{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011818181818181818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.291428571428572, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The ECCC’s Approach to Evidence and Proof


 The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) has made normative decisions as to the probative value of different categories of evidence and the manner in which the evidentiary record should be assessed. Defying expectations that the ECCC’s inquisitorial model would render it quite unique in relation to matters of evidence and proof, this article argues that many of the key epistemological debates witnessed before other international criminal tribunals have also seeped into the practice of the ECCC. Indeed, an analysis of its practice shows that there are several commonalities in approach between the ECCC and the principal contemporary international criminal tribunals on such key issues as whether the evaluation of evidence should be carried out in a piecemeal or a holistic manner, and the weight to be given to hearsay and other categories of evidence. Despite an enormously challenging fact-finding environment and inconsistencies in practice, the ECCC has developed an admirably thorough approach to the evaluation of evidence.