قابلیت پذیرش ادله ی دیجیتال در دیوان کیفری بین المللی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
ادله ی دیجیتال ناظر به اطلاعات برگرفته از «منابع بسته» مانند «یو اس بی» حاوی اطلاعات و «منابع باز» مانند پست های بارگذاری شده در شبکه های اجتماعی می باشند که بوسیله ی یک دستگاه دیجیتال تولید، ذخیره، دریافت، پردازش و منتقل می شوند. در دادرسی های بین المللی کیفری، این ادله ظرفیت های مهمی جهت فرآیند تحقیق و پیگرد جرایم بین المللی فراهم آورده اند و سابقه ی استفاده از آنها به دادگاه های بین المللی کیفری موقت می رسد. دیوان کیفری بین المللی نیز از این ادله استفاده می کند. مقاله ی پیش رو مبتنی بر یک شیوه ی توصیفی - تحلیلی، به این سؤال پاسخ می دهد که فرایند پذیرش این ادله در دیوان کیفری بین المللی به چه نحو می باشد؟ با توجه به ویژگی های خاص ادله ی دیجیتال، فرایند پذیرش آنها مطابق ماده ی 69 (4) اساسنامه ی رم و رویه ی قضایی، شامل مراحل ارتباط، ارزش اثباتی و اثر جانبدارانه می باشد. نخست دیوان باید احراز کند که ادله، علی الظاهر به واقعیت مورد بحث در پرونده مرتبط است. در مرحله ی ارزش اثباتی، بصورت علی الظاهر مبتنی بر مؤلفه های قابلیت اعتماد و گاه اهمیت ادله، قابلیت ادله در اثبات چیزی که مدعی آن هستند، بررسی می شود. در مرحله ی سوم، دیوان باید قانع شود که اثر جانبدارانه ی ادله نقض جدی حق بر دادرسی منصفانه را به دنبال ندارد. البته مواردی چون احتمال مشخص نبودن انگیزه و روش جمع آوری ادله ، دشواری ارزیابی اصالت ادله به دلیل جعل، مشخص نبودن منبع اطلاعات یا زمان و مکان ثبت آنها و نیز امکان تقابل ادله با حق بر دادرسی منصفانه، مهمترین چالش های پذیرش این ادله در دیوان هستند.Admissibility of Digital Evidence at the International Criminal Court
Digital evidence refers to information obtained from both “closed” sources, such as USB flash drives, and “open” sources, like social media posts. This information is produced, stored, received, processed, and transmitted by digital devices. Over the past few decades, the rapid growth of information and communication technologies has enabled the generation, recording, and transmission of vast amounts of digital data. Due to its ability to capture precise timestamps and locations of events, as well as preserve information over long periods, digital evidence plays an unprecedented role in documenting international crimes. As technology advances, the International Criminal Court (ICC) encounters digital evidence more frequently than its predecessors, the temporary tribunals. However, there are significant challenges in admitting digital evidence, including uncertainties regarding the motives and methods of collection, difficulties in verifying authenticity due to risks of manipulation or forgery, the lack of clarity about the source, time, and location of the data, and the potential conflict with the right to a fair trial. This article, based on a descriptive-analytical approach, examines how the ICC navigates these evidentiary materials, the associated challenges, and the court’s approach to admitting digital evidence. Methodology This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the issue. Persian and English sources—such as books, articles, and ICC jurisprudence—were reviewed, with relevant material extracted and analyzed. Additionally, related documents, reports, and information from websites were examined to provide a comprehensive perspective on the subject. Findings Digital evidence is classified as documentary evidence at the International Criminal Court. Due to the unique characteristics of digital evidence, its admissibility process—based on Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute and the ICC’s jurisprudence—consists of three stages: relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect. First, the Court determines whether the evidence is prima facie relevant to the facts at issue. At the probative value stage, the Court evaluates the reliability of the evidence, considering factors like integrity, metadata, source, chain of custody, and the method of collection. In the third stage, the Court assesses whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld. These stages are not ranked in terms of importance, as each plays a distinct role in the admissibility analysis. The Court applies a relatively low threshold when determining relevance but assesses the significance of each piece of evidence later. In evaluating probative value, the Court focuses on factors such as reliability and the importance of the evidence for the case. The assessment of prejudicial effect is considered in light of the overall fairness of the proceedings. The Court typically excludes evidence only when its prejudicial effect significantly outweighs its probative value. The findings indicate that challenges in the admissibility of digital evidence at the ICC include uncertainties regarding the motives and methods of collection, difficulties in verifying authenticity due to manipulation risks, the obscurity of data sources, and the potential to undermine the right to a fair trial. Novelty This article fills the gap in scholarly attention to the legal framework governing the admissibility of digital evidence under the ICC’s provisions, rules, and jurisprudence. It provides a comprehensive analysis of that framework, emphasizing both technical and legal dimensions of digital evidence. The article identifies key challenges and proposes approaches to ensure a balanced use of digital evidence at the ICC while safeguarding procedural fairness. Conclusion The ICC’s current flexible approach to the admissibility of digital evidence is beneficial, but it is insufficient to ensure the full and effective utilization of such evidence. The ICC lacks a binding and comprehensive guideline specifically governing the assessment of digital evidence. Sole reliance on past judicial practice is inadequate to address the complexities involved in the examination and admissibility of digital evidence in future proceedings. To balance the admissibility of evidence with the right to a fair trial, the development of an official, detailed framework is essential—one that clearly articulates the technical and legal criteria applicable at each stage of the admissibility process. Additionally, the ICC should institutionalize the use of digital forensics experts and implement regular training for judges to enhance their capacity to evaluate digital evidence. From a fair trial perspective, the ICC must ensure that defendants and their legal representatives have sufficient time and resources to challenge digital evidence effectively. Engaging experts familiar with the technical aspects of digital evidence and improving judicial understanding are vital steps. The ICC must also ensure defendants have access to qualified experts for cross-examination, safeguarding defendants’ fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Court should strengthen cooperation with private entities, such as social media platforms, to preserve digital evidence, ensure access to metadata, and protect user rights.
تبلیغات
