Adequate documentation in the context of a collection effort refers to the creation and retention of a verifiable record of all activities undertaken throughout the collection effort. The documentation of the collection effort should serve as an audit trail, in that it should be thorough enough to allow for all steps to be tracked and for the final results to be repeated or reproduced.
Thoroughly documenting the methodology and execution of the collection, processing, and transfer of audio data is paramount for demonstrating the data’s authenticity, reliability, and chain of custody if tendered as evidence. The documentation of a collection effort is also used in criminal proceedings to scrutinise whether the collection effort was conducted in a manner that was legal, impartial, and otherwise ethical (or, if not, whether this has tainted the evidence and rendered its admission prejudicial or otherwise inadmissible). Thus, policies core to the collection effort, such as the Collection Plan, should be documented in writing and securely stored to prevent tampering or deletion/destruction (see BP 6).
All personnel who are involved in the collection effort must document their activities and observations.1 All documentation should be dated, and should indicate the author as well as any supervisors who sign-off on the documentation. Whether done digitally or manually, all documentation should be stored in an organised and structured manner (see BP 11).
Personnel should undertake to carry out two forms of documentation: 1) logging all collection, processing, and transfer activity into a data tracking system, whether manually or automated; and, 2) logging informal contemporaneous notes and recollections, sometimes referred to as a ‘mission diary’. These informal notes or mission diaries have been regarded by courts as contemporaneous written records of a collection effort and can be used to corroborate the formal logs of activity in the data tracking system. If the documentation cannot be made contemporaneously, then it should be made as soon as possible after the activity. In the event a member of personnel is called to deliver a sworn statement (whether written affidavit and/or oral testimony) about their role in the collection effort, a relevant mission diary can corroborate their statement and serve as an essential part of the evidentiary assessment of a particular audio recording.
A court may scrutinise not only the information that was documented, but also any perceived gap in documentation.
Personnel must at all times strive to document the collection effort in a manner that is as consistent, clear, and transparent as possible.2 To this end, the Collector may consider establishing a standard form of documentation to be used by all personnel.
Tech Specs & Resources
Documentation models
For examples of documentation formatting (focused on open-source information), see e.g., OHCHR, Berkeley Protocol (2022), Annex IV ‘Online Data Collection Form’, and GLAN/Bellingcat, Methodology for Online Open Source Investigations into Incidents Taking Place in Ukraine since 2022, Annex VIII ‘Incident Assessment Template’ and Annex IX ‘Uwazi Fields’.
Documentation tools
If using the open-source programming language Python to process audio, tools such as Sphinx or MkDocs can be used to generate documentation from the Python code.
If using the open-source tool Audacity to process the audio, a tool such as Macros can be used to document changes made to the audio, as seen in this example.
Documentation resources
For minimum documentation requirements for chain of custody, see e.g., General Principles of Digital Evidence, a supplement to the Uniform Principles and Guidelines for Investigations from the Conference of International Investigators (2021), page 3.
For information about keeping a mission diary, see e.g., Folke Bernadotte Academy and Swedish National Defence College, A Handbook on Assisting International Criminal Investigations (2011) page 51.
For information on the technical attributes of audio evidence that may be important to document in order to support audio data authenticity, see e.g., Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence, Best Practices for Digital Audio Authentication (2017).
Paywall resources
For standardised methods for documenting scientific or technical expert opinions, see e.g., ASTM E620-18 Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts.
Tools such as Hunchly can be used to document a Collector’s online activities.
Legal Framework
See section 5.2. on the role of logbooks in determining the relevance of potential evidence.
See section 5.3. on the role of proper documentation for establishing the authenticity and reliability of audio data, as components that contribute to the probative value of audio evidence.
See also, among others, ICC case Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Confirmation of Charges, para. 51, where the Chamber, in the context of finding the evidence to be reliable, took note of the detailed explanation of the radio communications interception process provided by the Prosecution.
Applicable Ethical Principles Accountability; Accuracy, Impartiality, and Objectivity.
Footnotes
-
Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Trial Judgment, para. 658; Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Confirmation of Charges, para. 51; Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Transcript, para. 44, lines 8-24; Prosecutor v Tolimir (ICTY), Judgment, para. 64, referring to Prosecutor v Tolimir (ICTY), Transcript, page 5033; Prosecutor v Blagojević and Jokić (ICTY), Decision on Admission of Intercept Materials, para. 21; Prosecutor v Katanga and Chui (ICC), Decision on Bar Table Motion, para 30. See the discussion in sections 5.2. and 5.3. of the Legal Framework. ↩
-
Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Trial Judgment, para. 658; Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Confirmation of Charges, para. 51; Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Transcript, para. 44, lines 8-24; Prosecutor v Tolimir (ICTY), Judgment, para. 64, referring to Prosecutor v Tolimir (ICTY), Transcript, page 5033; Prosecutor v Blagojević and Jokić (ICTY), Decision on Admission of Intercept Materials, para. 21; Prosecutor v Katanga and Chui (ICC), Decision on Bar Table Motion, para 30. See the discussion in sections 5.2. and 5.3. of the Legal Framework. ↩