Rights-Informed Mass Grave Mapping: a guide to the use of mapping tools
Rights-Informed Mass Grave Mapping: a guide to the use of mapping tools
Funded by the Leverhulme Trust
Citation: Klinkner, M and Smith, E (2024) Rights-Informed Mass Grave Mapping: a guide to the use of mapping tools
Contact:
For further information, please contact magmap@bournemouth.ac.uk www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/projects/magmap-mass-grave-mapping
Publication Date: 30/08/2024
© MaGMap. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior written permission of the lead author. All images contained within the report are provided courtesy of the MaGMap team at Bournemouth University and should not be reproduced.
Rights-Informed Mass Grave Mapping
Purpose
Mass graves contain material, information and evidence that are essential to the achievement of justice for victims and their families, and for the identification and return of human remains for dignified commemoration. They may also stand as powerful memorials to past atrocities, serving memorialisation, educational and preventative functions. At the same time, mass graves may be challenging and controversial features in the political and societal landscape, and their evidential content may render them vulnerable to disturbance or destruction. The security and integrity of mass grave sites is therefore essential.
Mapping of mass graves has the potential to provide a form of protection in and of itself, as well as comprising a precondition for the imposition of physical protection measures. It may also serve a commemorative or memorialisation function and offer educational potential.
This Guide describes the application of three discrete yet interdependent tools for mass grave mapping:
(1) an interactive, rights-informed process flowchart outlining the considerations and steps that arise as part of a mapping exercise (the ‘Flowchart’);
(2) a mass grave-mapping decision tree (the ‘Decision Tree’) outlining when and how the location of mass graves should be recorded in an open-source map, and when the publication of a site location might expose the site, witnesses, family members and affected communities to danger; and
(3) a Risk Register, as a starting point for the development of structured and effective risk-mitigation strategies.
Users
The primary intended audiences for the mapping tools are governmental departments or bodies, international entities, and expert civil society actors and practitioners. As open-access tools, however, they may also be used to inform the mapping decisions of anyone beyond the primary intended audience, including in other human rights contexts where there are competing interests of accountability processes, survivor protection and the needs of an affected community.
Scope and application
All three mapping tools follow the chronological decision-making processes involved in the inclusion of mass grave sites on a map and respond to the degree of public accessibility to be given to that map.
Data that is used to collate, analyse and verify the potential location of a mass grave may itself be found in an open-source format. The mapping tools can be used where the primary data that leads to the mapping location is either open or closed source or is a combination of the two.
All three tools are rights-informed and grounded in international law. They are intended for use within the specific context of gross human rights abuses and conflict, both internal and international, current or historic, although may also be relevant where mass graves arise in other contexts such as man-made disasters and deaths arising as a result of migration, border enforcement or trafficking.
They are intended for application without adverse distinction and regardless of political or other opinion, association with a national minority, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or belief, age, race, colour, language, ethnicity, caste, national or social origin, physical or mental disability, health status, property, birth, marital status, or any other ground recognised by international legal instruments.
Definitions
‘Mass grave’ is understood here as ‘a site or defined area containing a multitude (more than one) of buried, submerged or surface scattered human remains (including skeletonised, commingled and fragmented remains), where the circumstances surrounding the death and/or the body-disposal method warrant an investigation as to their lawfulness’.
‘Family’ is a concept that relates to societal practice in a specific context. Family membership should be determined according to local laws, customs and/or practices.
‘Victim’ means ‘persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative in the State or as a result of acts which constitute gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law’.
‘Open-source information’ is used here to mean ‘publicly available information that anyone can obtain by request, purchase, or observation without requiring special legal status or unauthorised access’.
‘Mapping’ is routinely geomatics driven but is used here to mean the diagrammatic recording of geographic features together with any associated and proxy variables.
‘Verification’ assumes that entries onto an open-source map of mass graves would be subject to prior verification through a process that is robust, fair and ethical. Standards of verification may vary depending upon the nature and intended purpose of the mapping, but at a minimum, should be sufficient to stand up to public/authoritative scrutiny.
