This article in the New York Times has me musing about the nitty-gritty of the legal framework when it comes to meting out justice for war crimes or genocide. The article is part of the NYT's on-going coverage of the trial of Duch, who we have also discussed. Evidently, witnesses in the trial have been offering jarring and profound evidence, much of which cannot be corroborated and some of which is different from their own depositions. The article refers to the practical issues of the case, where "the testimony of these witnesses has not been vetted by prosecutors, and most have arrived poorly prepared by overburdened lawyers."
How should judges respond? In domestic trials in the U.S., the standards of evidence can be quite high. What is the right way to balance the accusations, when the witnesses are the victims of genocide or mass killing? (After all, there are reasons why there might not be eye witnesses.) These questions carry even more implications because a standard immediate response to accusations of genocide, at least by the media or governments who might then be compelled to act, is disbelief, as Samantha Power has documented.
No comments:
Post a Comment