Ethical principles are the foundational benchmarks for evaluating a collection effort’s activities.
If audio data is used as evidence in criminal proceedings, the nature of the data as well as the methodology by which it was collected will be scrutinised. Collection efforts that are conducted ethically are more likely to withstand challenges. Moreover, Collectors that are known to operate unethically or without integrity may experience challenges in establishing relationships with accountability mechanisms.
Therefore, the collection effort should be undertaken in accordance with the following ethical principles:
-
Do No Harm: Collection activities should be designed and carried out in a manner that takes every necessary effort to avoid and refrain from causing harm, including harm towards the integrity of the data collected, personnel involved in the collection effort, data subjects, local or otherwise affected communities, or any current or future investigation or prosecutorial efforts.
-
Legal awareness: The work of collecting audio data does not take place in a legal vacuum. Yet, in a conflict context, it is not uncommon for the applicable local law to be unclear or ambiguous. The Collector should familiarise themselves with all domestic, regional, and international law applicable to their collection effort and assess the risk of incurring liability under these legal frameworks. The Collector should seek advice from a qualified legal professional wherever needed. Any collection activities that are directed from, or in some way touch upon, EU jurisdiction should also seek out specialised GDPR advice.
-
Accountability: Transparency in the methods and results of a data collection effort makes these efforts more accountable. This is achieved by maintaining an audit trail, such that the steps may be reproduced to achieve the same outcome. Personnel involved in collection efforts should be aware that they may be called upon to make a sworn written or testimonial statement about this process. The nature of the statement will differ depending on the form and substance of the evidence, the accountability mechanism in which the statement is sought, and the role of the personnel involved. For example, an analyst may be asked about how the data was filtered and organised, what knowledge has been derived from the data, and how that analysis was made; a technical expert or investigator may be asked about the tools used in the collection process and the steps taken to secure the data’s chain of custody.
-
Competency: The Collector should possess or have access to the appropriate resources, equipment, and expertise necessary to carry out the collection effort. If a Collector does not have the capacity to effectively and securely collect and store the expected data, it should consider carefully whether or not proceed with the collection effort. All personnel assigned to a task should possess the necessary skills, and/or adequate supervision, for the work they are undertaking.
-
Accuracy, Impartiality, and Objectivity: The quality of the collection effort will depend on the extent to which it is demonstrably conducted in an accurate, impartial, and objective way. The collection effort should prioritise truthfulness, and any weaknesses in the data, including in the metadata, should be evaluated, documented, and mitigated/ameliorated to the extent possible. The Collector and its personnel should be cognisant of, and mitigate the impact of, the potential for personal, cultural, and structural biases to affect their work, for example in situations where a team consists predominantly or solely of nationals of one of the States involved in a conflict. Personnel should treat both potentially inculpatory and exculpatory information they have retained with equal care and consideration. Analysis of the audio data should refrain from exaggerated or overstated opinion or speculation about the potential use of the data in investigations or accountability processes.
-
Consent: Documented informed consent should be obtained from the people whose voices or other personal data are included in the audio data (‘data subjects’), where it is possible to do so. For example, if the Collector conducts an in-person audio interview with a witness to a crime, the Collector should obtain the witness’ written or recorded consent prior to recording the audio. If the audio was recorded by a third-party, the Collector should request the witness’ written or recorded consent from the third party.
Informed consent involves providing the data subject with clear and understandable information, including how the data will be used, whether any risk to the data subject could occur as a result of the audio data’s future use, any safeguards put in place by the Collector to minimise said risk, and how data subjects can revoke consent once granted. Informed consent may be forward-looking, allowing the data subject to consent to the data’s potential future use(s), for example as evidence in an ongoing or future criminal proceeding. In this respect, the Collector should consider any predictable accountability pathways and obtain the appropriate form of consent for those pathways.
The Collector should evaluate the possibility of obtaining consent on a case-by-case basis and document the evaluation and conclusion reached.
