An assessment of relevance of audio data will likely involve critical listening to determine whether the collected audio contributes to the objective of the collection effort.
For example, if the objective of the collection effort is to collect evidence of criminal acts perpetrated during an armed conflict, then information that could indicate the involvement or contribution of actors alleged to be involved in this conduct would be relevant. Information about the circumstances and context in which such acts were committed would likewise be relevant.
The assessment of relevance aids in accurately labelling the audio data and linking it with associated data (see BP 11). If the audio data contains inaudible or unintelligible speech or sounds, it may be necessary to first enhance the audio on a duplicate copy in accordance with BP 15 so that it can be audibly assessed.
Potentially relevant information uncovered through audio data in the context of an armed conflict may include, inter alia:
- The movement and location of armed forces in an area where crimes are committed;
- The factual circumstances of criminal acts that transpired (e.g., how and when the acts took place; a type of weapon, aircraft, or vehicle used and its manner of use; identifying information about key victims, witnesses, or perpetrators, including speech recognition data);
- The command structure and hierarchy of armed forces (which may be relevant to questions of the responsibility of commanders and other superiors over those who are under their effective command and control);
- Any orders issued for the commission of alleged criminal acts;
- Any acknowledgement that an alleged criminal act has taken place;
- Statements that assist in revealing an alleged perpetrator’s intent in relation to the commission of a particular crime;
- The identities of military leaders (i.e. squad, platoon, company and battalion commanders) as well as political leaders involved in the alleged commission of a crime; and
- Indications of planning, and discussions or negotiations regarding the alleged perpetration of a crime.1
Audio data that is deemed relevant should be duly preserved in accordance with BP 14. Audio data that is deemed irrelevant should be marked for deletion in accordance with BP 16 and the safeguards outlined therein. Irrelevant audio data includes any audio that can be wholly characterised as ‘noise’, ‘static’, or ‘silence’ even after enhancement, as well as any audio that does not contribute to the objective of a collection effort. As an additional safeguard, wherever possible, Collectors should consider having at least two qualified personnel make a documented determination of irrelevance before audio data can be tagged for deletion.
Relevance assessments may not be a practicable step for every Collector, for every collection effort, or for all collected data. However, if the Collector does have the capability or mandate to assess the audio for relevance, then such an assessment should take place as soon after collection as is practicable. In the interim period between its collection and its assessment for relevance, the audio data should be securely stored.
Note: The data’s relevance to the collection effort, determined by the Collector, is distinct from the data’s relevance to a legal proceeding, which is determined by a court. If the audio data is intended to be used for future civil or criminal proceedings, whether domestic or international, it will only be admitted as evidence if it is deemed relevant to the specific issues in question before the court.
Tech Specs & Resources
Regarding the need to create a copy or duplicate of the audio prior to its analysis, see e.g., IST Interagency Report 8387: Digital Evidence Preservation Considerations for Evidence Handlers (2022).
For an explanation of the potential relevance of various factual inquiries in a conflict context, see e.g., GLAN/Bellingcat, Methodology for Online Open Source Investigations into Incidents Taking Place in Ukraine since 2022 (2022), page 69, Annex VI ‘Factual inquiries and their relationship to the elements of crimes’.
Legal Framework
See section 4.2.2.C. on the importance of data minimisation for ensuring that a collection effort’s interference with the right to privacy is proportionate and therefore justified.
See section 4.3. detailing the rights of accused persons in connection with the right to a fair trial, in particular the right to be given exculpatory material.
See section 5.2. on how the term ‘relevance’ is defined in a legal evidence context.
Footnotes
-
Prosecutor v Ongwen (ICC), Trial Judgment, paras 1618–1638, 1857, 1871, 2001–2005. ↩