www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 170 August 2006

United States Institute of Peace

Special Report

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

Contents 

Introduction 2

Courts and Their Records 3

The Role of the United Nations 4

Users and Records of the Courts 6

Need for an International Judicial Archives 8

Appraising Court Records 11

Evidence 16

Access to Court Records 17

Conclusion 19

Recommendations 19

About the Report

This report examines and makes recommendations for the 

permanent retention of the records of the International 

Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and 

Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the 

Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit in East Timor, and the 

internationalized courts and prosecutors in Kosovo. 

Trudy Huskamp Peterson is a certified archivist and the past 

president of the Society of American Archivists and the 

International Conference of the Round Table on Archives. She 

served as acting archivist of the United States from 1993 to 

1995, was the founding executive director of the Open Society 

Archives, and directed the archives and records program for 

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. She 

recently published a book on the records of truth commissions. 

A longer version of this report was prepared while she was 

a grantee of the United States Institute of Peace. Research 

for the report included visiting the courts in The Hague and 

East Timor (Timor Leste); interviewing court staff members, 

lawyers, academics, archivists, and human rights activists; 

and reviewing the files of the United Nations Archives on the 

records of the courts.

Trudy Huskamp Peterson 

Temporary Courts, 

Permanent Records

Summary

• Temporary international criminal courts create voluminous records of tremendous and 

lasting significance to victims, scholars, and legal practitioners, and arrangements 

must be made for their permanent protection, storage, and use.

• A conceptual framework is offered for creating a central international judicial archives 

under UN auspices and for standards to select, preserve, and manage the records of 

temporary international criminal courts. 

• The closure of these courts makes a decision on the disposition of their records 

urgent: the Timor Leste Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit closed in May 2005; 

the status talks on Kosovo are currently under way; the Sierra Leone court is to close 

in mid-2007; and the ICTY and ICTR are to complete all proceedings by 2010. 

• A survey of the five courts reveals substantial differences among them because of the 

varied roles played by the United Nations in their establishment and operations. These 

differences in turn lead to differences in the potential disposition of the records. 

• When the ICTY and ICTR close, their records will become the responsibility of the 

United Nations Archives and Records Management Section. The legal responsibility for 

the Sierra Leone court records is to be negotiated between the United Nations and the 

government of Sierra Leone. The management of the copies of the East Timor records 

held by the United Nations is controlled by an agreement between that government 

and the United Nations. The records of the UN mission in Kosovo relating to the 

Kosovo internationalized courts will be divided among the government and the three 

organizations currently comprising the UN mission.

• Records of the tribunals are key research resources for victims, civic activists, academics, journalists, educators, and successors to current court officials. Potential 

users of the tribunal records urge officials to place the records where research will be 

fostered.

• Preservation requires active intervention to ensure that records can be used; if records 

are simply stored they will deteriorate, and electronic and audiovisual records will 

deteriorate irretrievably.
• The ICTY, ICTR, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone must establish basic access rules 

for their records before closing; they should make every attempt to harmonize their 

access provisions. 

• The United Nations should explore constructing and staffing an international judicial 

archives in The Hague and should begin providing copies of publicly available court 

records to institutions in the countries affected by the court proceedings. Governments and donors should actively encourage and support the United Nations in these 

efforts.

Introduction

International criminal courts and tribunals are a distinctive development of the 1990s. At 

the start of that decade, no international criminal courts existed. Today, three independent international bodies adjudicate international criminal law: the International Criminal 

Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established in 1993; the International Criminal 

Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), established in 1994; and the International Criminal Court 

(ICC), created by a treaty concluded in 1998. Internationalized or “hybrid” criminal courts 

also exist, employing both national and foreign personnel. Hybrid war crime courts currently operate in UN-administered Kosovo, Sierra Leone (the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 

2001), and Bosnia (the War Crimes Chamber, 2004) and operated between 2000 and 2005 

in East Timor (the Special Panel for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court and the deputy 

prosecutor for serious crimes). A hybrid court is being established in Cambodia and others 

may be created in Burundi and Afghanistan. With the exception of the ICC, these bodies 

were intended at their creation to have limited life spans.

This report provides a conceptual framework for creation of an international judicial 

archives that could house and preserve the records of these historically significant institutions and the standards for managing these records. It looks at five explicitly temporary 

courts: the East Timor Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit, which closed in May 2005; 

the internationalized courts in Kosovo, where status talks that are likely to lead to the 

closure of the United Nations’ mission there are presently under way; the Special Court for 

Sierra Leone, which is to close in mid-2007; and the ICTY and ICTR, which are to complete 

all proceedings by 2010. The need to establish a preservation and access strategy for the 

records of these courts is urgent.

The United Nations established all five of these diverse courts, and it is responsible 

for the preservation of some or all of their records. The records of the ICTY and ICTR are 

records of the United Nations per se and, like records of governments, they are inalienable. Together with such records of the other courts as come into UN custody, they form 

an historically important, sensitive body of records that the United Nations has a duty to 

preserve and make available in scrupulous good faith. The United Nations is entrusted to 

find a secure location for the preservation and use of these records after the courts close, 

and it must begin planning now to fulfill its archival responsibilities. Governments such 

as that of the United States, which played a central role in bringing these courts into 

existence, as well as those whose citizens have the primary stakes in the courts’ work, 

should actively support and encourage the United Nations’ efforts. 

The urgent need to preserve and protect these records is illustrated forcefully by recent 

events in East Timor. The riots of May 2006 in the capital, Dili, led to the loss of at least 

some of the records assembled by the Serious Crimes Unit to prosecute those responsible 

for the country’s devastation in 1999. Whether the looters targeted the records for destruction or whether they were merely looting is irrelevant: the databases are lost and some of 

the paper records are gone. Fortunately, the United Nations Security Council had required 

that a copy of the records of the Serious Crimes Unit be made, and that was done in the 

spring and summer of 2005. Without that copy in the hands of the United Nations, crucial 

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created 

by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international 

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets 

its congressional mandate through an array of 

programs, including research grants, fellowships, 

professional training, education programs from high 

school through graduate school, conferences and 

workshops, library services, and publications. The 

Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by the 

President of the United States and confirmed 

by the Senate.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, ACCION 

International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. Bumpers, Founder 

and former President, Peace Links, Washington, D.C. • 

Holly J. Burkhalter, Director of U.S. Policy, Physicians 

for Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. 

Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic 

Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University • 

Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, 

Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Seymour Martin Lipset, 

Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University • 

Mora L. McLean, President, Africa-America Institute, 

New York, N.Y. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State 

Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt.

Members ex officio

Barry F. Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • Peter W. Rodman,

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security 

Affairs • Richard H. Solomon, President, United States 

Institute of Peace (nonvoting), • Frances C. Wilson,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps; President, 

National Defense University 
evidence would be irretrievably lost. Preserving the copy, in a safe location with sound 

access controls, is of the utmost importance.

Courts and Their Records

Deciding what records to save, where to save them, and under what access controls are 

fundamental choices that must be made. To make those decisions for the records of the 

temporary international criminal courts, it is important first to understand the nature and 

scope of the records. 

The word “court” to describe these diverse bodies is misleading. They do include 

courts, in the traditional sense, that hear and adjudicate cases and appeals, but they 

encompass far more, including some or all of the following:

• Offices of the prosecutor, including investigation staffs; 

• Offices of public defenders; 

• Registrars’ offices to operate the courts and possibly detention and/or victims’ 

centers;

• Field offices for prosecutors and registrars; and 

• Public outreach offices (located at the court or where alleged crimes occurred), which 

in some cases have sophisticated broadcast capabilities.

