Controversial tactics that have come into use by the Israeli government through its acquisition of evidence from battlefields in Gaza and the utilization of such evidence to prosecute Palestinian activists in European courts have been brought to the fore since June 16, 2026. The tactic that has sparked legal arguments within Europe over issues of evidence credibility, right to a fair trial, and the process of international criminal justice is that of prosecuting Palestinian activists in Europe for supporting Hamas based on evidence claimed to have been acquired in Gaza.
The prosecution technique can be considered as an innovation in using military intelligence for international litigation. Instead of relying on conventional mechanisms of sharing diplomatic information, the Israeli government uses documents with the designation “AVI” as
“authentic and accurate reproductions of the original battlefield materials.”
The use of such materials does not entail the customary procedure of checking that the European justice system imposes upon criminal evidence.
The AVI Evidence System and Confidential Intelligence Sources
The method of evidence transmission is accomplished via an avenue that has been strongly criticized by legal scholars. Documents are labeled as “AVI,” and are sent to their destination through the services of a confidential Israeli intelligence operative referred to simply as “AVI,” and whose personal information is entirely private. The anonymity of AVI ensures that European investigators cannot authenticate the evidence trail.
The legal framework used for transferring such evidence is referred to as “spontaneous information” in art. 11 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Although informal communication of evidence is permitted under this provision, it generally presupposes that there is some way to confirm the reliability of the sources as well as of the information. In this case, confidentiality makes it impossible.
Legal scholars point out that the AVI system creates an impossible situation for defense attorneys.
“You can’t sell Bakr Haffi’s case to anyone when the evidence is secret and the source is unknown,”
referring to historical cases where Palestinians were jailed on secret charges based on evidence they never saw. The same pattern now appears in European courts, where Palestinian defendants cannot verify or refute materials that determine their freedom.
Italian Court Sets Precedent by Rejecting Battlefield Evidence
A criminal court in Italy on January 31, 2026 made a groundbreaking ruling which has the effect of undermining the evidential approach that Israel uses to make its case. The court rejected the so-called battlefield evidence submitted by Israel in a case involving Palestinians in Italy accused of terrorist financing.
The Court in Italy was not convinced by the efforts of Israel to establish the authenticity of the documents on the basis of a formal certification using letterhead from a confidential informant working in the Israeli intelligence agency. The court was of the view that the evidence presented by the prosecutors was not verifiable because the source could not be identified, nor could the documents be verified in a conventional manner.
This ruling represents a significant legal stance against using unverified battlefield evidence from Israel in foreign prosecutions. The decision signals that European courts may not accept evidence transmitted through confidential channels without proper authentication and source disclosure. Legal experts predict this precedent will influence similar cases across Italy, France, Germany, and other European jurisdictions where Palestinian activists face terrorism-related charges.
Due Process Concerns Fuel Human Rights Criticism
The strategy adopted by the prosecutors is causing deep fears regarding the basic principles of due process. The use of such evidence collected during military operations on the battlefield goes against the basic tenets of fair trial rights that are internationally recognized under various conventions for human rights in Europe. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives the right to a fair trial.
The ambiguity surrounding evidence authenticity creates an impossible burden for defense attorneys.
“The accused cannot verify or refute secret evidence, and the public—and the accused—will never know what crimes they’re actually charged with,”
echoing concerns from decades of similar cases in Israeli military courts.
Such a move is reminiscent of criticism levelled against Israel’s internal military judicial processes, which have seen Palestinians imprisoned without ever being allowed access to the evidence against them. Human rights groups argue that even while prosecuting terrorist acts, there must be some minimum guarantee of fairness involved. Intelligence sources and field evidence are not transparent enough to constitute valid criminal trials. It is impossible for defense lawyers to function when sources are anonymous and chains of custody unclear.
European Legal Systems Face Unprecedented Evidence Challenge
The issue currently facing European courts is one they have never encountered before: how to deal with evidence that comes through classified military intelligence channels that do not follow normal procedures. This puts at odds both international cooperation on terrorism Prosecutions and the basic need for justice in criminal procedures. The evidence was submitted to Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands by Israel.
