Truth and Fairness: Challenging Evidence in International Justice and The Rule in Browne v. Dunn

Abstract Should a party inviting a tribunal to reject the evidence of a witness be required to challenge that evidence in cross-examination before doing so? In common law courts this requirement is known as the rule in Browne v. Dunn . The ‘rule’ gives the witness the opportunity to explain any apparent contradiction or problem with their evidence, as a matter of fairness, and assists the judicial process of assessing the evidence in a comprehensible judgment. The underlying requirements to act fairly and produce well-reasoned judgments are as applicable in international tribunals as anywhere else. This article considers the effect of the rule in Browne v. Dunn in practice across a number of jurisdictions, attempts in international criminal tribunals to give effect to the rule, and what steps tribunals and advocates can take to ensure fairness in proceedings in the light of the rule