Obtaining informed consent may not be possible where the data subject is unavailable to provide consent or cannot be found. For example, it may not be possible to find or contact the data subjects of collected open-source audio. Obtaining consent may also not be possible where doing so would be detrimental to the collection effort. For example, if the collected audio data is military communication intercepted over a radio frequency, informing the data subject of the interception may pose a security risk to the collection effort.
In circumstances where consent can and has been obtained, prior to transfer of the data the Collector should consider whether it is necessary and feasible to (again) obtain informed consent from the data subject, particularly if there has been a change to the risk posed to the data subject since the consent was obtained. If obtaining consent is possible but it has been refused or withdrawn by the data subject, the refusal or withdrawal should be documented and the Collector should not use or transfer the data.
The above list reflects a minimum standard of ethics and is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of applicable ethical principles. Additional ethical principles may apply depending on the respective collection context.
Tech Specs & Resources
The ethical principles are drawn from the following guiding sources:
(i) Global Rights Compliance, Basic Investigative Standards for Documenting International Crimes in Ukraine (2023);
(ii) UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility in Humanitarian Action (2023);
(iii) OHCHR/UC Berkeley Human Rights Centre, Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open-source Investigations: A Practical Guide on the Effective Use of Digital Open-source Information in Investigating Violations of International Criminal, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2022) (‘OHCHR, Berkeley Protocol’);
(iv) ICC/Eurojust, Documenting International Crimes and Human Rights Violations for Accountability Purposes: Guidelines for Civil Society (2022);
(v) PILPG, Handbook on Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations: Principles and Best Practices (2016); and
(vi) The Folke Bernadotte Academy and The Swedish National Defence College, A Handbook on Assisting International Criminal Investigations (2011).Regarding the ways in which unethical conduct may affect a Collector’s relationship with accountability mechanisms, see e.g., the ICC Guidelines Governing the Relations between the Court and Intermediaries (2014), pages 7-9, which lists criteria for counsel or organs of the court to consider when screening a potential intermediary.
Resources on Accountability
Refer to BP 3 Technical Specifications + Resources.
Resources on Consent
For a draft Informed Consent form, see e.g., ICC/Eurojust Guidelines, Documenting International Crimes and Human Rights Violations for Accountability Purposes: Guidelines for Civil Society (2022), page 40 (Annex 1).
For a discussion of elements of informed consent in detail, as well as considerations for obtaining consent from open source data generators, see e.g., S. Dubberley and G. Ivens, Outlining a Human-Rights Based Approach to Digital Open Source Investigations: A Guide for Human Rights Organizations and Open Source Researchers (2022), pages 27-28.
For considerations for obtaining consent in the context of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence, see e.g., Institute for International Criminal Investigations, Global Code of Conduct for Gathering and Using Information About Systematic and Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (2020) (‘Murad Code’).
For guidance on applying the Murad Code to the context of online digital open-source information, see Open-Source Practitioner’s Guide to the Murad Code (2025) (Note: the linked resource is a pilot version and may be subject to change).
Also see e.g., A. Koenig, et al., Merging Responsibilities: Ethical Considerations for Securing Consent in Open-Source Investigations of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (2024), which provides a methodology to determine ‘whether consent is needed and from whom, who should seek that consent, how the consent should be secured, and when’, in the context of digital open source investigations that touch upon conflict-related sexual and gender based violence.
For practical steps that humanitarian organisations can implement to process the personal data in their possession in compliance with personal data protection principles and requirements, see e.g., ICRC, Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action (2024), which identifies five data protection principles: fairness and lawfulness of processing; purpose limitation; proportionality; data minimisation; and, data quality.
Legal Framework
See section 4.2.4.B. an outline of the GDPR’s scope.
See section 4.3. for the legal basis of treating inculpatory and exculpatory information equally.
See section 5.6. regarding the need for personnel to be aware that they may be called to testify about their work.