A New Model of International Criminal Procedure?: The Progress of the Duch Trial at the ECCC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the trial procedure at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), particularly its civil law orientation and its novel aspects when compared to the relatively consistent procedural approach adopted by the ad hoc Tribunals and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Several months into the first ECCC trial, many of the procedural innovations, which attracted the attention of commentators, are now being put into practice. Moreover, as the original end-date for the trial has come and gone, despite the numerous admissions of the accused, the Chamber has developed procedural restrictions in an attempt to speed up the trial proceedings. Although a definitive assessment of the ECCC's procedural approach will only become possible at the end of this first trial, a mid-term review is warranted. This is particularly so in light of the evolution of the role of civil parties in the proceedings, given that the participation of victims in international criminal proceedings remains in its early stages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".