在世界各大法系、国际刑事诉讼法和国内法中，有关证据相关性、证明价值、可靠性、不利影响等参数的评估方法不尽相同。在法官基于“自由心证”对证据可采性享有近乎绝对裁量权情形下，国际刑事法院法官遵守规约法律框架作出的具体裁定往往存在一些实践上的倾向性，对证据认定采用“木桶原则”和“平衡盖然律”的态度，但同时，部分证据规则在实践上依然存在一些空白。由于国际刑事诉讼证据方面的规则主要基于判例法，笔者采用判例研究方式，选取国际刑事法院三十一个案例中的部分代表性先例进行个案研究，总结出共同规律，探究国际刑事法院预审分庭在证据方面的实际衡量标准及方法，希望能对解决上述问题并为证据法发展提供一些参考。

In the international criminal procedure law, the major legal systems of the world and domestic law, the evaluation methods of the parameters of evidence such as relevance, probative value, reliability, prejudicial effects and admissibility have not been unified. Under the circumstance that judges enjoy almost absolute discretion on this issue based on "free-evaluation power", the judges of the International Criminal Court often have some practical tendency to make determinations on the admissibility of evidence while complying with the legal framework of the statute. They adopt the attitude of "barrel principle" and "balanced cover law" for the identification of evidence, while at the same time, there are still some gaps in practice in some rules of evidence. Since the rules of evidence in international criminal proceedings are mainly based on case law, the author adopts the case study method to select some representative precedents in 31 cases of the International Criminal Court for case study, summarizes the common rules, and explores the actual means of evaluation standards and methods of the pre-trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court in terms of evidence. Hope to solve the above problems and provide some reference for the development of evidence law.