Review

Abstract. The article is devoted to the study of some problematic issues of authentication of digital evidence in the course of consideration of cases by the International Criminal Court. The authors note that in the digital era, new technologies and the development of computing power have changed the nature of potentially relevant evidence which is assessed in international criminal law. The International Criminal Court is currently insufficiently prepared to address the issues of authentication of digital evidence, i.e., to determine the reliability of this type of evidence. The purpose of the article is to: (1) outline the challenges and dangers of the ICC’s current approach to establishing the reliability of digital evidence; (2) study scientific approaches to the authentication of digital evidence in criminal proceedings; and (3) establish the need to establish the most pragmatic approach to determining the reliability of digital evidence in the future. The article outlines the challenges and dangers of the ICC’s current approach to authentication and verification of digital evidence, examines the discussions among scholars on the issues outlined, and identifies recommendations for improving the Court’s work and its ability to verify the reliability of digital evidence. The general approach of the ICC to the admissibility of evidence is defined, which provides for a consistent three-part test in which each of the following criteria must be met: 1) relevance: According to Articles 64(9)(a) and 69(4) of the Rome Statute, as well as the Rules of Procedure and Admission of Evidence, evidence is considered relevant if “the evidence produced makes the existence of the fact in question more or less probable”. In other words, evidence may be considered relevant if it is “prima facie” (“at first glance”) relevant to the case; 2) sufficiency: Evidentiary value is generally understood to mean whether the evidence is sufficiently useful to prove an important part of the trial. In essence, probative value measures the extent to which the proposed evidence may affect the determination of a fact or issue. The court must balance the probative value of the item against its prejudicial effect on the accused; 3) weighing probative value and prejudicial effect: According to Rules 69(4) and 63(2), the evidence provided must be “sufficiently relevant and probative to outweigh any prejudicial impact or effect that its admission may have”. In other words, the weight given to the evidence must fully respect the rights of all parties and not be manifestly unfair to the prosecution or defense, nor prejudicial to the overall fairness of the trial. The author concludes that the ICC should seriously consider the following recommendations: (1) appoint an eCourt User Group to lead efforts to improve algorithms and continuously develop authentication issues; (2) expand the technological advisory role of the Scientific Advisory Board; (3) establish regular trainings and seminars to enhance the technical competence of judges; and (4) increase the transparency of the Scientific Advisory Board and the eCourt User Group.

Keywords: International Criminal Court, evidence, proof, authentication, reliable evidence.

REFERENCES

LIST OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS

LEGISLATION

1. Code of Judicial Ethics. International Criminal Court. Article 7(2). ICC-BD/02–01–05 [in English].
2. International Criminal Court. 2019. “Strategic Plan 2019–2021.” data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].
3. Rules of Procedure and Evidence. International Criminal Court data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].
4. Regulations of the Court. Regulation 26. International Criminal Court. ICC-BD/01–05–16 data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].
5. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga. Trial Chamber II. Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute. ICC‑01/04–01/07. (2014) data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].
6. Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Trial Chamber I. Decision on the admissibility of four documents.”I CC‑01/04–01/06–1399. (2008) 27–32 < https://www.icc-cpi.int/node/29611> data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].
7. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Chamber I. Judgment. ICTR‑96–4-T. (1998) data zvernennia 24.03.2023 [in English].

