I'm not sure if this discovery will ever amount to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof of a cover-up, especially in an internationally accepted judicial setting, but I do wonder if, in general, there needs to be a legal principle that hiding evidence of something has to be punished as harshly as the worst plausible crime that the evidence could be hiding.<p>Such a principle would, admittedly, lead to many defendants being punished for crimes they didn't actually commit (i.e. they were only covering up lesser crimes), but without such a principle, a guilty person will always face a rational choice of covering up their crime and risking only an additional "destruction of evidence" charge (for example), as opposed to being caught for the actual crime and incurring the (presumably harsher) punishment for that.<p>For such a principle to pass the smell test, though, it should first and foremost apply to government record laws, covering everything from politician's official emails to police body-cam footage. A society which elects politicians willing to be held to that standard can be assumed to be mature enough to have this principle applied to other criminals.