Witness Interference and Constitutional Adjudication in Uganda: A Comparative Analysis with Islamic Legal Ethics and Fair Trial Guarantees
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67101/alamir.v7i02.343Keywords:
Witness Interference, Constitutional Adjudication, Fair Trial, Presumption of Innocence, Legal Ethics, Judicial Discretion, Uganda Criminal Justice, Comparative JurisprudenceAbstract
Within Uganda's criminal justice system, witness interference has increasingly become a primary justification for restricting pre-trial liberty, limiting evidentiary disclosure, and curtailing fair trial rights. However, judicial responses remain largely uncodified and driven by broad judicial discretion, producing inconsistent outcomes and an undue reliance on unsupported prosecutorial assertions. This article argues that witness interference must be reconceptualized as a constitutional doctrine governing the lawful limitation of fundamental human rights, rather than treated merely as a routine evidentiary issue. Utilizing a doctrinal, analytical, and comparative framework, the study evaluates Ugandan constitutional jurisprudence alongside international human rights standards and classical Islamic legal maxims regarding witness protection (Hifz al-Shahadah) and the presumption of innocence (Asl al-Bara'ah). The analysis reveals that maintaining institutional legitimacy in pre-trial detention requires strict evidential sufficiency, prosecutorial objectivity, individualized risk assessment, proportionality, and structured judicial reasoning. The paper formulates a novel Constitutional Doctrine of Witness Interference that harmonizes witness safety imperatives with procedural fairness, personal liberty, and broader principles of legal ethics, thereby strengthening judicial consistency and public confidence in administration of justice.
Keywords: Witness Interference, Constitutional Adjudication, Fair Trial, Presumption of Innocence, Legal Ethics, Judicial Discretion, Uganda Criminal Justice, Comparative Jurisprudence.
Views & Downloads Stats:
References
Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025).
Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi Muhammad and Others v Uganda (HCT-00-ICD-CM-0013-2026) [2026] UGHCICD 2 (9 July 2026).
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (97) 13 on Intimidation of Witnesses and the Rights of the Defence.
United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), arts. 9 and 14. See also: European Convention on Human Rights, arts. 5 and 6.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014).
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Victor Tadros, Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Ian H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2020).
ICCPR, art. 9.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35.
Republic v Isaac Kariuki Kithinji [2016] eKLR (Criminal Case No 22 of 2015).
Crown Prosecution Service, Witness Protection and Anonymity Legal Guidance.
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
EA 282.
David Mativo, Bail and Bond in Kenya: Law and Practice (Nairobi: LawAfrica Publishing, 2016).
Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR.
Antony Duff, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall, Massimo Renzo, and Victor Tadros, The Trial on Trial, Vol. 3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007).
Ed Cape, Jacqueline Hodgson, T. Prakken, and T. Spronken, Suspects in Europe (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2007).
Republic v Kamotho [2025] KEHC 2113 (KLR).
Republic v Isaac Kariuki Kithinji [2014] eKLR.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14. See also: European Convention on Human Rights, arts. 5 and 6; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35.
Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR. See also: Republic v Kamotho [2025] KEHC 2113 (KLR).
Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (London: Allen Lane, 2010).
EA 282.
Lucia Zedner and Andrew Ashworth, The Rise and Restraint of the Preventive State, Annual Review of Criminology 2 (2019): 429–450.
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
United Nations, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (New York: United Nations, 2000), arts. 24–25. See also: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 68; Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (97) 13.
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (London: Allen Lane, 2010).
Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR.
Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Lucia Zedner and Andrew Ashworth, The Rise and Restraint of the Preventive State, Annual Review of Criminology 2 (2019): 429–450.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14. See also: United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35.
Antony Duff, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall, Massimo Renzo, and Victor Tadros, The Trial on Trial, Vol. 3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007).
Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). See also: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Republic v Isaac Kariuki Kithinji [2014] eKLR.
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
United Nations, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (New York: United Nations, 2000), arts. 24–25. See also: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 68; Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (97) 13.
United States Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual: Contacts with the Intelligence Community Regarding Criminal Investigations or Prosecutions.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook for Prosecutors on Witness Protection (Vienna: UNODC, 2008); Crown Prosecution Service, Witness Protection and Anonymity Legal Guidance.
United States Department of Justice, Justice Manual: Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery.
Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law, Rev. ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14. See also: United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (2014).
Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Gary Edmond, (Ad)Ministering Justice: Expert Evidence and the Professional Responsibilities of Prosecutors, UNSW Law Journal 36, no. 3 (2013): 921–966.
William Twining, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended), art. 120(3), (5), and (6).
United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990). See also: International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors (1999).
American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, 4th ed. (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2017), Standard 3-1.2. See also: United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Guidelines 12–14.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14. See also: United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014); Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Uganda), Witness Protection Guidelines (Kampala: ODPP, 2019).
