IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crb/wpaper/2025-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How is Digital Evidence Used in the International Criminal Court? A Theoretical and Empirical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Yann Lecorps

    (Université Paris Panthéon Assas, CRED UR 7321, F-75005 Paris, France)

  • Khaoula Naili

    (Université Marie et Louis Pasteur, CRESE UR3190, F-25000 Besançon, France)

  • Marie Obidzinski

    (Université Paris Panthéon Assas, CRED UR 7321, F-75005 Paris, France)

  • Yves Oytana

    (Université Marie et Louis Pasteur, CRESE UR3190, F-25000 Besançon, France)

  • Téa Toutounji

    (Université Paris Panthéon Assas, CRED UR 7321, F-75005 Paris, France)

Abstract

We examine the use of digital evidence in cases handled by the International Criminal Court (ICC) at different stages of the proceedings, both theoretically and empirically, and how the parties use it. Our theoretical findings indicate that the extent to which digital evidence is used versus classical evidence may increase or decrease with the stringency of the standard of proof. This variation depends on the cost of gathering evidence and the degree of complementarity between digital and classical evidence. Our main empirical findings are as follows: i) the intensity of references to classical evidence increases more than that of references to digital evidence between the pretrial and trial phases; ii) the prosecution appears to rely more on digital evidence than the defense; iii) there is a positive correlation between the emotional tone of the prosecution and the defense, but no correlation between their emotional tone and the reference to either types of evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Yann Lecorps & Khaoula Naili & Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana & Téa Toutounji, 2025. "How is Digital Evidence Used in the International Criminal Court? A Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Working Papers 2025-09, CRESE.
  • Handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2025-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crese.univ-fcomte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/WP-2025-09.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Froeb, Luke M. & Kobayashi, Bruce H., 2001. "Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 267-272, February.
    2. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.
    3. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Rules of proof, courts, and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40, March.
    4. Claude Fluet, 2009. "Accuracy Versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence under Different Procedures," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 134-156, May.
    5. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Sergio Galletta, 2022. "Measuring Judicial Sentiment: Methods and Application to US Circuit Courts," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 362-376, April.
    6. Murat C. Mungan, 2011. "A Utilitarian Justification for Heightened Standards of Proof in Criminal Trials," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(2), pages 352-370, June.
    7. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yann Lecorps & Khaoula Naili & Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana & Téa Toutounji, 2025. "How is Digital Evidence Used in the International Criminal Court? A Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Working Papers AFED 25-05, Association Francaise d'Economie du Droit (AFED).
    2. Claude Fluet, 2020. "L'économie de la preuve judiciaire," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 96(4), pages 585-620.
    3. Murat C Mungan & Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2023. "Accuracy and Preferences for Legal Error," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 190-227.
    4. Chulyoung Kim, 2014. "Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information Acquisition," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 767-803.
    5. Kim, Chulyoung, 2015. "Centralized vs. Decentralized Institutions for Expert Testimony," MPRA Paper 69618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2020. "Presumption of Innocence and Deterrence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 176(2), pages 377-412.
    7. Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2020. "Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Testimony," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(3), pages 429-457.
    8. Alice Guerra & Maria Maraki & Baptiste Massenot & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Deterrence, settlement, and litigation under adversarial versus inquisitorial systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(3), pages 331-356, September.
    9. Chulyoung Kim, 2017. "An economic rationale for dismissing low-quality experts in trial," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 64(5), pages 445-466, November.
    10. Chulyoung Kim & Paul S. Koh, 2020. "Court‐appointed experts and accuracy in adversarial litigation," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 282-305, September.
    11. Nakao Keisuke & Tsumagari Masatoshi, 2012. "The Inquisitor Judge's Trilemma," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 137-159, May.
    12. Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2019. "Strategic communication with reporting costs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 341-363, October.
    13. Mungan Murat C., 2018. "Mere Preparation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.
    15. Matteo Rizzolli, 2016. "Adjudication: Type-I and Type-II Errors," CERBE Working Papers wpC15, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    16. Kim, Chulyoung, 2016. "Adversarial bias, litigation, and the Daubert test: An economic approach," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 67-75.
    17. Yves Oytana & Marie Obidzinski, 2017. "How does the probability of wrongful conviction affect the standard of proof?," Working Papers 2017-02, CRESE.
    18. Luke M. Froeb & Bernhard Ganglmair & Steven Tschantz, 2016. "Adversarial Decision Making: Choosing between Models Constructed by Interested Parties," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 527-548.
    19. Francesco Parisi & Ram Singh, 2024. "Decisiveness, Correctness and Accuracy in Criminal Adjudication," Working papers 350, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    20. Mungan Murat C., 2020. "The Optimal Standard of Proof with Adjudication Avoidance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2025-09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Laurent Kondratuk (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crufcfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.