Tagged: adjudication

Online Resolution of Disputes

A recent UK report recommending the adoption of on-line resolution of low-value civil disputes contains a fascinating look at various online dispute resolution systems currently operating in various jurisdictions, including one involving the resolution of traffic infractions. These systems are designed to improve access to justice for those who cannot afford the exorbitant cost of in-court litigation. The UK Traffic Penalty Tribunal enables appellants to appeal, upload evidence and follow their cases, and allows adjudicators to manage their cases, view evidence, and communicate with parties. Hearings are done by telephone conference, at which all participants can view the same evidence under supervision by the adjudicator. To be sure, there are pros and cons.

Food for thought, though, for anyone who has participated in the in-court adjudication of a traffic infraction; more importantly, since the unavailability of affordable legal solutions in the United States now extends beyond the traditionally poor and well into the middle class.

To read the full report, including a survey of current on-line dispute resolution processes worldwide, click the below:

Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims, Civil Justice Council (February 2015). 

The ICC Prosecutor Responds to Demands for Higher Evidentiary Standards

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On June 25, 2014, the Office of the ICC Prosecutor formally established a Scientific Advisory Board to assist the Office in its investigatory and prosecutorial work. The Board will consist of sixteen forensic experts whose task will be to inform the Office of scientific and technological developments helpful to the Prosecutor’s capability to collect and analyze scientific evidence.

The establishment of the Board represents an effort by the Prosecutor’s Office to upgrade the quality of evidence it presents to ICC Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers. In recent years, scholarly commentators have criticized international courts and tribunals, including criminal courts and tribunals, for failing to require and utilize fact findings based on scientific examination.

In its October 11, 2013 Strategic Plan, the Prosecutor’s Office noted that ICC judges were requiring “higher evidentiary standards” and “more and different kinds of evidence” from the Office. In response to this demand, the Plan stated that the Office’s Investigative Division will, among other things,

enhan[ce] its capabilities to collect other forms of evidence … in particular scientific evidence [and will] validat[e] its investigative standards with a panel of international experts.

In a June 27, 2014 press release, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that

[t]he work of the Board will be crucial to the Office’s efforts, as reflected in its new Strategic Plan, to strengthen its investigative capabilities and enhance the quality of its deliverables when it comes to scientific evidence collection and analysis.

In the effort to carry out its mandate under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor’s Office has to work with limited resources in very difficult environments. It is to be hoped that the establishment of the Scientific Advisory Board will assist the Office in the challenges it faces.

Related Readings:

Commentators criticizing fact applications by international courts, including criminal courts and tribunals: