The Hala Protocol

BP 24. Collect information that contextualises the downloaded data

Where available, Collectors must collect information that speaks to the date, circumstances, and context of the downloaded audio data.1 Doing so will improve the data’s potential evidentiary value by helping to establish the data as reliable and authentic.

In deciding what information to collect alongside the downloaded audio data, Collectors should consider guidance from the Berkeley Protocol, which identifies the following categories of information as being important:2

  • Target web address: in the event that the audio data is downloaded from a web page, such as a social media site, the uniform resource locator (URL) should be recorded.
  • Source code: in the event that the audio data is downloaded from a web page, Collectors should capture the HTML source code of the web page, if applicable.
  • Full-page capture: Collectors should take a screen capture of the web page, messaging app, or email service to record what could be seen at the moment of collection. The date and time of the screen capture should be recorded.
  • Additional media files: if the web page, messaging app, or email from which the audio is downloaded contain additional media files, such as videos or photos, Collectors should consider downloading these files. This decision should be made in light of the principle of data minimisation (see BP 2).
  • Contextual data, including embedded and custom metadata: where available, data which provides context about the downloaded audio data should be collected, such as upload and/or author information, date and time, and comments and tags, and previously created hash values.
  • Collection data: Collectors should, in accordance with BP 3, record the process of collecting audio data in careful detail, including the name of the person carrying out the collection, the IP address of the machine used in the collection, the virtual identity used, if any, and a time stamp.

Further to the above, where available, Collectors must collect information about the author of the audio data.3 Where the author’s identity is not immediately available, Collectors should consider the feasibility of investigating further to establish authorship, including any potential security risks such an investigation could pose.

Legal Framework

See section 5.3. on the role of date, circumstances, context, and authorship in establishing the probative value of data.

Footnotes

  1. Prosecutor v. Bemba (ICC), Public Redacted Version of “Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Admission of Materials into Evidence Pursuant to Article 64(9) of the Rome Statute” of 6 September 2012, para 84; Prosecutor v Katanga and Chui (ICC), Decision on Bar Table Motion, para 24; Prosecutor v Ntaganda (ICC), Decision on Prosecution’s request for admission of documentary evidence, para 68. ↩

  2. OHCHR, Berkeley Protocol, page 59. Note that the categories and content have been adapted to reflect the Hala Protocol’s focus on audio data originating from both open and closed sources. ↩

  3. Prosecutor v. Renzaho (ICTR), Decision on Exclusion of Testimony and Admission of Exhibit, paras 1-2; Prosecutor v Delalic (ICTY), Decision on Admissibility of Evidence, paras 20-22, cited with approval in Prosecutor v Brdjanin and Talić (ICTY), Order on the Standards Governing the Admission of Evidence, para 18. ↩