Myanmar documentation practices may raise challenges for accountability – opinio juris polat hotel istanbul

At this juncture, when hotel prince istanbul the violations may be categorized as crimes under international law and mandated bodies (a person or body granted official government powers or mandate to act in a law enforcement, investigation, expert witness, prosecution and/or adjudicative function) like the ICC, the Myanmar Fact-finding Mission (FFM), and the “ Ongoing Independent Mechanism” (OIM) for Myanmar are seized of the situation – and the prospect of criminal trials in the future have emerged – those engaged in documentation efforts should take into account the following considerations:

The principle “Do No Harm” is reinforced in nearly every manual that touches on documentation and investigation including the Istanbul Protocol, the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (Minnesota Protocol), the anka hotel istanbul Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) Manual on Human Rights Monitoring (OHCHR Manual) and the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict (IP2).

Interviewers should also be aware that while victims of SGBV may be empowered by the process of speaking about what has happened, there is also a risk that where it is known in the community that witnesses and victims are being interviewed about SGBV, in certain contexts, they may also experience shame and attract a negative stigma within the community.

The greater the number of statements a victim or witness gives, the more likely that there will be inconsistencies between their different accounts, especially if those boutique hotel istanbul sultanahmet statements are taken by different actors. Such inconsistencies may be used to undermine their credibility at any trial, and may even lead to the person not being called as a witness at all.

It must also “permit the defence to inspect any books, documents, photographs and other tangible objects in the possession or control of the Prosecutor, which are material to the preparation of the defence or are intended for use by the Prosecutor as evidence for the purposes of the hotel 5 star in istanbul confirmation hearing or at trial, as the case may be, or were obtained from or belonged to the person” (Rule 77).

Even if such information has not been made sunlight hotel istanbul public, or only part of the interview has been made public, defence lawyers may seek to have a court order the person with the information to make it available for possible use in the trial; although some jurisdictions recognize exceptions allowing journalists, human rights investigators or academic researchers to refuse to do so, others may not.

ICC Trial Chamber III’s 2016 decision in the case of Bemba provides one illustration of how a court sometimes has to grapple with internal inconsistencies within statements and inconsistences between statements (including victim application forms) and testimony edition hotel istanbul in court, and how this may negatively impact on credibility (see one example of the Chamber reasoning through the issue at para 552 ff (regarding witness V1).

The ability of civil society actors to do so is both an aspect of the right of persons, and the general public, to freedom of expression (including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information) under international law, and is specifically recognized by such international instruments such as the ICCPR and UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

5. If a potential interviewee could be a witness or victim in ongoing or potential future criminal proceedings, and in light of the objectives and intended w hotel istanbul use of any statement produced by the interview, might it be better to create a summary or third person record rather than a first person statement, signed or otherwise, or audio or video recording?

Indeed, individuals and organizations who are gathering information with the specific intention of providing it to prosecutors or other investigators for possible use as evidence in criminal proceedings should be particularly sensitive to the special concerns highlighted earlier regarding prior statements and should first consult and coordinate with the relevant bodies wherever possible.

While the rules of evidence often vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally such summaries or third person records do not have the status of a prior statement and therefore cannot usually be put to a witness or victim at trial in order to impeach their credibility on the basis that they said something istanbul hotel sultanahmet different on a prior occasion.