To use a U.S. analogy, a temporary international criminal court includes the Federal 

District Court, the Supreme Court, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Witness Protection Service, the Bureau of 

Prisons, and perhaps the office of a public defender. 

Each of these bodies creates records that reflect its unique functions. The records are 

all the documents made or received and maintained in the course of business, ranging 

from evidence presented in court to investigation files to personnel dossiers and travel 

vouchers. Many of these bodies create records of more than one physical type, ranging 

from paper records through all varieties of audiovisual formats to electronic records. For 

example, in May 2005 the ICTY had a Judicial Database with 220 gigabytes (and expected 

to grow to 8 terabytes by the court’s closure), 45,000 videotapes of proceedings and 

another 5,500 videotapes of evidence, nearly 6 million items of paper and still photographic evidence, and more than 13,000 artifacts obtained as evidence.

The temporary courts were established by different legal processes, have different 

locations and compositions, and operate in different judicial contexts. The United Nations 

Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII powers, established ICTY and ICTR. The 

Special Court for Sierra Leone was established by a treaty between the United Nations 

and the government of Sierra Leone. The courts, the prosecutor’s office, and the defense 

counsel’s office in East Timor were established by the UN mission in East Timor. The UN 

mission in Kosovo inserted international judges into existing courts in Kosovo and added 

international prosecutors to handle particularly sensitive cases. ICTY and ICTR operate 

outside the country where the events that form the basis of the charges occurred; the 

other three courts sit in the relevant countries. ICTY and ICTR have external judges and 

prosecutors only; the other three have a mix of national and international staff. Sierra 

Leone and East Timor simultaneously had truth commissions operating as the prosecutions were under way; the other three did not. 

Looking at all the courts and their records helps identify similarities in context and 

content and clarifies the issues that will face the archivists who take custody of the 

records. Table 1 describes the key differences in legal authority, composition, function, 

and types of records of the five courts. 

Dangerous Records

In the shade of some scraggly trees, a 

man was zipping up body bags filled 

with guns. Each of the weapons, which 

the prosecutor of the Serious Crimes Unit 

in East Timor had seized, was tagged 

and each tag had been recorded in a 

database. Looking up from his packing, 

the man remarked, “People worry about 

these but,” and he nodded his head to a 

room across the yard, “the really dangerous stuff is over there.” “Over there” was 

the room storing evidence collected by 

the prosecutor’s staff, including statements, photographs, audio recordings 

of interviews with witnesses, and collections of documents. The man working 

under the tree was right: in May 2006 

the attorney general’s office storing the 

records was looted, the databases were 

stolen, and other prosecutors’ records 

were stolen or strewn about.

A few months later and half a world 

away, Muhinda John was walking home 

down a street in Kabunga Town, Rwanda. Suddenly he was hit on the head 

with a metal bar and died. The dead 

man was widely known for testifying 

openly before the International Criminal 

Tribunal for Rwanda. At his funeral, 

mourners were told that “onlookers 

shouted joyfully” as Muhinda was killed. 

The assumption is that he was killed 

because of his testimony. The records of 

his testimony, which the tribunal holds, 

now speak for him. Dangerous records, 

too.
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of the Courts and Their Records 

ICTY ICTR SCSL East Timor Kosovo

Courts and their composition

Est. by Security Council X X

Est. by treaty X

Est. by UN mission X X

Court in country X X X

Court outside country X X

External judges/prosecutors X X

External and internal judges/

prosecutors

X X X

Truth commission X X

UN court functions and units

Courts X X X panels judges*

Prosecutor X X X X prosecutors*

Investigators X X X X

Registrar X X X

Victims and witness support X X X

Detention facility X X X

Victims facility X

Outreach program X X X

Public information X X X X

Liaison to defense counsel X X

Defense counsel office X X

Court monitoring X

Administration X X X prosecutor

Physical types of records

Paper X X X X X

Electronic tracking systems X X X prosecutor

Electronic document management 

systems

X X X

Web sites X X X prosecutor

Audio of court sessions X X X

Video of court sessions X X X X

Audiovisual evidence X X X X

Objects as evidence X X X X

Architectural records X X X

 * Individual judges and prosecutors inserted into Kosovo courts

The Role of the United Nations 

Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals

Because the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals were created by the United Nations Security 

Council, their records are under the control of the United Nations Secretariat. Staff mem-

** Where not marked, some functions such as investigations and detention, are carried out solely by 

 local authorities.

Because the Yugoslavia and Rwanda 

tribunals were created by the United 

Nations Security Council, their records 

are under the control of the United 

Nations Secretariat.
bers of the United Nations, both in the Secretariat and in the tribunals, consistently interpret the UN rules governing disposition of records as mandating that the records of the 

two tribunals, upon closure, will become the responsibility of the United Nations Archives 

and Records Management Section of the Secretariat. Any alternative arrangement, they 

believe, would require a decision by the Security Council. The working assumption has 

been that the records of both tribunals would be shipped to the UN archives in New York 

when the tribunals close. 

When the records come into the custody of the UN archives, their preservation and 

management will be governed by UN administrative instruction ST/AI/326 (1984) and 

the secretary-general’s bulletin on the UN archives, ST/SGB/242 (1991). These issuances 

give the UN archives the exclusive right to authorize destruction of UN records and to 

determine which records to maintain as archives. The legal title to the records rests with 

the United Nations, and the UN archives is mandated to “maintain, preserve and repair” 

the archives, “arrange and describe” and “prepare finding aids to make them available for 

use,” and release records to the public in accordance with conditions of access outlined 

in the 1984 instruction. Records are open for research when twenty years old, unless 

restrictions are imposed by the secretary-general.

During the past decade, UN archives staff members have visited both tribunals and 

issued reports on their records systems, and tribunal staff members have visited New 

York to discuss records issues. The UN archives has authorized destruction of records at 

the tribunals under the UN general records schedules, and it has approved retention and 

destruction for some specific sets of tribunal records. No records have yet been shipped 

from ICTY to the UN archives, but the first body of ICTR records was sent in the winter 

of 2006.

Special Court for Sierra Leone

The Special Court for Sierra Leone was created through an agreement between the United 

Nations and the Sierra Leone government that specified that the “archives of the Court, 

and in general all documents and materials made available, belonging to or used by it, 

wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be inviolable.” It did not, however, 

specify the permanent custodian of the court’s archives. At present, the United Nations 

and the government appear to have an informal understanding that the United Nations 

will take responsibility for preserving the court records, with copies of the public records 

remaining in Sierra Leone.

Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit in Timor Leste 

The United Nations established all judicial institutions in Timor Leste, including the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court and the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) 

of the public prosecutor’s office, during its mission there. Those specialized bodies, which 

included both foreign and domestic personnel, were established to handle conflict-related 

serious criminal offences, defined as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, 

and, if committed between January 1 and October 25, 1999, murder, sexual offenses, 

and torture. Responsibility for the Special Panels and SCU was transferred to the new 

Timor Leste government in May 2002. Thereafter, the United Nations continued to fund 

those bodies, but in 2004 the Security Council decided that the SCU should complete its 

investigations by November 2004 and “should conclude trials” not later than May 2005. 

Because all trials before the Special Panels originated with the SCU, the closure of one 

meant the closure of the other. 

