link individuals to the Court: evidence which depicts an individual's image should only be used when no acceptable alternative investigative approach is available.62 Once evidence has been disclosed pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Rome Statute or Rules 76 or 77 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a party or participant does not have to make an advanced discrete application if the evidence is to be shown during investigations.63

  1. For example, Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on the conduct of proceedings) ICC-01/04-02/06-619 (2 June 2015) (TC VI) [56]. ↩

  2. 'video', (Business Dictionary) \<http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/video.html> accessed 25 July 2020. ↩

  3. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on second Defence request for admission of evidence from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-136 (21 February 2018) (TC VI) [10]. ↩

  4. The Defence tendered the following excerpts: 'From time stamps 22:57 to 23:38; 24:02 to 24:29; 25:55 to 27:42; 29:54 to 30:18; 32:40 to 33:05; 36:58 to 39:01; and 47:35 to 48:46'. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on second Defence request for admission of evidence from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-136 (21 February 2018) (TC VI) [10], fn 28. ↩

  5. Prosecutor v Karemera et al (Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Admission of Certain Exhibits into Evidence) ICTR-98-44-T (25 January 2008) (TC III) [22]. ↩

  6. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on requests for admission of evidence related to sentencing from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-2402 (13 September 2019) (TC VI) [15]. In Prosecutor v Šefik Alić (Verdict) X-KRŽ-06/294 (11 April 2008) (Section I for War Crimes) 4, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) relied on the longer video recording of the relevant operation presented by the Defence. The Defence challenged the video presented by the Prosecution, on the basis that it did not include scenes that were very important for the accused's case. ↩

  7. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on requests for admission of evidence related to sentencing from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-2402 (13 September 2019) (TC VI) [14]. ↩

  8. Prosecutor v Bemba et al (Decision on 'Prosecution's Fifth Request for the Admission of Evidence from the Bar Table') ICC-01/05-01/13-1524 (14 December 2015) (TC VII) [7]. ↩

  9. Prosecutor v Bemba et al (Decision on 'Prosecution's Fifth Request for the Admission of Evidence from the Bar Table') ICC-01/05-01/13-1524 (14 December 2015) (TC VII) [7]. Nonetheless, the Trial Chamber stated that it is preferable to formally submit a video and associated transcripts and translations so there is no confusion as to their status. ↩

  10. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [18]. ↩

  11. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [17]. ↩

  12. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on the conduct of proceedings) ICC-01/04-02/06-619 (2 June 2015) (TC VI) [57]. ↩

  13. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on the conduct of proceedings) ICC-01/04-02/06-619 (2 June 2015) (TC VI) [57]. ↩

  14. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2634. ↩

  15. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2633-2634. ↩

  16. Prosecutor v Ongwen (Decision on Prosecution's Request to Submit 1006 Items of Evidence) ICC-02/04-01/15-795 (28 March 2017) (TC IX) [9]. ↩

  17. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [11], [13]. ↩

  18. Articles 61(3) and 67(1) of the Rome Statute. ↩

  19. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Decision on the Defence "Request to exclude video evidence which has not been disclosed in one of the working languages") ICC-01/04-01/06-676 (7 November 2006) (PTC I) 3. ↩

  20. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2663. ↩

  21. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2663. ↩

  22. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (27 November 2013) (TC) 20039. ↩

  23. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2662. ↩

  24. Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (19 September 2012) (TC) 2662. However, the video was ultimately not admitted for reasons unrelated to translation: Prosecutor v Mladić (Transcript) IT-09-92 (27 November 2013) (TC) 20039. ↩

  25. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [15]. ↩

  26. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [6]-[8]. ↩

  27. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [20], [25]. ↩

  28. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on the conduct of proceedings) ICC-01/04-02/06-619 (2 June 2015) (TC VI) [56]. ↩

  29. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on the conduct of proceedings) ICC-01/04-02/06-619 (2 June 2015) (TC VI) [56]. ↩

  30. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on requests for admission of evidence related to sentencing from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-2402 (13 September 2019) (TC VI) [23]. ↩

  31. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on requests for admission of evidence related to sentencing from the bar table) ICC-01/04-02/06-2402 (13 September 2019) (TC VI) [23]. This was less than the total time of the video excerpts tendered, which came up to about 35 minutes: fns 57, 58. ↩

  32. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the Prosecutor's Bar Table Motions) ICC-01/04-01/07-2635 (17 December 2010) (TC II) [24]. ↩

  33. Prosecutor v Taylor (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of BBC Radio Broadcasts) SCSL-03-01-T-745 (25 February 2009) (TC II) [27]. This is derived from the SCSL's treatment of audio recordings, but it reasonably applies to videos as well. ↩

  34. Prosecutor v Karemera et al (Decision on the Prosecution's Motion for Admission of Certain Exhibits into Evidence) ICTR-98-44-T [35]. ↩

