(Pic from ...in Deep Thots... . Emphasis made)
I know that ICJ’s decision is final but after reading the blog entry of “...in Deep Thots...” here, on hindsight I’m beginning to wonder myself.
Looking at the above letter, apart from the arguable content of the same and the context on which it was written, I wonder whether objections were properly made pertaining to the admissibility of the said letter as evidence. This is a very old letter. To admit this archaic letter as evidence is not that simple. The authenticity of the said documentary evidence must be proven. The party adducing the evidence must also be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder, among other things. Was the evidence properly tendered to the court?
To admit documentary evidence in court, as a general rule, the maker of the evidence must be called. Obviously, the maker (the writer of the letter) is no longer with us. As I said, the general rule in order to admit evidences in court, the maker must be called. In his absence, certain rules of evidence needed to be adhere to before the court can rule safely on the admission of the same. There are exceptions to the general rule but let's not dwell on this for now. If we do, this blog entry is going to be full of legal jargons and you would stop reading right about... now!
To keep matter short, permit me to say few more words on this. From my own experience in conducting trials, the Malaysian legal team would have vehemently objected to the admission of the letter and must have, for all intents and purposes, argued furiously to discredit the letter. Or have they really? For all Malaysian and their own sake, they must. They should have.
Then again, decision has been made and it is final. As our PM said, let us all accept decision with an open heart. It's a win-win decision he said. Sigh.