The foreign Special Panels judges wanted to ensure that the basic records of their cases 

would survive and be made public. Consequently, they initiated a program to scan key 

documents in each case file, copy them onto compact discs, and provide duplicates of 

the compact discs to the United Nations, the War Crimes Research Office at Washington 

The Special Court for Sierra 

Leone was created through an 

agreement between the United 

Nations and the Sierra Leone 

government. 
College of Law at American University, the War Crimes Studies Center at the University of 

California–Berkeley, and the Timor Leste–based Judicial Systems Monitoring Programme. 

The SCU records were a different matter. The Security Council, acting at the urging of 

several governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) worried about the longterm preservation of the SCU records, adopted S/RES/1599 in spring 2005 to require the 

United Nations “in agreement with Timor-Leste authorities, to preserve a complete copy of 

all the records compiled by the Serious Crimes Unit.” With its UN mandate near termination, the SCU decided to scan all the paper-based evidence it had collected and create a 

database containing basic information about each scanned item. Color photographs in the 

evidence were copied onto separate discs, databases of both evidence and case information were duplicated, and paper copies were made of the approximately 500 binders of 

litigation case files. The University of California at Berkeley’s War Crimes Studies Center 

assumed control of the SCU website, while the United Nations took custody of the administrative records of the SCU, which it considered a part of the records of the UN mission. 

The agreement between the government of Timor Leste and the United Nations governing the preservation of and access to the SCU copies destined for the United Nations was 

signed in spring 2006, nearly a year after the copies were made. The agreement and its 

implementing instructions to the UN staff have not been made public, but it apparently 

specifies that the Timor Leste government will control access to the copies in UN custody. 

The UN staff views the UN copy as simply a backup copy for preservation purposes only, 

with the ultimate control over the documents residing in the hands of the Timor government. The UN copy, held by the UN in Timor while the negotiations over the agreement 

dragged on, suddenly became dramatically important when the attorney general’s office 

was looted in late May 2006 and the SCU databases and some files were taken. 

Internationalized Judicial Services in Kosovo

The United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) is a tripartite mission of the United 

Nations, the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe (OSCE). Under its administrative powers, UNMIK appointed international judges 

and prosecutors to all courts in Kosovo, inserting them into the criminal justice system 

to work alongside sitting jurists. The official records of the hybrid court panels (those 

including both national and foreign judges) in the five district courts and the Supreme 

Court of Kosovo are in the custody of the Kosovo courts. The international judges maintain 

in their offices some records that they deem to be personal property and generally take 

with them when they leave Kosovo. The United Nations probably has custody of the office 

records of the international prosecutors along with the records of other important UNMIK 

court-related programs. 

It seems likely that once the mission closes, UNMIK records will be divided among the 

three partner organizations. The UN portion of the records will be divided once again, with 

the records of “work with local authorities” turned over to a government in Kosovo under 

the United Nations’ policy (as in Timor Leste) that all records created in connection with 

the government are the property of local authorities. Records of staff members who had 

dual responsibilities for activities of both the United Nations and the local authorities are 

to be divided, with the UN records sent to the UN archives and the local records sent to 

the respective Kosovo government offices. 

Users and Records of the Courts

To decide which records of the courts need to be saved, where the archives housing them 

should be located, and what access needs to be provided to them, it is important to 

understand who the future users will be. Records are saved so that they may be used. Over 

time, active records created and received by a working office change into inactive records 

 The SCU decided to scan all the 

paper-based evidence it had 

collected and create a database 

containing basic information about 

each scanned item.

It seems likely that once the 

mission closes, UNMIK records 

will be divided among the three 

partner organizations.

Over time, active records created 

and received by a working office 

change into inactive records in an 

archives, or they are destroyed.
in an archives, or they are destroyed. Archivists say that records have primary value for 

the creating institution and secondary value for everyone else. All records have primary 

value—that is, the value that records possess, by virtue of their contents, for the transaction of business. Not all records have any appreciable secondary value for persons other 

than the original user, and such records can be destroyed when no longer needed for legal, 

financial, or administrative purposes. 

Users of Records for Their Primary Values

It is relatively easy to identify the potential users of records for their primary value: the 

current actors and their functional successors. In the future, judges, prosecutors, registrars, and (in many cases) defense counsel will need the records in various circumstances, 

such as the following:

• Persons who are indicted but not apprehended before the indicting tribunal 

closes are subsequently arrested. When these persons are apprehended, someone 

will need to prosecute and judge them, and the records that led to the indictment will 

be needed.

• Those convicted raise legal matters. If, for example, there is an appeal for a review 

of a sentence or petition to return home to die or to seek a rehearing, the original 

records of the case will be needed. David Crane, former prosecutor in Sierra Leone, 

points out that the youth of the defendants means that they will be seeking legal 

recourse for decades, and the prosecutors will need to have access to the “untainted” 

case records. 

• Further evidence surfaces supporting an indictment when added to the evidence 

already in the prosecutor’s files. Successor international or domestic prosecutors 

will need access to the original evidence to make this judgment. 

• Witness protection issues arise. Whether or not under court protection, if a witness 

who testified is intimidated, put in jeopardy, or otherwise endangered, that individual’s case file and documentation of the witness’s protection must be available.

Even some administrative records may have primary value for years to come. For 

example, personnel records of court employees have value as long as the subjects of the 

records are due employee benefits.

The records that successor bodies will need are principally those of the office of the 

prosecutor (particularly the evidence and the work product, such as legal memoranda, 

developed by investigators and prosecutors), transcripts or recordings of the proceedings, 

the records of witnesses’ and victims’ protection, and the tribunal staff personnel files. 

These records correspond to the continuing functions of future prosecutions, management 

of incarceration, witness protection, and personnel administration. The use of tribunal 

records for their primary values—the use by the courts and their successors—ends when 

all the potentially affected persons have died. Thereafter, the interests of secondary users 

prevail.

Users of Records for Their Secondary Values

Researchers usually want records either to find evidence of what the organization that created the records did or to use information accumulated by the creating entity about persons, places, things, or phenomena. The first, the evidential value of the records, focuses 

on how the organization worked: for example, how did the investigators find that piece of 

evidence? How did the prosecutors decide on one charge instead of another? What was the 

process by which the court entered into witness protection arrangements? The second, the 

informational value, includes everything else that might be learned from the records. 

Potential users of tribunal court records for their secondary values include the 

following: 

In the future, judges, prosecutors, 

registrars, and (in many cases) 

defense counsel will need the 

records in various circumstances.
• Victims, surrogates, and heirs: These individuals will want to use the records to learn 

what the prosecutors and investigators knew about their cases or about the fates of 

their loved ones, or to seek recompense. They will need access to the records of the 

prosecutor and the investigators for these sensitive inquiries. Some affected individuals may seek to use records to provide intergenerational validation (“this happened to 

me”) within their families; public proceedings may be sufficient for this purpose. 

• Civic activists: Persons interested in memorializing an event, creating educational 

materials, and engaging in civic discussions will need the records. Communities often 

want information that is already on tribunal Web sites and publicly available, such as 

the public versions of audio and video recordings of the proceedings. Memorials and 

museums likely will want to use artifacts, whether or not entered as evidence.

• Government officials: Representatives of governmental institutions may seek access 

to records for purposes of vetting individuals under consideration for various public 

positions or activities. They will need access to the records of the prosecutor and 

investigators for these inquiries.

• Legal researchers: Lawyers, law professors, and law students interested in the history 

of jurisprudence, the development of international criminal law, and the history of particular litigation will want the records of the prosecutor and perhaps the investigators 

as well as the proceedings in whole. 