  35. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) (TC I) [643]. ↩

  36. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) (TC I) [806], fn 2432. ↩

  37. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) (TC I) [806], fn 2432. The Trial Chamber observed that at 02:22:52-02:22:54 of the video, there were children who could be under the age of 15, but they appeared too briefly in the video to enable a definite finding. ↩

  38. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) (TC I) [644]. ↩

  39. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) (TC I) [644]. ↩

  40. Prosecutor v Haisam Omar Sakhanh (Judgment) B 2259-17 (31 May 2017) (Svea Court of Appeal) 5. ↩

  41. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction) ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red (1 December 2014) (AC) [218]. ↩

  42. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction) ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red (1 December 2014) (AC) [218]. ↩

  43. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the Prosecutor's Bar Table Motions) ICC-01/04-01/07-2635 (17 December 2010) (TC II) [24]. ↩

  44. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Application to Be Permitted to Present as Incriminating Evidence Transcripts and translations of Videos and Video DRCOTP-1042-0006 pursuant to Regulation 35 and Request for Redactions (ICC-01/04-01/07-1260)") ICC-01/04-01/07-1336 (27 July 2009) (TC II) [11]. ↩

  45. For example, in Prosecutor v Haisam Omar Sakhanh before the Stockholm District Court (Case B 3787-16) and the Svea Court of Appeal (B 2259-17), the Courts were able to determine the time the video was taken based on the time of sunrise and sunset on the day, the length of shadows observable, and the time of publication of the video online. Practitioners may find the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations and Bellingcat Guides useful resources on the matter. ↩

  46. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public redacted version of "Decision on the Prosecution's application for admission of materials into evidence pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute" of 6 September 2012) ICC-01/05-01/08-2299-Red (8 October 2012) (TC III) [81]. ↩

  47. Prosecutor v Karemera et al (Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Admission of Certain Exhibits into Evidence) ICTR-98-44-T (25 January 2008) (TC) [22]. ↩

  48. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on Prosecution's request for admission of documentary evidence) ICC-01/04-02/06-1838 (28 March 2017) (TC VI) [63]. ↩

  49. Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Decision on Prosecution's request for admission of documentary evidence) ICC-01/04-02/06-1838 (28 March 2017) (TC VI) [63]. ↩

  50. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public redacted version of "Decision on the Prosecution's application for admission of materials into evidence pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute" of 6 September 2012) ICC-01/05-01/08-2299-Red (8 October 2012) (TC III) [81]. ↩

  51. Prosecutor v Mladić (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents from the Bar Table (Municipalities Component)) IT-09-92 (11 February 2014) (TC) [9]. ↩

  52. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the Prosecutor's Bar Table Motions) ICC-01/04-01/07-2635 (17 December 2010) (TC II) [24]. ↩

  53. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public Redacted version of "Third Decision on the prosecution and defence requests for the admission of evidence", ICC-01/05-01/08-2864 of 6 November 2013) ICC-01/05-01/08-2864-Red (22 June 2016) (TC III) [80]. ↩

  54. Prosecutor v Mladić (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents from the Bar Table (Municipalities Component)) IT-09-92 (11 February 2014) (TC) [1]. ↩

  55. Prosecutor v Mladić (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents from the Bar Table (Municipalities Component)) IT-09-92 (11 February 2014) (TC) [7]. ↩

  56. 'A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial'; cf Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute. ↩

  57. Prosecutor v Mladić (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents from the Bar Table (Municipalities Component)) IT-09-92 (11 February 2014) (TC) [8]. ↩

  58. Prosecutor v Bemba (Decision pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the charges of the Prosecutor against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/05-01/08-424 (15 June 2009) (PTC II) [104]. ↩

  59. Prosecutor v Bemba (Decision pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the charges of the Prosecutor against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/05-01/08-424 (15 June 2009) (PTC II) [104]. ↩

  60. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public Redacted Decision on the Prosecution's Requests to Lift, Maintain and Apply Redactions to Witness Statements and Related Documents) ICC-01/05-01/08-813-Red (20 July 2010) (TC III) [85]. This Guideline is derived from the ICC's treatment of photographic evidence, but it applies to videos as well. ↩

  61. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public Redacted Decision on the Prosecution's Requests to Lift, Maintain and Apply Redactions to Witness Statements and Related Documents) ICC-01/05-01/08-813-Red (20 July 2010) (TC III) [86]. ↩

  62. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public Redacted Decision on the Prosecution's Requests to Lift, Maintain and Apply Redactions to Witness Statements and Related Documents) ICC-01/05-01/08-813-Red (20 July 2010) (TC III) [87]. ↩

  63. Prosecutor v Bemba (Public Redacted Decision on the Prosecution's Requests to Lift, Maintain and Apply Redactions to Witness Statements and Related Documents) ICC-01/05-01/08-813-Red (20 July 2010) (TC III) [87]. ↩