A cautionary note and overarching approach
Risks and ethical obligations can arise, develop and change at all stages of mass grave mapping: from data collection and those involved in it (including local, on-the-ground reporters of sites), analysis of the data gathered, communication, storage of the data, archiving and ultimately deletion of data. This is the case in all mass grave contexts, but particularly so in situations of ongoing conflict or crisis, shifts in the political situation or other facts affecting the maintenance of peace. An assessment of whether and how to map a site should not be a one-time event, but instead should be kept under regular review as situations and corresponding risks fluctuate and change. At a minimum, anyone mapping mass graves should conduct a human rights impact assessment before, during and after mapping in order to identify which rights, individuals, groups and sites might be affected, and consider how to prevent or minimise risks, to mitigate harm should it arise and ensure accountability if harm occurs.
Most importantly, where risks arise that cannot be adequately mitigated and project redesign does not diminish dangers, mappers should be prepared to abandon their mapping project.
All aspects of the mapping process should adhere to the following overarching operating principles:
1. Do no harm;
2. Physical and emotional safety;
3. Confidentiality;
4. Independence and impartiality;
5. Transparency; and
6. Accuracy and Reliability.
These principles are reflected and expanded upon in practical terms throughout this Guide.
Tool 1: the Mapping Process Flowchart (Annex 1)
Understanding the life cycle of mass graves is key, firstly for ascertaining which rights and rightsholders require consideration and secondly, for understanding the processes involved in the mapping of mass graves. The mass grave life cycle spans the initial reporting of a site, protection of the site, the gathering of more detailed information as to who may be in the grave and how they died, identification efforts and the achievement of justice. The Flowchart reflects this life cycle.
For ease and clarity, the Flowchart is structured into three phases (depicted in different colour blocks): (1) planning; (2) data collection and (3) presentation. It is interactive and includes four pop-up windows (examined further below):
(1) The planning phase: as a starting point, users should clarify the rights and corresponding duties that arise in the context of mass graves to ensure a rights-informed approach to all mapping activities.
The rights-informed mapping pop-up window identifies victims, the wider community or society; the parties that are engaged with mass graves mapping and the alleged perpetrators as rights holders. Potentially engaged rights include the right to effective investigation, equality and nondiscrimination, the right to privacy and rights to an effective remedy and reparations. With rights come State obligationsalso listed in the pop-up window.
• Contextual elements, including the ways in which the law of a country or region protects or engages with mass graves and its victims, are important for the determination of project goals, parameters and methods. Similarly, the numerical, geographical and temporal scope of the mapping exercise should be clarified.
• The context and goals of the mapping project should be in dialogue with each other and will shape how a mapping project can be realised. The pop-up window lists various goals that mapping initiatives might pursue, ranging from advocacy for accountability and justice, to awareness raising of inequalities and vulnerabilities and to amplify the voices of - those that have been silenced or are otherwise not often heard.
• Once the aim and scope of the project has been determined, the choice of method to be employed follows naturally, including any issues relating to the ethics and risks involved. Important questions in terms of who or what is at risk, when, where and why those risks arise, and how risks might be mitigated should be considered. To ensure these questions can be adequately answered the Decision Tree and the Risk Register (below) are instrumental.
• Once rights, context, goals, methods and risks are considered, a plan for data collation, storage and protection, usage, analysis and verification, as well as final presentation strategy, can be devised. Only then should data collection commence.
(2) For the data collection stage, it is helpful to identify what type of information is to be gathered, including whether it is opensource, closed-source and mixed-source (i.e. a combination of open and closed-source).
Different training needs may arise depending on the nature of information that is to be sourced and the methods of data collection, data entry and analysis being used.
• The training field of the Flowchart includes a pop-up window indicating available sources of useful, thoughtful, methodologically sound, legally robust and scientifically rigorous guidance. It also points to resources that will support those working on mapping to ensure their wellbeing is safeguarded.
Data collection should only commence once training is complete and the methodology firmly established.
• For the purpose of data entry, a pop-up window provides guidance as to what kind of information might be considered for inclusion. At this stage questions of probity, validity, consistency, verifiability and completeness should be considered. A pilot project may be advisable to aid decision making.
• Analysis and verification will also have to be applied to the entire data set collated as part of the data collection stage to ensure the project is ready for the next stage.