Usually, according to the legal procedure for the exchange of evidentiary material between two or more states, it is expected that these documents be authenticated by diplomatic means with clear sources of origin. On the other hand, the Israeli procedure does not adhere to this process at all; the documents are transmitted via intelligence officers who cannot be identified.
Legal experts warn that accepting such evidence could set dangerous precedents for international criminal justice.
“A democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back,”
but that principle cannot justify using unverifiable secret evidence that denies defendants their right to fair trial. The Italian court’s rejection of battlefield evidence demonstrates that European judges recognize this fundamental tension between security cooperation and judicial fairness.
Parallel Pattern from Israeli Military Court System
Similar to the issue of battlefield evidence in European court systems, there are many parallels with the criticism of the domestic military justice system of Israel. For more than a decade, Palestinian detainees who appear before the Israeli military justice system have been detained through unknown and hidden charges and evidence that has never been seen by the detainee and therefore not refuted. This is a historical trend for the Israeli army when using administrative actions against Palestinians.
This parallel raises questions about whether Israel is attempting to export its domestic military justice practices to European civilian courts. The same confidentiality requirements, anonymous sources, and unverified evidence that characterize Israeli military proceedings now appear in European terrorism cases. Legal experts argue this represents an attempt to circumvent the higher evidentiary standards required in civilian criminal justice systems.
The historical pattern demonstrates that secret evidence practices have long troubled Palestinian rights advocates.
“Instead of presenting evidence, the Israeli army uses administrative measures against Palestinians such as deportation or breaking up families, based on evidence that never sees the light of day,”
according to Sari Bashi’s analysis of Israeli military court practices. The European prosecutions appear to follow this same problematic pattern.
Statistics Reveal Broader Impunity Pattern
Though exact figures regarding how many of these prosecutions relied upon battlefield materials are unknown, there are disturbing figures concerning accountability in the Israeli military. The conflict-monitoring organization Action on Armed Violence notes that Israel shuts down or fails to investigate 88% of all reported war crimes or abuses. This statistic implies that Israel is attempting to establish a “pattern of impunity” with regard to its actions in the military.
Given the high percentage of cases that are either shut down or are left unanswered, there appear to be issues surrounding accountability in the Israeli military. With regards to battlefield materials being admissible, the high number of cases that are not investigated or closed without any action may make it difficult to authenticate their validity.
Additionally, at least 12 complaints have been filed against Israeli personnel abroad in Belgium, Netherlands, France, South Africa, and Brazil—though these represent the reverse direction of prosecution. An Israeli reservist fled Brazil after being accused of war crimes in Gaza by a pro-Palestinian group, highlighting the use of universal jurisdiction for prosecuting egregious crimes. Israel condemned this move and tightened its military’s social media restrictions, suggesting concerns about evidence transparency and accountability.
Terrorism Prosecutions Must Maintain Fair Trial Standards
Legal scholars argue that in terrorism cases, despite all the issues involved, there is the need for a basic standard of fairness. The reliance on battlefield information delivered via secret channels violates the requirement of transparency associated with a genuine process. There is a need for European courts to weigh between security cooperation with Israel and fair trial rights.
The Italian court’s precedent provides crucial guidance for other European jurisdictions. By rejecting unverifiable battlefield evidence, the court demonstrated that security concerns cannot justify abandoning fundamental judicial fairness principles. This decision may influence similar cases across Europe, potentially limiting Israel’s ability to use battlefield evidence in foreign prosecutions.
Future Implications for International Criminal Justice
Israel’s use of battlefield evidence in its war against terrorism is likely to lead to a transformation of how the transfer of information takes place between states involved in such conflicts. Given the European courts’ consistent refusal of unconfirmed intelligence reports, Israel would be forced to adopt alternative methods that can adhere to the fair trial principles within the international community. These may include exposing sources of intelligence and independent verification of evidence by third parties.
Furthermore, the legal decision leaves the question whether other governments will try similar tactics when dealing with civilian courts within the international community. Such a boundary prevents the exchange of unverified military intelligence to other countries’ civilian tribunals.
The coming months will likely see additional European court decisions on battlefield evidence challenges. Each ruling will either reinforce or weaken the precedent set by Italy’s January 2026 decision. These decisions will determine whether Israel’s strategy survives legal challenge or whether European courts establish firm boundaries against unverifiable secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.