Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:19:04.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Witness Anonymity is Inconsistent with Due Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 80 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

References

1 See International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as amended Oct. 6, 1995, UN Doc. IT/32/Rev.6 (1995) [hereinafter Rules].

2 See Statute of the International Tribunal, UN Doc. S/25704, annex (1993), reprinted in 32 ILM 1192 (1993) [hereinafter Statute].

3 Christine M. Chinkin, Due Process and Witness Anonymity, supra p. 75, 75.

4 Id. at 76.

5 Prosecutor v. TadiĆ, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, UN Doc. IT-94-1-T (Aug. 10, 1995) (Stephen, J., dissenting).

6 Chinkin, supra note 3, at 76.

7 Id. at 77.

8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

9 See Statute, supra note 2, Art. 20(4), and Rules, supra note 1, Rule 79.

10 In the Tadić case, the rape charges were withdrawn before the trial began.