(3) The presentation stage
• A further ‘risk-check stage’ is recommended before proceeding to the presentation of data. The Decision Tree and Risk-Register will provide additional guidance, including in relation to ensuring that mitigation strategies are appropriate and adequate.
• If risk mitigation or the goal of the project requires, the map should be completely or partially non-public facing, potentially using password protection to access certain material and data within the map or the map itself.
• Common safety features should be put in place for public or partially public-facing maps to ensure errors can be rectified and edits made to ensure new, changing or unanticipated risks can be addressed.
Whilst the Flowchart provides an overview of the processes involved in mass graves, the next tool pays particular attention to the many questions and decisions that arise along the way.
Tool 2: The Mapping Decision Tree (Annex 2)
For ease, this Guide follows the numerical stages of the Decision Tree (1-7).
1. Do you have a clearly defined and fully developed goal?
Stages 1 and 2 of the Decision Tree – the need for a clearly defined goal and the need for familiarity with the intended mapping context – are circular and mutually reinforcing in practice. This means that once a clear goal has been identified, it should be revisited, examined and refined in light of the results of thorough contextual research.
The goal of mapping should be clearly and comprehensively defined at the outset before any data is collected. Given that data collection and presentation in relation to mass graves has the potential to produce negative or even dangerous consequences for a wide array of actors, the early development of a clearly defined goal means that only data essential to the project will be collected, thereby reducing the potential for harm. It will also avoid the incomplete collection of data, thereby reducing the need to return to sites, witnesses or families, again limiting the potential for negative impacts.
The over-collection of data may also be problematic for witnesses and families, particularly where it can lead to witness fatigue or result in disengagement from the project where elements extracted from affected individuals are then not used. Having a clearly defined goal enables the development of a data collection approach that is strictly limited to the purpose of the mapping project.
2. Are
you familiar with all relevant aspects of the intended mapping context?
An in-depth familiarity with the local context of mapping has a number of benefits: it enables the goal of mapping to be clearly understood and defined; allows the development of a comprehensive and practicable method of data collection, verification and presentation; and facilitates a more complete and accurate appreciation of the risks of any mapping project, together with the practical avenues of possible risk mitigation.
Anyone who is involved in the mapping of mass graves should have a full understanding of the potential ways in which the collection, collation and presentation of data, including for an open source map, could affect the victims, their families, witnesses, communities, perpetrators, the site itself, evidence and artefacts within the grave, investigation of the site, as well as the prevailing physical, social, cultural and political environment and infrastructure. Contextual knowledge also encompasses an awareness of any cultural and religious sensitivities and norms around the dead and the prevailing political context.
Where the project dictates and safety allows, consideration should be given to engagement with local partners, who are likely to be able to provide a more detailed and nuanced, real-time assessment of the mapping context and any specific risks that might arise during the course of the project.
In situations of crisis, conflict or political instability, conditions may shift, requiring responsive action from those involved in
mass grave mapping. The need for contextual knowledge should therefore be considered an ongoing task and be used to inform regular risk assessments throughout the life of the mapping project.
3. Have you determined a method for data collection, analysis, verification and presentation?
Defining the scope and limits of data collection and verification
Before beginning any data collection there should be a fully developed, realistic and achievable strategy in place for how data will be collected, used and stored. The method of data collection, its verification and its representation should be robust, ethically responsible and consistently applied as far as possible in order to guarantee the integrity and reliability of the mapping. The methodology for data collection should indicate who will be involved in data collection, analysis and presentation, and any potential issues of individual and/or community consent, use of or ownership of the data that the project requires. It should also be non-discriminatory and impartial in its approach to ensure that the resulting open-source map will be perceived as credible and free of political motivation or bias.
The amount and type of information and data that is collected for the purpose of a mapping project will depend upon the nature and goal of the project concerned. The parameters of data collection should be clearly identified and should align directly to the intended goal of mapping. These parameters should include baseline and upper limits of data collection as well as spatial and temporal limits to ensure that data collection is sufficient for the achievement of the project, directly tailored to it, and to avoid over-collection of data.
Consideration should be given to the required minimum level of information necessary before a site report, together with any information pertaining to the site, can be deemed sufficiently verified for its inclusion on an open-source map. The establishment of an upper limit to data collection will ensure that unnecessary activity within complex and sensitive contexts is avoided, including the conduct of non-essential interviewing and inexpert exhumation. Depending upon the nature, purpose and intended audience for a mapping project, specific responsiveness to the beliefs and wishes of victims and their families may be appropriate, including the need for any prior consent.
Where the mapping is not being conducted as part of a legal investigation, the identification and application of upper limits to data collection will also prevent the data collection and mapping exercise crossing over into the realm of investigation, impinging upon an existing investigation or, potentially, preventing an investigation where authorities deem that the mapping process has effectively already done that job.
The data collection effort should be regularly monitored and assessed to ensure the data that is being gleaned is both safe and necessary for the intended purpose.
Local actors as project partners and data collectors
Careful consideration should be given to the involvement of local community actors in the collection of data for the purpose of establishing the location(s) of mass grave sites and any other accompanying details that are pertinent to the specific goals of the mapping project. While there are clear advantages to the involvement of the local community in mapping and data collection, there are also potential disadvantages, and the question should be weighed on an individual project-by-project basis. In particular, local actors are likely to have a keen awareness of risks beyond those envisaged by the mappers, as well as a familiarity with and access to both potential sites and witnesses. The project may also benefit from local engagement where there might otherwise be linguistic or cultural barriers that would hinder data collection. The building of local capacity may also have positive community benefits beyond the production of the map, and where local capacity exists already, mappers should given full consideration to whether it is appropriate to the project to duplicate that capacity.
At the same time, however, and particularly in situations of prevailing insecurity, local actors may be at a heightened risk of harm or reprisals as a result of their involvement in the mapping project. The use of local actors may also affect the perception of independence and impartiality of a project.
If working with local data collectors – particularly those based in the affected community – particular care should be taken to manage expectations in relation to the role and purpose of the mapping project.
Physical and psychological safety
The physical and emotional safety of families of the missing, witnesses and all other parties involved in or affected by the mapping process should be a paramount concern to any attempt to map mass graves. Mapping should be cognisant of the potential for the indication of a specific location to expose individuals, groups and organisations to possible harm.
If an intended data collection strategy would put the data collector, families, witnesses or the site itself at risk then the approach should be modified to reduce risk exposure as far as possible. This might include the adoption of discrete strategies for approaching witnesses and family members or consideration of the extent to which sufficient data can be sourced through online or pre-existing sources without the need for direct or additional family/witness engagement or for in-situ data collectors. Where data collection and verification have the potential to generate psychological harm in witnesses, families and those involved in the mapping process, trauma sensitive approaches to data collection should be adopted.
When data collection involves interviews with witnesses and/or family members, initiatives to protect physical and psychological safety may be required, including trauma-sensitive interview approaches, with training where needed, and psychological signposting or referrals where appropriate.
Where the nature, scope, content and audience of the project indicates, collection and presentation of data may require the prior informed consent of those most affected by it.
Harm in the wider context of the mass grave
In the conduct of the data collection and data presentation process, all parties should seek to avoid impacting on relationships that are essential for community peace, stability and coexistence, or engendering or reinforcing inequalities and perceptions of bias.
Where mapping relates to an ongoing or recent conflict, the context is likely to be highly politically charged, and particular care will need to be taken to ensure that the map does not have the effect of distorting a national narrative or events or the perception of favouring one side to a conflict over another. Mapping grave sites on both sides of a conflict will help to counter perceptions of political bias.
Bias or incomplete data
Where mass graves arise in remote areas of a country, with limited internet coverage or technological capability, or within certain political situations such as more authoritarian contexts, reporting, identification or verification of grave sites may be more problematic, leading, potentially, to a mapping skew. This inherent bias will limit the utility of the map to the community it seeks to serve and has the potential to exacerbate pre-existing marginalisation of rural and/or vulnerable communities or to downplay/underrepresent violations within those areas. Correcting this bias may entail the adoption of differing approaches to the evaluation of mass grave reports from affected areas, or representation of reports in differing forms on the public-facing map.
