What is the impact of a foreign state's prosecution and defence of its prosecution against an accused in an international criminal case?

The Court went on to consider the prospect of committal being based on unreliable evidence or evidence that would not be admissible under Canadian law. Rosenberg J.A. commented at paras. 51-53: On the argument of this appeal, much was made of the disturbing spectre of a fugitive being committed for surrender based upon fifth-hand hearsay, non- expert opinion and prejudicial character evidence. For example, in Ebke, the record of the case from the Federal Republic of Germany is described as containing "hearsay, character evidence, unqualified opinion evidence, and other forms of evidence that would not ordinarily be admissible in domestic Canadian criminal proceedings" (at para. 13). This is disturbing only when viewed through the lens of the Canadian system and its paradigm of the jury trial. If such evidence is admissible in our extradition partners it is because their experience is that this kind of evidence can be weighed by the judicial official and will be accorded the weight it deserves. It is not for this country to assume that it alone knows how to arrive at a true verdict. It seems to me that much of the concern about the reliability of evidence from civilian states is based upon a lack of understanding of that system and a tendency to isolate certain parts of the process, such as admission of hearsay, without an appreciation that [page250] there are other safeguards in the system that protect the accused from wrongful conviction. Thus, although all manner of information goes into the dossier that is presented to the court, usually that evidence is gathered under the supervision of a legal officer, either a prosecutor or a magistrate. At all phases of the investigation and trial an expert judge has wide powers to seek out additional evidence, for example from court-appointed neutral experts, and control the investigatory process. Most telling against the appellant's submission are the remarks of La Forest J. for the majority of the court in Republic of Argentina v. Mellino (1987), 1987 CanLII 49 (SCC), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 334 at 351, 40 D.L.R. (4th) 74 (S.C.C.), that he saw "nothing offensive to fundamental justice in surrendering in accordance with our extradition procedures an accused to a foreign country for trial in accordance with its traditional judicial processes for a crime alleged to have been committed there". And, as he said at p. 353, our courts "must assume that he will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried here". The effect of the impugned provisions is simply to permit the extradition partner to rely upon the same type of evidence that it could use to try the accused in that country. The certification requirement ensures that a high official has certified that this is what will happen