1.

Admissibility of evidence
a. There are no particular rules binding the Court and parties when it comes to evidence,
and the Court has not assumed a hierarchy of evidence or preferred one form of
evidence over another. [15] The Court may call for evidence at any time [16] and has
absolute freedom in estimating the value of evidence. Yet, it is apparent that the
continental legal system has been adhered to, as written evidence is more common
than oral evidence, but the use of oral testimonies of experts and witnesses is also
mandated in the Statute and Rules of the Court. [17] Affidavits and sworn statements
have also been admitted. [18] Additionally, certain provisions of the Rules govern
written evidence. Article 50(1) of the Rules requires that certified copies of any
relevant documents adduced in support of the contentions claimed in the pleading be
attached to the pleading submitted to the Court. Moreover, as will be elaborated upon
subsequently, Article 56 necessitates the consent of the court or the other party in
order to adduce further documentary proof. Technical resources, like films,
photographs and models may also be admitted and taken recourse to for determining
facts by the Court. [19] The Court has felt able to take judicial notice of facts which
are public knowledge, primarily through media dissemination, provided that caution
was shown and that the reports did not emanate from a single source. [20]

b. Akin to all jurisdictions, evidence may be admitted not to prove a fact, but to
corroborate the existence of a fact, as was done in the Nicaragua case, in which press
articles and relevant excerpts from books were admitted. [21]

c. As has been mentioned earlier, Court procedure is liberal in nature, and the general
tendency of the Court is to admit evidence rather than declare it inadmissible, [22] but
there are certain circumstances in which the Court has declared, or is bound to
declare, evidence inadmissible. Article 56 of the Rules declares that no further
document may be submitted as evidence without the consent of the other party, after
the written proceedings have concluded, [23] unless the Court, deeming it necessary,
directs its production. [24] If such evidence is admitted, the other party is given the
opportunity to comment on it and provide counter-documents. [25] Otherwise, the
document in question shall not be referred to in proceedings and is deemed
inadmissible. [26] Therefore, the procedural framework of the Court and decisions
made [27] render evidence filed late, inadmissible. On certain occasions, the Court
itself may determine the time within which the parties have to provide evidence for
the determination of facts. Any evidence provided beyond the time prescribed may
be considered inadmissible. [28] Additionally, evidence obtained through
settlement negotiation is deemed inadmissible if the negotiation has been
unsuccessful. [29] A prime example of the same is the Chorzw Factory Case, [30]
in which the Court ignored the sum decided upon and calculations made during
negotiations between Germany and Poland, when deciding the quantum of
compensation to be awarded to Germany. [31] Some confusion still remains
regarding whether evidence obtained by violation of international law is admissible,
 as happened in the Corfu Channel Case. The Court held that the act of the British
Navy to carry out a minesweeping operation in Albanian waters violated the
sovereignty of Albania, but failed to exclude the evidence that had been collected
owing to the minesweeping operation. Therefore, with respect to unlawfully obtained
evidence, it may be said that the practice of obtaining the evidence may be considered
in violation of international law by the Court, but the evidence acquired may not be
deemed inadmissible. This issue is rather contentious as two varying concerns are
brought into conflict. On the one hand, there is a need to encourage the utilisation of
the international adjudication system for violations of international law, but on the
other, states may gather evidence with increased zeal, and therefore, may resort to
illegal means to obtain proof for their contentions. Of course, as is customary in
various jurisdictions, documents that are not authentic may also be declared
inadmissible. [32]

d. In conclusion, international law under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations clearly states that diplomatic communications are protected and their
confidentiality should be maintained by the host government.

2. Rieslands surveillance program violates international law

a. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
b. Article 17. 1. No one shall be subj ected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference attacks.
c. General Comment No. 16 of Human Rights Committee: 1. Article 17 provides for the
right of every person to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence as well as against unlawful attacks on
his honour and reputation. In the view of the Committee this right is required to be
guaranteed against all such interferences and attacks whether they emanate from State
authorities or from natural or legal persons. The obligations imposed by this article
require the State to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the
prohibition against such interferences and attacks as well as to the protection of this
right.

d. 2. In this connection, the Committee wishes to point out that in the reports of States
parties to the Covenant the necessary attention is not being given to information
concerning the manner in which respect for this right is guaranteed by legislative,
administrative or judicial authorities, and in general by the competent organs
established in the State. In particular, insufficient attention is paid to the fact that
article 17 of the Covenant deals with protection against both unlawful and arbitrary
 interference. That means that it is precisely in State legislation above all that
provision must be made for the protection of the right set forth in that article. At
present the reports either say nothing about such legislation or provide insufficient
information on the subject.

e. 3. The term "unlawful" means that no interference can take place except in cases
envisaged by the law. Interference authorized by States can only take place on the
basis of law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the
Covenant.

f. 4. The expression "arbitrary interference" is also relevant to the protection of the right
provided for in article 17. In the Committee's view the expression "arbitrary
interference" can also extend to interference provided for under the law. The
introduction of the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even
interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims
and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the
particular circumstances.

3. Direct cessation of those programs and assure non-repition