Any limits on transparency as to the method of data collection may affect usability and public trust in the map. Limitations should be strictly necessary to ensure the rights of survivors, family members, witnesses and those involved in the data collection and representation process, including their rights to safety, dignity and privacy.
4. Have you got a plan for secure data management and storage?
The privacy and identity of the subjects of data collection, as well as of those engaged in the collection, analysis and (re) presentation of the data, should be protected, and storage of personal or potentially identifying information must be secure and compliant with local laws. Where local volunteers or actors are used to collect data, specific steps may be required to protect their privacy, identity and safety.
Those responsible for the mapping process should ensure there is a plan to protect data, including what to do in the event of a data breach and how harm(s) will be mitigated. The roles and responsibilities of all those involved in data security should be clearly defined and attributed, including details on who is accountable for any harms and how harms might be addressed in practice.
Potential harms will include in relation to data – particularly usergenerated online data – that may be inadvertently geotagged. When the geolocation includes metadata, the risk of identification may be enhanced when the data is countenanced in combination with other open source or freely available data, or where the fact of visualisation on a map itself enables identification of vulnerable individuals and groups. Where data is submitted by volunteers or local actors, care should be taken to ensure that they understand the nature of the data they are sharing, and actors provided with the option of opting out of submitting certain metadata if desired. Where there is a risk that the collection and/or use of data might result in a breach of confidentiality, thought should be given to the possibility of modifying the data, collection strategy or ultimate representation of the data on the map. Any such modification must be balanced with the need to ensure accuracy and reliability of data and the mission goal(s).
Any data that could be used to identify vulnerable individuals or groups should be encrypted. Consideration should be given to storing data sets separately to avoid them being combined to identify others in the event of a data breach. Access to the data should be limited, and where the benefits of archiving materials are outweighed the risks of a data breach, personal and locationbased data deleted when it is no longer needed.
5. Has everyone involved in the data collection, analysis, verification and entry received the necessary training, including in relation to availability of support?
It is important that all of those engaged in the mapping process – from data collection, storage, verification and presentation –are appropriately trained for their roles, including in relation to the risks that their work may engender and their responsibilities in respect of those risks. This will help to ensure the quality, consistency and credibility of a mass grave map, and should encompass not only training in the methodologies of the role but also on cross-cutting themes of non-discrimination and data protection. Where data collection involves interaction with victims and their families, training should be provided in trauma-sensitive interviewing approaches.
In order to minimise the risk of harm to team members through traumatisation and other negative emotional impacts, they should also be informed of avenues for psychological support and, where the nature of the project dictates, training in psychological self-care and resilience techniques as a preventive measure.
6. Are you able to verify the data that has been collected to the level required by the project?
The accuracy of data used for the purpose of mapping is critical to the overall integrity and credibility of the project. In the course of developing a methodology for a mapping project (Stage 3), an appropriate and practicable approach to data verification will have been identified, and it should be employed consistently by all team members.
Challenges may arise where the project is using various data collected by third parties, including by multiple different thirdparty sources. In this case the provenance, utility and accuracy of the data should be ascertained and verified in accord with process(es) developed in the project methodology. Particular attention should be paid to the potential for false or misleading location data, or data that, while accurate, remains incomplete or has been selectively curated to promote or enforce a particular argument or bias. Where verification is a challenge, consideration should also be given to the use of alternative sources.
Awareness of potential sources of error in terms of the data collected is also required, including in relation to difficulties in accessing or verifying data in some areas, where there is a potential for underrepresentation of findings.
If the data that is being presented is to be used in legal proceedings, or may subsequently be so used, the collection, handling, verification, data storage and archiving methods should stand up to rigorous scrutiny and operate to effectively safeguard evidence.
7. Does the goal of the project indicate that the map should be fully or partially accessible/ open source?
Physical and psychological safety
The communication and presentation of mass grave locations should seek to minimise danger to all those engaged by the process, including the re-traumatisation of families and witnesses, the misinterpretation or misuse of the map for purposes beyond those for which it is intended, or the misrepresentation or apparent bias in the depiction of atrocities where sites are inaccessible or information less available.
If the goal of the project points to open-source or partially opensource depiction of mass graves on a map, particular thought should be given to the potential for the inclusion of a specific site location to expose individuals, groups, organisations or the site itself to harm.