• Academic researchers: Academics, such as historians, political scientists, and sociologists, who are interested in the history of a trial, a community, a conflict, or the 

United Nations will want correspondence and investigatory materials from all parts of 

the tribunal. Typically they are less likely to want artifacts than electronic and paper 

records. 

• Media: Journalists and documentary filmmakers researching current stories that have 

roots in the past are likely to be interested primarily in proceedings and audiovisual 

evidence. Some journalists will be interested in a variety of records from all parts of 

the court.

• Court planners: Persons interested in establishing a similar tribunal will want to learn 

from previous courts. These may be employees of the United Nations, governments, 

activists from universities or NGOs, or aggrieved parties. Much of the information they 

require will be on the Web sites of the courts or in published materials.

Potential users interviewed for this study confirm the central importance of the court 

records for future research. When asked what records should be saved, the first reaction 

of many people is “keep them all.” After a bit of discussion, most researchers agree that 

“housekeeping records” of routine administration can be destroyed. Researchers believe 

that the official records of the formal proceedings in the courtroom, in whatever official 

format, including exhibits, should be retained. Beyond that, consensus among researchers 

on keeping or destroying any kind of record is hard to achieve.

Need for an International Judicial Archives

An archives should foster research, provide consistent service, and use resources efficiently 

to preserve the records and make them available. Establishing a single, centralized judicial 

archives for the records of all of the temporary international criminal courts would support 

all these goals.

Foster Research

Potential users of the tribunal records urge officials to place the records where research will 

be fostered. Particularly for research on international jurisprudence, keeping the records of 

all the courts in one place would do that, in their opinion. 



Persons interested in memorializing an 

event, creating educational materials, 

and engaging in civic discussions will 

need the records.

When asked what records should 

be saved, the first reaction of 

many people is “keep them all.”
There are especially good reasons for placing the records of the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals in one location. Not only did they share a chief prosecutor for many years, 

but a single appellate court continues to serve them both. Their jurisprudence together 

forms the basis of the subsequent courts, just as the two tribunals looked back to the 

post–World War II courts. Their legal basis is identical, their records are in the same formats, and the records of one provide insight into the history and practices of the other.

If the United Nations is to preserve the original records of the Special Court for Sierra 

Leone, it makes sense to place them with the ICTR records, because the Special Court 

modeled many of its practices on those of the ICTR. And if the records of the ICTY, the 

ICTR, and the Special Court are in one archives, it would be practical to store the UN 

copies of records from East Timor’s Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit with them, 

allowing the judicial records specialists on the staff of the archives to handle them as 

well. However, the small quantity of records likely to come to the United Nations from 

the Kosovo judicial processes suggests that those records may be best left with the rest 

of the UNMIK records in the UN archives in New York, where researchers can understand 

them in the UNMIK context. 

Creating a central archives does not mean that access will be prohibitively difficult 

for researchers in the countries most directly concerned with the work of the tribunals. 

A sound work program for a central archives would include large-scale copying of records 

for deposit in institutions in those countries as well as robust description and delivery 

services.

Provide Consistent Administration

One of the great problems in managing bodies of sensitive records is to provide consistent 

services. For example, all victims need to have equal reference services; all journalists 

must be given the same research choices. This is difficult to do with any body of records; 

trying to achieve consistency when managing records located in different places is an 

added burden. The risk is that the standards will not be the same and that the users, 

particularly those who were victims of crimes, will receive unequal treatment. Housing the 

records in one location, served by one staff of archivists with one set of lawyers advising 

them, minimizes the risk of unwarranted disclosures or of inconsistent reference service.

Conserve Resources

The archives will need specialized storage for paper, electronic materials, audio recordings, video recordings, photographs, and artifacts. Each of these physical types needs 

special preservation conditions. Temperature and relative humidity need to be controlled 

in the storage areas, stable conditions (uninterrupted electrical power, for example) 

are crucial for long-term preservation, and dust must be held to the absolute minimum 

around magnetic media such as audio, video, and data tapes. Major computer systems 

need specialized rooms. 

In addition to special preservation conditions, court records require special security. A 

substantial portion of the original records retained as archives will require high levels of 

security for decades. Videotapes and audio recordings and transcripts of proceedings usually exist in both public and nonpublic versions (see discussion below), and the nonpublic 

version must be secured. Files of prosecutors, investigators, defense lawyers, and registrars all have items that are potentially damaging if released prematurely. The facility that 

houses these materials will need effective physical and electronic security programs.

Consistent electricity, temperature and humidity controls, and good security regimes 

are absolutely essential. If the United Nations houses tribunal records in two, three, or 

more locations, the costs of providing these services will be doubled or tripled. Similarly, 

reference services for the records require the same staffing and the same reading rooms, 

the same computers and the same videotape players, no matter which court’s records are 

One of the great problems in managing 

bodies of sensitive records is to provide 

consistent services.

The archives will need specialized 

storage for paper, electronic materials, 

audio recordings, video recordings, 

photographs, and artifacts.

If the United Nations houses tribunal 

records in two, three, or more locations, 

the costs of providing these services will 

be doubled or tripled.
10

being used. It is simply more cost effective to put the tribunal records in a single location 

rather than to operate archives in two or more locations.

Location Options 

The privileges and immunities the United Nations enjoys under its charter make the premises the United Nations occupies inviolable. Records housed in UN premises are, therefore, 

normally safe from intrusions and unwarranted access. For UN records with the sensitivity of the temporary international criminal courts records, housing them in a UN facility 

provides an important protection. However, neither the current UN archives facilities in 

New York nor the UN’s European archives facility in Geneva has space for the voluminous 

records of the temporary international criminal tribunals. Moreover, neither has quality 

archival space with adequate preservation controls for nonpaper materials, and neither 

has an in-house preservation capacity. Preservation requires active intervention to ensure 

that records can be used; if records are simply stored on a shelf or in a box they will deteriorate, and electronic and audiovisual records will deteriorate irretrievably. Also, neither 

UN facility has the space for the physical objects (as diverse as architectural models and 

spent ammunition) in the courts’ possession, and additional security controls would have 

to be installed for the sensitive court records. In either city, new space and new preservation resources would have to be found to accommodate the archives. 

Furthermore, potential users and current court staff alike argue that records sent to 

New York will be too far both from the sites where the events on trial occurred and from 

the current sites of the courts. They further worry that records sent to New York will simply 

be locked up, inaccessible to users. 

The location that gains the most support from users is The Hague, largely because the 

records would be proximate to both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The city, too, supports the idea. Wim Deetman, the city’s 

mayor, published a document in 2005 on the role of The Hague in international law, in 

which he posits hosting an international judicial archives service. The city advertises itself 

as the “world capital of peace and justice,” noting that it is the home of the Permanent 

Court of Arbitration, the ICC, the ICJ, the Academy of International Law, the Organisation 

for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and Europol, as well as ICTY. 

The Peace Palace in The Hague, managed by the Dutch Carnegie Foundation, houses 

the archives of the ICJ and its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, 

as well as the records of the post–World War II Nuremburg tribunal (the International 

Military Tribunal, or IMT). Short of space, the Peace Palace has had to place some of its 

records in courtesy storage in the National Archives of The Netherlands, and the UN General Assembly recently authorized funds to take preservation actions on the records of the 

IMT. An international judicial archives in The Hague could provide storage and reference 

services for at least the IMT records, if not the records of the ICJ itself. 

