This article is a journey through the life of Antonio Cassese, a giant of international law, no doubt one of the most prominent international lawyers of the twentieth century, and the ‘architect of international criminal justice’. From his first steps in the academic community in Pisa in the early 1960s to his well-known contributions as first president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, he became a prolific author and editor of seminal books and commentaries on international law and international criminal law, as well as founder of groundbreaking law journals.

When, on 3 May 2011, the Appeals Chamber reversed the decision of Trial Chamber III in the Bemba case that had admitted material on a list of the prosecution into evidence, it addressed various central issues related to the admission of evidence under the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (inter alia, the orality principle). The present article critically analyses both decisions. In particular, it views the Trial Chamber's approach that envisages a multi-tiered process of admitting evidence, in light of the approaches of civil law and common law, and expresses concerns about uncertainties and protraction that may result. As the Court's legal framework does not determine that the processing of evidence follow either the civil-law or the common-law model, this is left for the trial chambers to decide in each case. In determining the preferable approach for each respective case, consideration of the procedural context is key. The Appeals Chamber decision allows for the required leeway of the trial chambers in regulating the processing of evidence, to adopt a way that fits the particular circumstances best.

In Nuhanović and Mustafić (5 July 2011), the Court of Appeal of The Hague held the Netherlands liable under Bosnian torts law in relation to acts of Dutchbat in the days following the fall of Srebrenica. The claims were brought by relatives of victims killed by Mladić's troops after being evicted from the Dutchbat premises, where they had sought refuge. When resorting to international law to attribute the conduct to the Netherlands, the Court shed light on the concrete meaning of ‘effective control’ when a wrongful conduct does not result from direct orders, thereby clarifying some of the questions surrounding the determination of responsibility for conducts in the framework of international organizations.