If indicating the precise location of a site on a public-facing map could put others, the site itself or the evidence it contains at risk, consideration should be given to mitigation of the risks, including the degree of precision with which the site should be marked. In doing so, a balance must be struck between the level of precision provided and the need for the mapping to remain meaningful. This may include, for example, indicating the location in broader terms, within a defined range; detailing the number of bodies believed to be involved within delineated ranges; or providing information of the age of creation of the grave in less specific terms (decades, etc).
Communicating data through mapping
The presentation of mass graves on a map should be mindful of the degree of literacy – including data literacy – of the intended target audience.
In including a mass grave site on an open-source map, care should also be taken to avoid impacting on relationships that are essential for community peace, stability and coexistence, or engendering or reinforcing inequalities and perceptions of bias. With this in mind, the map should be carefully designed to limit the potential for misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misuse.
Transparency in relation to the method of data collection used, as well as the basis upon which sites are either made public or kept secret will support public scrutiny, usability and trust in the mapping process and its findings. Communication of data collection and verification approaches should include openness as to the potential biases in the data reviewed and displayed, as appropriate.
Tool 3: The Rights-Informed Risk Register (Annex 3)
The final tool - a Risk Register - is designed to assist in the decision-making processes by enabling the logging and evaluation of risks and mitigation strategies.
The list of potential risks and factors associated with them includes:
(1) Where harm might arise;
(2) Contextual risks that could derail data collection;
(3) Risks allied to privacy and confidentiality;
(4) Risks inherent in the way that data is gathered and interpreted;
(5) Risks to the mapping team;
(6) Data formatting and inputting risks;
(7) Risks arising as a result of the presentation of data, including who and what may be affected; and
(8) Risks associated with data storage and protection.
The columns in the Risk Register invite the user to think about the following:
• The probability of a risk arising; and
• The impact level of such risk, which is subdivided into:
• level of harm experienced;
• accuracy level of information and data; and
• achievability of the task at hand.
These factors together generate a risk index. The higher the index, the greater the risk. Where physical and psychological harm might be experienced users should consider incorporating weighting to reflect the prioritisation of physical and psychological safety.
The second column of the Risk Register concerns mitigation strategies and the potential impact of those on risk calculation. The final column of the Register serves as an audit function for team members, enabling revision of risks and the need for ongoing review.
Annex 3
Mapping Process Flowchart
Context
Rightsinformed mapping
Analysis and verification
Geographical
Temporal
Person/victim driven
Scale/numerical
Legal development and framework
Data entry
• Verification
• Validation
• Consistency
• Completeness
Presentation stage
Depending on risks and the potential of mitigation strategies in relation to:
• Site
• Human remains
• Evidence
• Families/victims
• Community
• Third party actors
• Alleged perpetrator
• National security and public safety
• Rule of law
• Accurate representation
• Commemoration. Informs
Goal
Data collation
Regularised source map
Map with protected information
Map with access throughout
Flowchart
Method
Ethics and consent issues
Risk mitigation strategy Who is at risk? What is at risk? When might risks arise? Where might risks arise?
Data collection
Data storage and protection
Data usage
Data verification and analysis
Data presentation/ map display strategy
Open source project
Mixed source project Closed source project
Data collection stage
Rights informed mapping
Rightsholder Rights
Victims
Community/Society
Third party actors involved in protection; investigation; identification; liaison etc.
Alleged perpetrators
• Right to know the truth about what happened to a missing person
• Right to an effective investigation
• Right to seek and share information
• Right to family life and family unification;
• Right to an effective remedy and reparations
• Right to privacy
• Dignity of the dead and respectful treatment of human remains
• Land, including use of land and access rights
• Equality and non-discrimination; and ideally
• Freedom of Conscience/Religion (commemoration rites)
• Guarantees of non-repetition.
• Right to know the truth about what happened as aiding public confidence
• Right to an effective investigation
• Equality and non-discrimination and ideally
• Freedom of Conscience/Religion (commemoration rites)
• Cultural and/or indigenous rights, including in relation to the land
• Guarantees of non-repetition.
• Safety of personnel (physical and mental).