The ICC in The Hague will also need judicial archives storage and services. While the 

legal framework of the ICC may preclude using a single archives service that would manage the UN records as well as those of the ICC, future storage and user services needs of 

the ICC should be considered when planning an international judicial archives. Because 

the permanent facility for the ICC has not yet been constructed, it would be possible to 

harmonize the plans for an international judicial archives with those of the archives for 

the ICC.

Retaining the ICTY records in The Hague would avoid costly shipping of the largest 

body of temporary court records. The archives could take over computer and other equipment from the ICTY, and the transition from court to successor archives could be handled 

without the break in service that would result from shipping the records elsewhere. 

Whether the records from ICTR or SCSL are shipped to New York or The Hague is probably 

cost neutral. 

The location that gains the most 

support from users is The Hague, 

largely because the records would 

be proximate to both the ICC and 

the ICJ. 
11

In addition to the international judicial presence in the city, The Hague is a center for 

archival excellence. It is the home of two outstanding archival institutions, the national 

archives of The Netherlands and the city archives of The Hague. The Dutch archives 

school, located in Amsterdam, is one of the best in the world, ensuring that a judicial 

archives in The Hague will have a steady stream of qualified candidates for archival posts. 

The Netherlands also has a well-developed coterie of archival suppliers and contract services, enabling an archival institution to easily obtain supplies and technical support. 

Many models exist for cooperative archival facilities, and the UN administration should 

explore these with Dutch officials and potential donors. For example, the facility could 

be built and managed by a government or an organization, as the Peace Palace is for the 

ICJ, while the United Nations provides basic archival services. Non-UN institutions could 

provide exhibit and public programming. No matter which cooperative model is chosen, 

such core archival functions as appraisal (deciding which records to keep and which to 

destroy) and access regulation (deciding who is authorized to see which records) should 

remain with the United Nations.

Appraising Court Records

As the temporary international criminal courts close, some of their records will be preserved and others destroyed; in the archival field, deciding what to keep and destroy is 

termed “appraisal.” All future use of the records depends on wise appraisal decisions. The 

UN archives has not appraised the records of the IMT or the ICJ, so appraising the records 

of the temporary international criminal courts will be the archives’ first major review of 

court and prosecution records. These records differ in character from the usual UN records 

of a peacekeeping mission or a headquarters office; consequently, the UN archives will 

need to draw on the experiences of other archives as it makes appraisal judgments.

Court and Prosecution Archives: National Practices

National government archives have long handled the records of courts, prosecutors, investigators, and prisons. A review of their appraisal decisions provides some helpful benchmarks to appraise the value of temporary court records, showing a number of common 

elements among the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, as 

well as the IMT (for Germany and the Far East) at the end of World War II.

• The nature of the case is key to deciding whether to save the court file. In the nations 

surveyed, the very serious types of cases the temporary tribunals handle would be 

saved. 

• Retention of prosecution and investigation records often parallels that of the court 

files. If the records of the case are saved in the court, the prosecutor’s corresponding files are also saved. The administrative records of prosecution and investigation offices, however, are usually destroyed under the government’s general records 

policies. 

• Fewer prison records are saved than those of courts, prosecutors, or investigators. At 

minimum, however, records of especially important individual prisoners are retained, 

along with records relating to prison administration policies and inmate welfare. 

• Judges’ and defense attorneys’ papers are recognized as important for the public’s 

understanding of the law and law practice, but they are considered their personal 

property and are not usually retained in government archives. 

• A very large percentage of the records of the two IMTs, even some routine administrative records, are saved in various locations around the world. 

In addition to the international 

judicial presence in the city, The 

Hague is a center for archival 

excellence. 

All future use of the records depends 

on wise appraisal decisions.

Judges’ and defense attorneys’ papers 

are recognized as important for the 

public’s understanding of the law and 

law practice, but they are considered 

their personal property. 
12

• If an archives decides to save a case file or a series of files, the office retains all 

physical types: paper, audiovisual, and electronic. Some artifacts, particularly those 

useful for educational exhibits, are retained.

Archivists use several appraisal approaches. One method lists all of the institution’s 

series of records, states the decision to save or to discard, and for those to be discarded, 

indicates the date they can be destroyed. Another method lists only the records saved 

(called a retention schedule), permitting records not included to be destroyed. A third 

method lists only the records to be destroyed, requiring those not listed to be retained 

or examined further. All of these methods depend on the institution’s accurate prior 

identification of all records. 

The following recommended approach for temporary court records is a hybrid of three 

elements. First, records to be retained in all cases are listed. Second, records that can be 

destroyed are discussed. Finally, an approach to working through the rest of the records 

is recommended, and a few particularly important and controversial bodies of records 

(audiovisual records of proceedings, electronic document management systems, and 

evidence) are considered. 

General Retention

The following records, common to most tribunals and hybrid courts, should be 

retained:

• Official proceedings: records of all cases in both lower and appellate courts, including the pleadings, the evidence, the tracking systems, and the official copies of the 

transcripts, rulings, and judgments. 

• Published decisions.

• Meeting records: records of meetings of plenary bodies of judges, of judges and 

prosecutors, and of judges, prosecutors, and registrar. 

• Records of key staff: records of the office of the president and the vice president 

of the court, the prosecutor and the deputy prosecutor, the chief and deputy chief 

of investigations, chief and deputy chief of the office of the defense counsel, the 

registrar and deputy registrar.

• Manuals: master set of all versions of policy and procedures manuals.

General Destruction

The records that are the principal candidates for large-scale destruction at temporary 

international criminal courts are the administrative records. Archivists usually manage 

the disposition of administrative records through a “general records schedule.” The UN 

general records schedules apply to the records of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, 

while the UN mission records retention schedules (based on the general records schedules) apply to the administrative records of the East Timor Special Crimes Unit and to the 

UN section (but not to the EU or OSCE sections) of the UN Mission in Kosovo. Given the 

very special nature of the international criminal courts and their records, however, some 

records authorized for destruction under the existing general records schedule authorities 

should not be destroyed in the courts. The schedules for the basic administrative functions of finance, personnel, and procurement, as well as the usual authority to destroy 

duplicate copies of UN official documents that are saved elsewhere in the UN system, are 

appropriate. The remainder of the general records schedules—authorizing the destruction 

of records relating to facilities, working files, chronological files, reading files, and daily 

activities records—should not be used because some international court records in these 

categories may have long-term value due to the special nature of the international courts 

(unlike records in regular UN offices for which the schedules were written). In particular, 

The records that are the principal 

candidates for large-scale destruction 

at temporary international criminal 

courts are the administrative records.
13

the schedules covering documents in electronic systems and the hard-copy source for 

scanned items should not be applied. The relationship between electronic and hard copies 

in the courts is much too complex to be handled in a simple instruction.

Standard archives practice is to destroy the finding aids when the corresponding 

records series is destroyed. For example, when a set of procurement records is destroyed, 

the archives would destroy paper records, electronic documents, and the electronic tracking system for both electronic and paper documents. This means the information in 

the electronic document management system would track only the retained electronic 

documents and paper files. The courts should adopt this approach and, when electronic 

documents in the system reach their destruction date under the general records schedule, 

should delete both the documents and the metadata about them. 

Public Notice 

Interviews and media reports make clear that public concern about the disposition of the 

courts’ records is intense. Beyond the general approach detailed above and the courtspecific recommendations that follow, many detailed and difficult appraisal decisions on 

specific bodies of records remain to be made. The tribunals and hybrid courts must be 

cautious about destroying too many records; it is wiser to retain a record that may or may 

not have future use than to destroy it and later explain endlessly why that was done. 