United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Guideline 13. See also: International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility, Principle 3 (Impartiality).
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
UNODC, Handbook for Prosecutors on Witness Protection (2008).
Ian H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2020).
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person) (2014).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). See also: International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility, Principle 3.
ABA, Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, Standard 3-5.4. See also: United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Guideline 13(b).
Bennett L. Gershman, Prosecutorial Misconduct, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters).
Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (London: Allen Lane, 2010).
Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR.
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 12 of 2016, [2016] UGHCCRD 12 (20 July 2016).
Ochima v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 12 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 12 (20 July 2016).
Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025).
Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Ochima v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 12 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 12.
Ochima v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 12 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 12.
David M. Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Ochima v Uganda [2016] UGHCCRD 12.
Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (99) 22 concerning Prison Overcrowding and Prison Population Inflation.
Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (97) 13 concerning Intimidation of Witnesses and the Rights of the Defence.
Opiyo & Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 91 (21 March 2024).
Opiyo & Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 91.
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14; Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, arts. 23 and 28; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014).
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, art. 21.
Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, art. 21. See also: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 26.
Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (97) 13 concerning Intimidation of Witnesses and the Rights of the Defence.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Good Practices for the Protection of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings Involving Organized Crime (Vienna: United Nations, 2008). See also: Crown Prosecution Service, Witness Protection and Anonymity Legal Guidance (London: CPS).
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi Muhammad and Others v Uganda (HCT-00-ICD-CM-0013-2026) [2026] UGHCICD 2 (9 July 2026).
Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi Muhammad and Others v Uganda (HCT-00-ICD-CM-0013-2026) [2026] UGHCICD 2 (9 July 2026).
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, arts. 23 and 28. See also: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014).
Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Panju v Republic [1973] EA 282.
Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi Muhammad and Others v Uganda (HCT-00-ICD-CM-0013-2026) [2026] UGHCICD 2 (9 July 2026).
Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook for Prosecutors on Witness Protection (Vienna: United Nations, 2008). See also: International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors (The Hague: IAP, 1999).
Michael Tonry, Prediction and Classification: Legal and Ethical Issues, Crime and Justice 9 (1987): 183–237.
Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
M. Miller, Legal and Ethical Limits on the Use of Predictions of Dangerousness in the Criminal Law, in Prediction of Criminal Violence, ed. Fernand N. Dutile and Cleon H. Foust (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1987).
John S. Goldkamp, Prediction in Criminal Justice Policy Development, Crime and Justice 9 (1987): 135–164.
United States Department of Justice, Justice Manual: Release and Detention Pending Judicial Proceedings (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice).
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook on Witness Protection for Criminal Justice Practitioners (Vienna: United Nations, 2008).
Christopher Slobogin, Applying the Rules of Evidence to Expert Testimony About Risk, Behavioral Sciences & the Law (2025).
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (New York: United Nations, 2000), arts. 23–25. See also: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, arts. 70 and 71.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14(2).
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Uganda), Witness Protection Guidelines (Kampala: ODPP, 2019).
Peter Finn and Kerry Murphy Healey, Preventing Gang and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1996).
Hylke Jellema, The Values of Prediction in Criminal Cases, International Journal of Evidence & Proof 25, no. 2 (2021): 147–165.
John D. Jackson and Sarah J. Summers, The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
European Court of Human Rights, Doorson v. Netherlands, App. No. 20524/92, Judgment of 26 March 1996. See also: Van Mechelen and Others v. Netherlands, App. Nos. 21363/93 et al., Judgment of 23 April 1997.
European Court of Human Rights, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, Grand Chamber Judgment, 15 December 2011. See also: Schatschaschwili v. Germany, App. No. 9154/10, Grand Chamber Judgment, 15 December 2015.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65.
Declan McGrath, Evidence, 3rd ed. (Dublin: Round Hall, 2020).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGinley [1998] 2 I.R. 408.
John D. Jackson and Sarah J. Summers, The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2005)9 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Protection of Witnesses and Collaborators of Justice (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2005).
Ed Cape, Jacqueline Hodgson, Taru Spronken, and Ties Prakken, Suspects in Europe: Procedural Rights at the Investigative Stage of the Criminal Process in the European Union (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2007).
Colin Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 13th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
Neil MacCormick, Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Jason Bosland and Jonathan Gill, The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons, Melbourne University Law Review 38, no. 2 (2014): 482–575.
European Court of Human Rights, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 1), App. No. 6538/74, Judgment of 26 April 1979.
H. L. Ho, The Judicial Duty to Give Reasons, Legal Studies 20, no. 1 (2000): 42–65.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65.
Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
Karen Yeung and Adam Harkens, How Do Technical Design Choices Made When Building Algorithmic Decision-Making Tools for Criminal Justice Authorities Create Constitutional Dangers? (2023).
Jeremy Waldron, Political Political Theory: Essays on Institutions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).
A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1959).
Niklas Luhmann, Legitimation Through Procedure (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009).
European Court of Human Rights, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, Grand Chamber Judgment, 15 December 2011.
Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24746/94, Judgment of 4 May 2001.
David Shuldham, The Duty to Give Reasons in Judicial Decisions, Judicial Review 21, no. 1 (2016): 19–36.
United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (Havana, Cuba: Eighth UN Congress, 1990); International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors (The Hague: IAP, 1999).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Barton [2024] EWHC (Admin).
Luke Beck, The Constitutional Duty to Give Reasons for Judicial Decisions, UNSW Law Journal 40, no. 2 (2017): 923–955.
Jason Bosland and Jonathan Gill, The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons, Melbourne University Law Review 38, no. 2 (2014): 482–575.
Jason Bosland and Jonathan Gill, The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons, Melbourne University Law Review 38, no. 2 (2014): 482–575.
Jason Sunshine and Tom R. Tyler, The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing, Law & Society Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 513–548.
Neil MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
Jason Bosland and Jonathan Gill, The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons, Melbourne University Law Review 38, no. 2 (2014): 482–575.
Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65.
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977).
D. J. Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
Mirjan Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986).
Frederick Schauer, Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
Julian Rivers, Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Ronald J. Allen, Richard B. Kuhns, Eleanor Swift, David S. Schwartz, and Michael S. Pardo, Evidence: Text, Problems, and Cases, 7th ed. (New York: Aspen, 2021).
Michael S. Pardo and Ronald J. Allen, Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation, Law and Philosophy 27, no. 3 (2008): 223–268.
The Kenyan Witness Protection Rules (Nairobi: Republic of Kenya).
Dieter Grimm, Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence, University of Toronto Law Journal 57, no. 2 (2007): 383–397.
European Court of Human Rights, Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova [GC], App. No. 23755/07, Judgment of 5 July 2016.
John D. Jackson and Sarah J. Summers, The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
European Court of Human Rights, Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28901/95, Grand Chamber Judgment, 16 February 2000. See also: Edwards and Lewis v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, Grand Chamber Judgment, 27 October 2004; Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Another v. Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 6 of 2007) [2008] UGSC 72.
Shabalala and Others v. Attorney-General, Transvaal 1996 (1) SA 725 (CC). See also: European Court of Human Rights, Jasper v. United Kingdom, App. No. 27052/95, Judgment of 16 February 2000; Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Another v. Attorney General [2008] UGSC 72.
Juma and Others v. Attorney General [2003] 2 EA 461 (Court of Appeal of Kenya). See also: Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Another v. Attorney General [2008] UGSC 72; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14.
Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Another v. Attorney General [2008] UGSC 72.
Juma and Others v. Attorney General [2003] 2 EA 461.
Kitutu Mary Gorreti Kimono v. Attorney General [2023] UGHCACD 9.
United States Department of Justice, Justice Manual, § 9-5.000.
European Court of Human Rights, Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28901/95. See also: Jasper v. United Kingdom, App. No. 27052/95; High Court (Anti-Corruption Division) (Case Management) Rules, 2022 (Uganda), r. 8.
Sangkul Kim, The Witness Protection Mechanism of Delayed Disclosure at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, Journal of East Asia and International Law 9, no. 1 (2016): 53–82.
Brian Z. Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Laura K. Donohue, The Future of Foreign Intelligence: Privacy and Surveillance in a Digital Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
Lucia Zedner, Security (London: Routledge, 2009).
Terence Anderson, David Schum, and William Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Niklas Luhmann, Legitimation Through Procedure (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009).
John S. Goldkamp, Prediction in Criminal Justice Policy Development, Crime and Justice 9 (1987): 135–164.
European Court of Human Rights, Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova [GC], App. No. 23755/07, Judgment of 5 July 2016.
European Court of Human Rights, Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28901/95, Grand Chamber Judgment, 16 February 2000. See also: Jasper v. United Kingdom, App. No. 27052/95, Judgment of 16 February 2000; Edwards and Lewis v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, Grand Chamber Judgment, 27 October 2004.
Prosecutor v. Orić, IT-03-68, Decision on Confidential Prosecution Motions for Protective Measures and Non-Disclosure, ICTY Trial Chamber, 28 July 2003.
Decision on Momčilo Perišić’s Motion Seeking Access to Confidential Material in the Galić Case, ICTY Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin and Momir Talić, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Second Decision on Motions for Access to Confidential Documents, ICTY, 15 November 2000.
Erik Luna and Marianne Wade, eds., The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Amerit Timothy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
