Happy Nice Mall

Aeden spends his time finding evidence of civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. It will take a photo or video from the internet assigned to it and is tasked with using tools like aerial satellite imagery and street view in Google Maps to verify the location. Once Aeden and a fellow volunteer agree on a location (Aeden says having someone else help to verify the evidence is helpful for avoiding tunnel vision), a Bellingcat researcher independently verifies the information. Then the cycle starts over.

It’s an impressive effort, but the sheer number and diversity of efforts is a challenge, says Lindsay Freeman, director of law and policy at the Center for Human Rights at the University of California, Berkeley. Despite their good intentions, some may fall far behind the burden of proof required to prosecute war crimes.

ANASTANYA VLASOVA/GETTY IMAGES

Remarkably, until recently, there was not a single document or group that laid down the rules on how to properly collect, archive and present data from conflict zones for possible war crimes prosecution. This is a problem that reflects the expansion of international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and a number of human rights and aid organizations with varying powers and jurisdictions, and it works for war criminals who know they can never truly be. face justice.

Freeman in 2020 Berkeley Protocolan effort to codify the ethical use of open source intelligence. Supported by the United Nations, the protocol offers a rulebook on how to handle and file digital data. Most of the document was informed by Syria, Freeman says, and the different formats make data collection a very difficult task there.

The protocol is the first step towards building a system for streaming data from Ukraine, but Freeman admits it’s not enough. While many aid groups have adopted the Protocol, others are set in their own way and have their own internal systems for filing information.

Freeman says the Berkeley Protocol “doesn’t really address crowdsourcing,” which is a big factor not only in the war in Ukraine, but also in other conflicts over the years. Increasing citizens’ access to technology and social media means it has never been easier to get information from those affected directly to those in power, but the Protocol avoids the question of how to properly document this information.

One reason, Freeman says, is that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is picky about what kind of evidence it allows, often preferring official sources such as time-stamped closed-circuit televisions to shaky, pixelated camera phone footage.

What the Berkeley Protocol demonstrates is the conflict between what the International Criminal Court considers admissible evidence and crowdsourced efforts to collect that evidence. While the protocol represents a major first step towards building a stronger case against war criminals, it also represents an acknowledgment that the ICC has sadly lagged behind in how people use technology, both as victims of war and outsiders. The ICC did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

None of this stops Aeden from continuing his efforts. “I sometimes worry that the impact of this work may be too late for the victims of this conflict, but I believe that retroactive justice is still far better than nothing,” she says.