چکیده:
The importance of maintaining procedural justice has compelled various criminal justice systems to establish special regulations to guarantee the rights of the accused. The exclusionary rule of evidence is one of the most stringent enforcement mechanisms of these regulations, which makes it impossible to rely on evidence obtained through illegal means. The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, and the question is, despite this, what position the exclusionary rule of evidence can hold in the procedural regulations of the aforementioned tribunals. In fact, the main goal of this article is to explain the concept and scope of the exclusionary rule of evidence in the procedural regulations of the said tribunals and their solutions in creating a balance between the rights of the accused and the victim when facing tainted evidence. A study of the procedural regulations and judicial practice of the aforementioned courts indicates that the rule of excluding evidence obtained through illegal means does not always lead to invalidity; rather, such a result requires the fulfillment of one of the conditions of unreliability or the endangerment of the correctness of the trial. These conditions, the verification of which is also the responsibility of the judges, have granted the exclusionary rule of evidence a discretionary character and have limited its scope to a large extent.
خلاصه ماشینی:
An Examination of the Exclusionary Rule of Evidence in the International Criminal Tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda Simin Dokht Daryabeygi Mojtaba Janipour Mahin Sobhani Abstract The importance of maintaining procedural justice has compelled various criminal justice systems to incorporate special regulations to guarantee the rights of the accused.
3. The approach of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda regarding the rule of exclusion of evidence According to Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of these two courts: "If evidence is obtained by methods that create a fundamental doubt about its reliability, or if the admission of such evidence would be contrary to the correctness of the proceedings and would cause serious harm to it, it shall not be admitted".
Theoretically, the appearance of Article 95 may also include the mere violation of domestic rights; however, –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 This same point has also been confirmed by the International Criminal Court; the Trial Chamber of the Court in the Lubanga case declared the right to state sovereignty as the core and center of all values set forth in the Statute of the Court, the violation of which may lead to the weakening of the correctness of proceedings and consequently the exclusion of evidence (Alamuddin, 2010: 261).
The judicial practice of international criminal courts indicates that torture, violation of individuals' privacy, and violation of the defense rights of the accused are among the most important instances that can lead to the application of the rule of exclusion of evidence.
(
, 
, 
)