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES

1. Ashouri A, Caleb B and Cherrie W, An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts (2014) 11 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 115–27 accessed 26.04.2023 [in English].
2. Mehandru N and Koenig A, n. d. Open Source Evidence and the International Criminal Court (2019) Harvard Human Rights Journal accessed 24.04.2023 [in English].
3. Wex. n. d. Pobative Value. Wex Legal Information Institute (LII), Cornell Law School accessed 24.04.2023 [in English].
4. Koenig, Alexa, Emma Irving, Yvonne McDermott, and Daragh Murray, New Technologies and the Investigation of International Crimes: An Introduction (2021) 19 (1): 1–7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 14–21 accessed 23.04.2023[in English].
5. Krzan B, Admissibility of Evidence and International Criminal Justice (2021) 7 (1) Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 161 accessed 24.04.2023 [in English].
6. Jackson J D, and Sarah J Summer (eds.) The Common Law Tradition. In The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Law in Context. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012) 30–36 accessed 24.04.2023 [in English].
7. Yvonne Ng, How to Preserve Open Source Information Effectively.” In Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability, 1st ed., (Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2020) 143–164 [in English].
8. McDermott Y, Koenig A and Murray D, Open Source Information’s Blind Spot: Human and Machine Bias in International Criminal Investigations (2021) 19 (1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 85–105 accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
9. Carlson F, Internet History Is Fragile. This Archive Is Making Sure It Doesn’t Disappear (2017) PBS NewsHour accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
10. Khatib H Al, and Dia Kayyali. Video: Opinion | YouTube Is Erasing History (2019) The New York Times accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
11. Moriarty K, Why Are Authentication and Authorization So Difficult? (2021) Center for Internet Security accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
12. Murrow S, Security Risks of Outdated Encryption: Is Your Data Really Secure? (2020) Infosec Resources accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
13. Romano A, World War 3 Memes as Therapy: Coping with War and Crisis through Memes – Vox (2020) Vox accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
14. Lorenz T, Internet ‘Algospeak’ Is Changing Our Language in Real Time, from ‘Nip Nops’ to ‘Le Dollar Bean (2022) Washington Post accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
15. Cole A, Technology for Truth: The Next Generation of Evidence (2015) International Justice Monitor accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
16. Desjardins J, How Much Data Is Generated Each Day? (2019) World Economic Forum accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
17. Freeman L and Llorente R V, Finding the Signal in the Noise: International Criminal Evidence and Procedure in the Digital Age (2021) 19 (1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 163–88. accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
18. Lovett I, and Ojewska N, Citizens’ Images of Potential War Crimes in Ukraine Flood the Internet, but Might Not Hold Up in Court (2022) WSJ. Accessed April 30, 2022 < https://www.wsj.com/articles/citizensimages-of-potential-war-crimes-in-ukraine-flood-the-internet-but-might-not-hold-up-in-court‑11651311001 > data zvernennia 02.03.2023 [in English].
19. Koettl Ch, Murray D, and Dubberley S, Open Source Investigation for Human Rights Reporting: A Brief History. In Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability, 1st ed. (Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2020) 12–31 [in English].
20. Czuperski M, Beals E, Itani F, Nimmo B, and Higgins E, Breaking Aleppo (2017) Washington: Atlantic Council. .https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/breaking-aleppo/> accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
21. Hendrix J, Ukraine May Mark a Turning Point in Documenting War Crimes (2022) Just Security accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
22. Zarmsky S, Why Seeing Should Not Always Be Believing: Considerations Regarding the Use of Digital Reconstruction Technology in International Law (2021) 19 (1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 213–25. accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
23. Johnson A F and Millett L I. (eds.) Cryptographic Agility and Interoperability: Proceedings of a Workshop. In Forum on Cyber Resilience: Workshop Series (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press, 2017) accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
24. Dillon M, and Beresford D, Electronic Courts and the Challenges in Managing Evidence. A View From Inside The International Criminal Court (2014) 6 (1) International Journal for Court Administration 29–36 accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
25. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Establishes a Scientific Advisory Board (2014) International Criminal Court accessed 28.04.2023 [in English].
26. Pohoretskyi M A, Shelomentsev V P, Kiberzlochyny: do vyznachennia poniattia [Cybercrime: to the definition of the concept] (2012) 8 Visnyk prokuratury 89–96 [in Ukrainian].
27. Pohoretskyi M A, Shelomentsev V P, Poniattia kiberprostoru yak seredovyshcha vchennia zlochynu [The Concept of Cyberspace as an Environment for the Study of Crime] (2009) 2 (2) Informatsiina bezpeka liudyny, suspilstva, derzhavy 77–81 [in Ukrainian].
28. Smal I A, Problemni aspekty zastosuvannia elektronnykh dokaziv u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi [Problematic aspects of the use of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings] (2021) 4 Naukovyi zhurnal «Pravo i suspilstv» 226–232 [in Ukrainian].
29. Cherniavskyi S S, Orlov Yu Yu, Elektronne vidobrazhennia yak dzherelo dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Electronic display as a source of evidence in criminal proceedings](2017) 2 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 112–124 data zvernennia 02.03.2023 [in Ukrainian].
30. Stolitnii A V, Kalancha I H, Formuvannia instytutu elektronnykh dokaziv u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy [Formation of the electronic evidence institute in the criminal process of Ukraine] (2019) 146 Problemy zakonnosti 179–191 data zvernennia 02.03.2023 [in Ukrainian].

BOOKS

1. Digital evidence and computer crime: forensic science, computers and the internet / by Eoghan Casey; with contributions from Susan W. Brenner … [et al.]. 3rd ed. London: Elsevier. 837 accessed 24.04.2023 [in English].
2. Dubberley S, Koenig A, and Murray D, Introduction: The Emergence of Digital Witnesses. In Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability, 1st ed. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2020) 3–11 [in English].
3. Freeman L, Prosecuting Atrocity Crimes with Open Source Evidence: Lessons from the International Criminal Court. In Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability, 1st ed. (Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2020) 48–67 [in English].
4. Ethiopia’s Tigray Conflict Sparks Spread of Misinformation (2020) BBC News accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
5. Higgins E, New July 17th Satellite Imagery Confirms Russia Produced Fake MH17 Evidence (2015) Bellingcat accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
6. ICTY – UNICRI. 2009. ICTY Manual on Developed Practices.Turin, Italy: International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
7. Korneika O V (za red.), Vykorystannia elektronnykh (tsyfrovykh) dokaziv u kryminalnykh provadzhenniakh, metod. rekom [Use of electronic (digital) evidence in criminal proceedings, method. by river] 2-he, dop. (Kyiv, Vyd-vo Nats. akad. vnutr. Sprav, 2020) 104 [in Ukrainian].
8. The Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 2012. “Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Using Scientific Evidence to Advance Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court.” Workshop Report. accessed 23.04.2023 [in English].
9. Vykorystannia elektronnykh (tsyfrovykh) dokaziv u kryminalnykh provadzhenniakh, [Use of electronic (digital) evidence in criminal proceedings] / za zah. red. O V Korneika. Vyd. 2-he, dop. (Kyiv, Vyd-vo Nats. akad. vnutr. sprav, 2020) 104 [in Ukrainian].
10. Wang X and Hongbo Yu, How to Break MD 5 and Other Hash Functions. Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2005: Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3494 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg) accessed 27.04.2023 [in English].
11. Yvonne Ng, How to Preserve Open Source Information Effectively.” In Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability, 1st ed., (Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2020) 143–164 [in English].