Because of the interest in these records, it is important that any future disposal of 

records be as transparent as possible. Concerned parties should have an opportunity to 

voice their opinions about proposed destruction of specific records. One way to offer 

this opportunity is for the archives to publish a notice of intent to dispose and give the 

public time to respond to the proposal. This procedure has two important benefits: first, 

it requires the archivists to be clear about what they are doing and why; second, it allows 

the public to express its views, thereby becoming a part of the process. After giving due 

weight to any comments received, the archives makes the final decision and publishes a 

notice of it. UN authorities administering the archives need to work with national governments and NGOs to ensure that interested populations can receive notices of proposed 

destruction through a variety of media outlets.

Audiovisual Records of Proceedings

The Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals and the court in Sierra Leone use audio and video 

recording technologies in the courtroom. The immense volume, uneven technical quality, multiple formats, high preservation costs, and intricate access issues all complicate 

archival retention of these audiovisual records.

Video Recordings 

The characteristics of the video recordings vary among the tribunals. At the Special Court 

for Sierra Leone, the video recordings exist only as complete recordings of the proceedings 

(that is, closed sessions are included). By contrast, at the Rwanda tribunal, video recordings exist both as complete and public-use versions. A 2002 study of the ICTR audiovisual 

records projected that 12,790 videotapes would exist by December 2008, in two different 

formats (DVCAM and VHS), with three soundtracks on each DVCAM video and the “floor” 

language (the words that are actually spoken in court) captured on the VHS recording. All 

the video recordings in both Sierra Leone and ICTR should be retained.

The situation in the Yugoslavia tribunal is very different. Complete and public-use versions exist (called, respectively, “video edit” and “video edit backup”), plus tapes of direct 

feeds from four or more cameras trained on the courtroom (called isolated camera, or ISO 

tapes). The proceedings are initially recorded on the ISO tapes, which an editor combines 

in a master video edit, which in turn is redacted to produce a public-use video edit backup 

Interviews and media reports 

make clear that public concern 

about the disposition of the 

courts’ records is intense.

The Yugoslavia and Rwanda 

tribunals and the court in 

Sierra Leone use audio and 

video recording technologies 

in the courtroom.
14

version. The video edit includes private sessions, closed sessions, and ex-parte hearings 

that do not appear on the public-use version. As of May 2005, more than 28,000 ISO tapes 

existed, plus nearly 10,000 video edits and more than 8,500 video edit backups, each of 

the latter two in three different formats. 

The question is what part of this mass of ICTY video must be retained. The ISO tapes 

provide views of the defendant, witness, prosecutor, defense attorney, and judges during every moment of the proceedings. The video edit should have the video of whoever 

is speaking in the courtroom; however, it will not necessarily have the demeanor of the 

defendant and the witness as they confront each other or the defendants’ reactions to 

the attorneys’ or judges’ statements. The video edit backup is needed for public use until 

such time as the public can use the full video edit.

Both the video edit and the video edit backup should be retained. In addition, the ISO 

tapes of the very first (Tadic) trial, showing the court coming to terms with the camera 

in its midst, should be retained, as should the ISO tapes of the historic—even though 

ultimately incomplete—trial of Slobodan Milosevic, where issues of nonverbal intimidation make the full footage necessary to understand the courtroom dynamics. If Radovan 

Karadic and Ratko Mladic are eventually tried, archivists should decide whether the ISO 

tapes are also required in these important cases. These recordings are likely to be of the 

greatest interest to researchers. The remainder of the ISO tapes can be destroyed when 

no longer needed for the ICTY’s own use.

Preserving videotape is expensive because it requires making a copy of any item to be 

used instead of the original; maintaining proper temperature and humidity for storing the 

tapes; monitoring the condition of the tapes; and, when deterioration is found or when 

the tape format is obsolete, transferring the materials to a newer format. All this requires 

consistent, attentive management supported by costly technical services.

Audio Recordings 

Audio recordings have been exceptionally important in Sierra Leone and Rwanda as a 

source for radio broadcasts of trial proceedings. In the Sierra Leone court, audio recordings exist both as unredacted (complete) and public-use versions. The public-use audio 

is the version that the court outreach and public affairs sections use for radio broadcasts 

and from which translation into the Krio language is made. The archives should keep the 

public-use versions to use as the reference copy for the foreseeable future and the complete version to provide the full historical record.

At the ICTR, audio recordings also exist both as unredacted and public-use versions. By 

December 2008 they are expected to amount to 38,360 recordings. A 2002 study of the 

ICTR’s audiovisual records reported that the soundtracks on the audio- and the videotapes 

are identical, making the retention of the audio unnecessary if the video is retained. 

However, video recordings were not made until 2000, so for 1996–1999 the audio recordings are the only oral record of the court proceedings. Pre-2000 audio recordings of all 

proceedings, including private sessions, closed sessions, and ex-parte hearings, should be 

retained, while the audio recordings from 2000 onward can be destroyed when no longer 

needed for the ICTR’s own use.

Like the ICTY video records, the ICTY audio recordings present a significantly different 

problem from those in Sierra Leone and the ICTR, primarily because the Yugoslavia tribunal routinely uses more languages (always three, sometimes four). From its first session, 

all ICTY proceedings have been audio recorded in all interpreted languages, plus an audio 

recording of the “floor” language. (The participants in the multilingual courtroom hear the 

proceedings in their tongue from a participant using that language and from the voice of 

the translator for all other speech.) As of May 2005, the audio recordings in ICTY consisted 

of nearly 22,000 cassettes and 7,500 CDs. Recording on cassette was discontinued by mid2004; currently two CDs are used to record the floor and interpretation channels.

The question is what part of this 

mass of ICTY video must be retained.

In the Sierra Leone court, audio 

recordings exist both as unredacted 

(complete) and public-use versions.

From its first session, all ICTY proceedings have been audio recorded in all 

interpreted languages, plus an audio 

recording of the “floor” language. 
15

In some trials, controversies have arisen over the translation of parts of the testimony; 

the only way to examine such issues would be to compare the participant’s spoken word 

with the translator’s spoken word. Once all such controversies have been resolved, then 

the question is whether it is necessary to keep each translation for future research use. 

While it is true that audio conveys voice inflection the way nothing else can, audio recordings are usually the least used format in an archives: the transcript of an audio recording 

is almost always preferred to the audio, and mixed audio and video is usually preferred 

to audio alone. 

Deciding how many sound recordings to retain depends to some extent on the content 

and quality. Between 1994 and 2000, both the complete and the public-use versions 

of the videotape carried only the sound of the floor language and, in some cases, the 

English interpretation. This means that prior to 2001, the audiotapes are the only source 

for all interpreted languages. Since 2000, four languages are on the complete video edit 

tape (permanent, as noted above) and all are edited and distributed with the public-use 

video edit backup. However, because the video has only four sound tracks, if the court is 

operating in four languages, the floor language is not recorded in favor of picking up the 

fourth translation. That leaves the CD recording of the floor language as the only record 

of the actual speech. 

The ICTY should obtain the advice of an audio specialist to determine whether the quality of the sound from the floor on the videotape is equal to the quality of the sound on 

the audio recordings. If it is, then the audio recordings from 2001 on need to be retained 

only if a videotape of the session is unavailable, defective, or lacking the floor language. 

If the audio recording is of better quality than the video, then it needs to be retained. 

