Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda: The Standard of Evidence Assessment in International Criminal Proceedings and its Significance for the Analysis of Digital Evidence

by

 Justyna Sarkowicz

CyJurII Theorist

on 7 August 2026 

Citation Number: ICC-01/04-02/06

1. Introduction

The development of digital technologies has influenced the way evidence is collected, preserved, and presented in criminal proceedings. National and international courts are increasingly using digitally recorded materials, particularly electronic documents, audiovisual recordings, digital photographs, data from electronic devices, and information published via online platforms.

However, international criminal law does not have a separate, comprehensive system regulating the admissibility of electronic evidence. International criminal courts apply general principles of evidence law, assessing procedural evidence primarily through the lens of its relevance, probative value, and credibility.

The case of Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda before the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not directly concern cybercrime or the admissibility of electronic evidence. However, its significance lies in its demonstration of how an international criminal court evaluates extensive and diverse evidence.

The approach adopted by the ICC may have a similar impact on the analysis of digital evidence, particularly in terms of assessing its source, consistency, probative value, and relationship to other evidence. However, it does not constitute a separate standard developed specifically for digital evidence.

2. Facts and course of the proceedings

Bosco Ntaganda was one of the leaders of the Union des Patriotes Congolais / Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (UPC/FPLC) group operating in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

He served as deputy chief of staff and operational commander of the FPLC.

The proceedings before the ICC concerned acts committed between 2002 and 2003 and included, among others:

• murders as crimes against humanity and war crimes;

• rape and sexual slavery;

• persecution of civilians;

• forced displacement;

• attacks against civilians;

• conscription of children into armed forces and their use in conflict.

The ICC Prosecutor's Office presented extensive evidence, including witness statements, documents from international organizations, reports on the situation in the region, military records, and other documentary and audiovisual materials. Trial Chamber VI of the ICC issued its judgment on July 8, 2019, finding Bosco Ntaganda guilty on all counts. The ICC Appeals Chamber upheld the judgment on March 30, 2021[1].

3. Legal issue: Evaluation of evidence

In the Ntaganda case, the primary issue was not the specific assessment of electronic evidence, but rather the method of determining the value and credibility of the extensive evidence presented by the parties.

The Court analyzed, among other things:

• the method of assessing contradictions between individual pieces of evidence;

• the relevance of various sources of information;

• the credibility of witness statements;

• the possibility of basing factual findings on the evidence presented.

Pursuant to Article 69, paragraph 4, of the Rome Statute, the Chamber assesses the significance of the evidence, its probative value, and the potential impact of its admission on the fairness of the proceedings. Article 74, paragraph 2, of the Statute, on factual findings, requires that findings of fact be based on evidence presented and analyzed during the trial[2].

The ICC's approach to evaluating evidence

A key element of the ICC's reasoning in the Ntaganda case was its holistic approach to assessing evidence.

The Court assessed evidence in a broader context, taking into account:

• the mutual consistency of individual materials;

• consistency with other sources of information;

• the circumstances in which the evidence was created;

• the possibility of errors or inconsistencies.

This approach is also relevant to the analysis of digital evidence. In the case of electronic materials, the content of the information alone is often insufficient. It may also be necessary to determine the context in which the material was created, how it was obtained, and its relationship to other evidence.

Importance for digital evidence analysis

The Ntaganda case did not establish a specific test for the admissibility or credibility of electronic evidence. However, it can serve as a benchmark for the general methodology for assessing digital evidence, as it highlights the importance of elements such as:

a) Material origin (provenance)

In the case of digital evidence, it is important to determine:

• the source of the material;

• the person or entity responsible for its creation;

• the circumstances in which it was obtained.

These issues were not analyzed in the Ntaganda case as part of a specific test for digital evidence, but correspond to the general requirements for assessing the credibility of evidence.

b)   Material integrity

With respect to digital data, it is important to determine whether the material has retained its original form and whether there are grounds to exclude unauthorized interference. This applies in particular to:

• electronic files;

• audiovisual recordings;

• digital photographs;

• data obtained from electronic devices.

c) Confirmation by other evidence

The approach adopted by the ICC indicates that the probative value of certain material increases when it is confirmed by independent sources.

Relationship to chain of custody

The Ntaganda case did not involve a technical analysis of digital evidence preservation, and the ICC did not develop chain of custody rules in it.

This does not mean, however, that the continuity of preservation of material is irrelevant to digital evidence. In the case of electronic data, the ability to demonstrate:

• how the data was obtained;

• who had access to the material;

• how it was stored;

the possibility of alteration may affect the final assessment of its probative value.

4. Conclusion

The greatest significance of the Ntaganda case lies in confirming that international evidence law is based on a flexible assessment of all procedural evidence.

At the same time, the case demonstrates that the current ICC evidentiary system does not contain detailed rules regarding new categories of digital evidence, such as:

• data stored in the cloud;

• encrypted communications;

• materials generated by artificial intelligence;

• blockchain evidence;

• information from online platforms.

The development of these categories requires further definition of international standards regarding the authenticity, integrity, and reliability of digital evidence.

The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda case does not set a precedent establishing specific rules for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

However, its significance for digital evidence stems from confirming fundamental principles of evidence evaluation, which may also apply to digital data.

The ruling indicates that when evaluating evidence, it is necessary to consider:

• the credibility of the source;

• the circumstances in which the material was created;

• its consistency with other evidence;

• its probative value.

Consequently, Ntaganda can be used as an element of analysis regarding the development of international standards for the assessment of digital evidence, but it should not be defined as a stand-alone case on electronic evidence admissibility.

References

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90, arts 69(4), 74(2).

2. Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment) ICC-01/04-02/06 (Trial Chamber VI, 8 July 2019); Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment on the appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber VI entitled 'Judgment') ICC-01/04-02/06 A A2 A3 (Appeals Chamber, 30 March 2021).

3. Rome Statute (n 1) arts 69(4), 74(2).

[1] Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Trial Chamber VI, Judgment, 8 July 2019; Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06 A A2 A3, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 30 March 2021.

[2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted 17 July 1998, arts. 69(4), 74(2).