DEUT846 In addition to recognizing that the quality of justice depends on the qualities of those dispensing it, Judaism also offers the insight that justice does not exist in the abstract but is directly dependent upon the quality of evidence presented and the procedures used to present it. The Torah established that at least two witnesses were required for any conviction. (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). Because their word would prescribe the minimum burden of proof, the Rabbis established intricate laws to ensure the greatest possible reliability of those witnesses. Witnesses could not use hearsay; they had to be competent; they could not be informants; they were subject to vigorous cross-examination; the testimony could not be contradicted if it was to be the basis of judgment; affirmative efforts had to be made to solicit witnesses for the defense; and confessions in criminal cases were inadmissible. (For a summary of these rules, see M.T. Laws of Evidence generally, but especially chaps. 1-5, 17, and 22). Each of these rules reflects an important judgment about the type of procedure most likely to lead to a just verdict. The Torah itself sets forth layers of protection to guard against the corruption of witnesses and the courts (for example, Deuteronomy 16:18–20; 19:16-20). The Rabbis added even more (for a summary of such added layers of protection against a corrupt court, see M.T. Sanhedrin [Laws of Courts], chaps. 20, 21, and 24). Even in modern times, there are constant debate as to what kind of tribunals should be used for criminal cases. The recent debate over how international tribunals should operate, or whether military tribunals should be used to try alleged terrorists, raises the same fundamental questions. Judaism not only offers examples of procedures still used today, but more fundamentally it teaches that a verdict is only as legitimate as the procedures that are used. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"