In addition to sound quality, another factor in deciding what audio to save is whether 

a transcript exists. Transcripts of both English and French translations are always made and 

are permanently retained in both paper and electronic formats. Occasionally transcripts in 

another court language are made and, if made, these transcripts are also permanent. No 

translation is made of the words actually spoken in the mix of languages. Consequently, 

the unique value of the audio recording is to provide the spoken word. The ICTY should 

retain the “floor” audio recordings of all proceedings and all audio of the first (Tadic) trial 

and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. As with the videotape, if Radovan Karadic and Ratko 

Mladic are eventually tried, archivists should decide whether all the audiotape should be 

saved. All other recordings can be destroyed when the ICTY no longer needs them for 

reference.

Electronic Document Management Systems

The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals have electronic document management systems maintained by the registry staff. These are central 

resources for any research in court records and should be retained. 

Unlike the standard commercial databases used by the Rwanda and Sierra Leone courts, 

the Yugoslavia tribunal’s Judicial Database (JDB) was built within the ICTY and has 

components that go far beyond a standard document management system. The ICTY has 

demonstrated that the document storage in the JDB could be downloaded to and managed 

by the document management system used by the UN archives in New York. However, in 

doing so, some of the major JDB functionalities would be lost, to the detriment of future 

users. In addition, a third of the contents of the JDB are currently restricted; the archives 

will have to manage extensive permissions for access and will have to review the JDB prior 

to public release of its contents. Finally, because it is a custom-built system, the longterm maintenance, migration, and preservation of the JDB could be costly as technologies 

evolve. The Yugoslavia tribunal should contract with an electronic archives specialist to do 

a complete review of the preservation options for the system. Unless the cost is prohibitive, the custom-built JDB with all its functionalities should be preserved.

In addition to sound quality, another 

factor in deciding what audio to save 

is whether a transcript exists.
16

Prosecutors’ offices may use electronic document management systems that they manage separately from the system managed by the registry. In addition, other offices, such 

as field offices, may use separate electronic document management systems. Alternatively, 

these offices may not use a formal electronic document management system, but simply 

store documents, including e-mail, electronically in standard software. The archivists will 

need to appraise these electronic storage systems and determine which of them should 

be retained in whole or in part. 

Evidence

The temporary international criminal courts hold evidence in many physical formats. While 

the evidence introduced in court would be permanent, as discussed above, much additional evidence is in the records of the office of the prosecutor. Prosecutors use electronic 

records systems to track evidence, and they may also maintain databases of the evidence 

itself. Each of these must be considered for retention.

Electronic Evidence Systems 

All electronic records systems that are proprietary to a prosecutor’s office should be 

retained; for example, databases of evidence, digital copies of evidence, indexes of witness 

statements, and indexes of documents obtained under a confidentiality agreement. 

Documentary Evidence

In the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, documentary evidence such as paper and photographs is scanned and preserved electronically. For evidentiary purposes, including 

potential future court use, the original materials should be retained even if the items 

have been scanned. 

Two special issues concern the original documents obtained from governments and 

items obtained under confidentiality provisions. After all trials are completed, if the 

originating government does not require return of the original documents, the archives 

should retain them. If, however, the governments demand the return of the documents 

and the court agrees, the archives should make official copies of the documents, place 

them in the records at the point where the originals are filed, and return the originals 

to the government of origin. The records covered by the confidentiality provisions are 

probably copies, not originals, and the agreements with originating institutions control 

any further disposition. Unless those agreements dictate otherwise, the archives should 

retain the copies. 

Artifacts and Scale Models 

Archives sometimes retain the objects (including scale models) that are used as exhibits in important cases, especially if the objects have value for educational and exhibit 

purposes. Scale models, for instance, are particularly good tools for explaining what happened at a site. 

The archives should retain custody of the artifacts from ICTY, ICTR, and, if agreed to by 

the parties, SCSL. Heirs could request that any artifact specifically linked to an individual 

be given to them, and a judge could order the donation. A photograph of the item could 

be added to the evidence database to document the item, and the evidence database 

annotated to show the donation. All remaining artifacts would be available for loan to 

institutions for exhibitions over extended periods consistent with preservation of the 

item, with UN control over the interpretation of the item within the exhibition. Artifacts 

would also be available for use in any future trials. An international judicial archives might 

even have an exhibition area and an educational program where some of the artifacts 

might be used. Priority should be given, however, to provision of these items on a longThe temporary international 

criminal courts hold evidence in 

many physical formats.

In the Yugoslavia and Rwanda 

tribunals, documentary evidence 

such as paper and photographs is 

scanned and preserved 

electronically.

Heirs could request that any artifact 

specifically linked to an individual 

be given to them, and a judge could 

order the donation. 
17

term basis for educational and historical exhibit purposes within the states and regions 

where the events occurred.

Access to Court Records

An access policy for the records of a temporary international criminal court must balance the public’s right to know about activity by the court with individuals’ (including 

defendants, victims, witnesses, and court personnel) rights to protect information about 

themselves from potentially harmful public disclosure. Such a policy must state, for 

the information of the public and for use by the archivists, what information might be 

restricted in what circumstances. The fact that about a third of the ICTY’s judicial database, for example, is currently considered confidential indicates the complexity and scale 

of the access issues that must be resolved.

The records of the three parts of a court present different access issues. The access 

issues for the records of the courts per se principally concern the records of closed proceedings; there may also be questions about access to records that were created and 

maintained in judges’ offices. The investigative and prosecutorial records from the office 

of the prosecutor pose numerous difficult access issues, such as concerns that release of 

records would interfere with current or future prosecutions, invade the privacy of living 

persons, endanger the physical safety of individuals, or violate confidentiality agreements 

with sources. The registrar’s office records raise the issues of privacy regarding victims, 

witnesses, and detainees in detention centers. The registrar also has the records of the 

court personnel, the defense counsel, and any disciplinary actions, which likewise raise 

privacy concerns.

The conditions of public access to records in the custody of the UN archives are outlined in the 1984 instruction as noted above on page 5:

For the restricted records, the administrative instruction provides that the secretarygeneral “or his authorized representatives” may at any time open the records they have 

restricted. However, all restricted records classified as “confidential” or “secret” (that is, 

lower-level classifications) are “automatically” declassified when twenty years old, and 

records classified as “strictly confidential” or “top secret” are reviewed for declassification 

when twenty years old. If the latter records are not approved for declassification when 

twenty years old, they are to “be reviewed by the Archives for possible declassification 

every 5 years thereafter.”

These regulations are not appropriate for the records of the temporary criminal tribunals, given their nature. Before a court closes, it must take a number of steps to ensure 

access:

1. Designate a successor to the prosecutor who will determine whether requests by 

national or international prosecutors or defense attorneys for access to records will 

be granted.

2. Establish the standard of privacy that the archives should use to review records for 

possible public release.

3. Establish a process to unseal records and a body to handle petitions for unsealing.

4. Declare that any court-created documents with security markings are to be considered 

unclassified and may be reviewed for possible release as any other record.

After the records are in archival custody, a team of archivists and attorneys will need 

to take additional steps:

Members of the public may have access to (i) archives and records that were accessible at the 

time of their creation, (ii) those which are more than 20 years old and not subject to restrictions imposed by the Secretary-General, and (iii) those which are less than 20 years old and not 

subject to restrictions imposed by the Secretary-General, on condition that the originating office 

has given written consent for access.

