LAW Video shown during the opening statement, ICC v. Lubanga 4: Video’s Role in the APPEAL In May of 2014, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber heard Lubanga’s case. An overarching focus of the two-day hearing was whether the first judges to hear the case — the trial judges — could reasonably conclude that the children in the video excerpts were under the age of 15 . Lubanga argued that the trial judges could not rely on the video excerpts showing the physical appearance of soldiers to conclude — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the persons seen in the video excerpts were under the age of 15 years. The prosecution stressed that trial judges have the ability — and duty — to evaluate the strength of the videos and reach reasonable conclusions as to the age of the persons depicted. The prosecution also emphasized that the trial judges were very cautious and conservative in their consideration of the video evidence. Specifically, the trial judges stated on the record that there are indeed limitations to determining age on the basis of physical appearance as seen in video excerpts. And indeed, the trial judges were not convinced that all the individuals said to be unde 15 years old were, in fact, under 15. In light of this limitation, the judges were cautious and allowed for a wide margin of error when reviewing the videos and reaching conclusions about age based on appearance. In the end, they were convinced that certain individuals depicted in the body of video evidence were “clearly” under the age of 15 years. The Appeals Court concluded, among other findings, that the trial judges were “fully entitled to evaluate the videos and reach a reasonable conclusion as to the age of the person depicted on them.” The result: On December 1, 2014, Lubanga’s conviction was upheld. 26 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: STAGES & STANDARDS OF PROOF V 1.0