The registrar’s office records 

raise the issues of privacy 

regarding victims, witnesses, 

and detainees in detention 

centers. 
18

1. Adopt and publish an access policy. It should include rights for victims or witnesses 

to see their files and for former employees of the court to see records that they originated, reviewed, signed, or received while employed by the court.

2. Establish an appeal route for the public to contest denials of access and a separate appeal process for attorneys who are denied access to records requested for 

litigation.

3. Establish guidelines for the types of records to be accessible and not accessible to a 

person convicted by the court.

4. Establish rules for notification when the archives proposes to release (a) classified records of governments and (b) documents provided under nondisclosure 

agreements.

Access through Duplication and Description

If the archives are to be located away from the current sites of the tribunals and the 

sites of the crimes, copies of publicly available records should be made and deposited in 

multiple institutions in the countries involved. Making copies is not inexpensive, but it is 

far less costly than operating permanent archives in multiple locations. 

One important benefit to the institutions holding copies is that copies can be used 

without worrying about their preservation; if a copy item is damaged or destroyed, it can 

always be replaced from the originals preserved in the archives. Copies free the recipient 

institutions from the preservation expenses of holding originals. Copies of unrestricted 

records can be made available to all users without worrying about security or needing 

to screen records before making them available. Liberally placing copies also avoids the 

problem of choosing which of the countries in a region will house the archives. The ICTR 

already has explored the possibility of depositing public records of the tribunal with outside institutions, and three Balkan NGOs have a project to copy the public-use videotapes 

of the ICTY for their communities.

Because the courts already have made so many records public, including the publicuse versions of court proceedings, many research needs can be met with existing copies. 

Depositing copies of the videotapes and the Web site from the Rwanda tribunal and from 

the Special Court for Sierra Leone in one or more institutions in Africa, for example, would 

allow access to local users, including journalists, community groups, and scholars, providing communities with important research resources. Keeping the information that is now 

available on the Web sites of those three courts alive on some public electronic system 

will permit important quantities of information to be used anywhere in the world, which 

will particularly benefit academic users. And if a legal publisher would systematically 

publish opinions from international tribunals and hybrid courts, that form of duplication 

would satisfy yet another group of users. 

However, the deposit of duplicates will not satisfy people who need access to information that is currently closed, such as for claims or for further litigation, or scholars looking in depth at legal practices or historical developments. Those persons will still require 

access to the original records.

The delivery of original records to these users can take many forms. When requesters 

wish to see a specific file, an archives will usually make the copy and send it to them. 

Copies can be made in paper and sent through any of the secure delivery services; alternatively, copies can be sent electronically, either to the individual or his designee or, if that 

is not a secure transmission, to a UN office in the country where the requester lives. Many 

options are available that do not require visiting the archives to see a limited number of 

items from a specified body of records. However, researchers, particularly academics, who 

want to do systematic research through a large body of records will still need to visit the 

archives. Some archives provide travel grants to help defray expenses for research visits. 

The archives for the international courts could explore with donors the possibility of 

establishing a travel grant competition program.

Making copies is not inexpensive, but 

it is far less costly than operating permanent archives in multiple locations.

Many options are available that do 

not require visiting the archives to 

see a limited number of items from 

a specified body of records.
19

Describing the records is a fundamental part of the access process. The better the 

description, the easier it is for users at a distance to specify what records they wish to see 

and to order copies. Description also provides assurance to people who may not have any 

immediate need to see the records but who want to know where the records are and that 

they are safe. The archives for the temporary international criminal courts needs a solid 

description program that will make information about the records available to all. 

A program to duplicate publicly available records and deposit copies in institutions in 

the countries affected is an essential component of the creation of a single international 

judicial archives. It should be accompanied by a sustained description effort, making the 

information about the holdings available to all and enabling the public to order copies of 

records they wish to see.

Conclusion

The East Timor Special Panels and the Serious Crimes Unit have closed; the Special 

Court for Sierra Leone is to close in mid-2007; final status talks on Kosovo are underway; 

and ICTR and ICTY have fixed closures in 2010. Given how long it takes to prepare appropriate archival facilities for storing sensitive records, now is the time to determine what 

will happen to the records of these bodies. 

Operating a judicial archives is a serious business. It is the inevitable outcome of the 

historic establishment of UN war crimes tribunals. As organizations operate, they create 

records. Historically important organizations create records of historic significance. The 

international community has no choice: the records of the temporary international criminal courts must be preserved and protected and made available. The point of saving the 

records is to permit them to be used—used today for their primary purposes, used tomorrow for a range of research that we cannot even imagine. The goal is clear. As former ICTY 

prosecutor Louise Arbour wrote, “If we exploit the full potential of criminal trials for war 

crimes, we should do so in part to punish, in part to deter, but, most importantly, to try 

to understand.” Archives—the permanently valuable records of the international judicial 

process—make that understanding possible.

Recommendations

The United Nations and the temporary courts should initiate several programs in the 

short term to lay the foundation for a central judicial archives to preserve the courts’ 

records, conserve resources, and provide access to researchers and the general public. 

• Role of the United Nations: The United Nations should establish a single international judicial archives for the permanently valuable records (paper files, audio and 

video recordings, electronic records, and objects) of the temporary tribunals, including the ICTY, the ICTR, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the UN copies from the 

Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit in Timor Leste. 

• Role of the United States and other governments: Governments such as the United 

States that played a central role in creating and funding the temporary courts, and 

governments whose citizens have the primary stake in the courts’ work, should 

actively encourage and support a UN effort to properly preserve and make available 

for use the records of the temporary courts.

• Location: The United Nations should discuss with the city of The Hague, the government of The Netherlands, and the Dutch Carnegie Foundation the possibility of 

locating an international judicial archives in The Hague. The United Nations should 

also begin to canvas international donors, both governments and nongovernmental 

institutions, to evaluate the level of resources that might be available for construction and, critically, continued staffing and maintenance of the archival program. 

Given how long it takes to prepare 

appropriate archival facilities for 

storing sensitive records, now is the 

time to determine what will happen 

to the records of these bodies.
• Duplication program: Meanwhile, the United Nations should plan a program of 

copying and describing that will meet research needs in the countries affected. This 

program can begin immediately and would provide an opportunity for the United 

Nations to work cooperatively with institutions in the regions. 

• Personal papers: The courts should adopt clear guidelines to differentiate between 

institutional court records and personal papers that judges and staff members may 

take upon leaving the court or its closure. The UN archives should be given the 

authority to solicit personal papers and other relevant materials from the private sector. 

• Record destruction and public notice: Some records of the courts are permanently 

valuable and some, primarily housekeeping records, can be destroyed. Ample public 

notice should be provided of all records proposed for destruction to allow the public 

to comment on the proposals.

• Access policy: The ICTY, ICTR, and SCSL must establish basic access rules for their 

records before closing; they should make every attempt to harmonize their access 

provisions. The access policy must balance the public’s right to know about the courts’ 

activities and the right of defendants, victims, witnesses, and court personnel to 

protect information about themselves from potentially harmful public disclosure. 

• Artifacts for use in exhibits: The objects and artifacts maintained by a tribunal, if 

not returned to a family, should be retained by the archives and made available for 

loan to institutions for exhibits and educational programs.

Of Related Interest

•	 Truth Commissions Digital Collection, Margarita S. Studemeister Digital Library in 

International Conflict Management, www.usip.org/library/diglib.html.

•	 Rethinking Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Lessons from Sierra Leone, by Rosalind Shaw (Special Report, February 2005).

•	 Morocco: Betting on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, by Pierre Hazan (Special 

Report, July 2006).

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.