• Presumption of innocence/Fair trial rights generally and as a citizen:
• Right to privacy
• Equality and non-discrimination
• Right to family life.
State Corresponding obligations aligned with mapping
International and domestic legal framework
• Duty to investigate
• Duty to hold accountable
• Duty to safeguard the rights of victims and their families listed above (incl. privacy, family life, access to courts, information provision, remedy and reparation)
• National security
• Public safety
• Data protection.
Return to mapping process flowchart
To make the case for responsibility and accountability
To support/enable reparation actions
To call for global action for problem at scale (including media attention)
To highlight inequalities/vulnerabilities
To name and shame perpetrators
To inform the planning and conduct of investigations
To enable wider monitoring of human rights violations
To facilitate information capturing and sharing on threats and violations
To enable conduct of systematic, systematised and evidence-based enquiry and research
To support, inform and enable activism
To support evidence-based policy development
To provide an avenue for victim, survivor and community voices and agency
To publicly corroborate survivor accounts
counter
Training
Handbooks offering guidance on investigation and evidence collection in respect of violations arising in the context of mass graves:
Documenting International Crimes and Human Rights Violations for Criminal Accountability Purposes: Guidelines for Civil Society Organisations
Created by the International Criminal Court and Eurojust
This document is designed to assist civil society organisations in their efforts to document, gather, catalogue and preserve information on human rights violations. www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/eurojust-icccsos-guidelines.pdf
The Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation
Created by Bournemouth University
Offers insights into the legal protection and investigation standards applicable to mass graves. https://issuu.com/bournemouthuniversity/docs/the_bournemouth_ protocol_on_mass_grave_protection_
Pursuing Justice for Mass Atrocities Handbook
Created by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
Specifically, Chapter Four, “Gathering and Sharing Information” speaks directly to some of the issues that need to be considered when seeking to secure evidence for future use by national or international tribunals. www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/reports-and-resources/ pursuing-justice-for-mass-atrocities
Handbook on Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations
Created by the Public International Law & Policy Group
This guide includes principles and best practices around documenting serious human rights abuses. “The purpose of this Handbook is to provide guidelines and best practices for the collection and management of information on serious human rights situations for those that are not professionally trained in such documentation practices.”
https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5900b58e1b631bffa367167e/t/59dfab4480bd5ef9 add73271/1507830600233/Handbook-on-Civil-SocietyDocumentation-of-Serious-Human-Rights-Violations_c.pdf
Field Guide for Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations
Created by the Public International Law & Policy Group
“The purpose of this field guide is to provide practical assistance to those who encounter information of gross human rights violations on how best to document such information when (a) no professional investigative authority is immediately available AND (b) danger exists that the information or evidence might be damaged or lost. Improper investigation and documentation may cause irreparable damage to information.”
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5900b58e1b631bffa36 7167e/t/5acb525a8a922dc773d9f37f/1523274331296/ PILPG+Field+Guide+for+Civil+Society+Documentation+of+ Serious+Human+Rights+Violations_corrected+%28SC%29.pdf
Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations
Created by the UC Berkeley School of Law Human Rights Center
“The Berkeley Protocol does not focus on specific technologies, platforms, software or tools, but rather on the underlying principles and methodologies that can be consistently applied, even as the technology itself changes. These principles outline minimum legal and ethical standards for conducting effective open source investigations. By following the guidance in the Berkeley Protocol, investigators will help to ensure the quality of their work, while minimizing the physical, psychosocial and digital risks to themselves and others.”
www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/ OHCHR_BerkeleyProtocol.pdf
Video as Evidence Field Guide
Created by Witness [Доступна українська версія]
“The Video as Evidence Field Guide helps filmers use videos to expose abuse and bring about justice. This resource helps ensure that more cameras in more hands can lead to more exposure and greater justice.”
https://vae.witness.org/video-as-evidence-field-guide/
Torture & Other Human Rights Violations Reporting Form
Created by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
“A Form for You to Document and Report Torture and Other Human Rights Violations during Protest. This form has been created for use by all victims and witnesses of torture and other human rights violations during protest, arrest, and detention. This form is intended to assist you to document and report your experience and any evidence of physical harm. If you wish to file a legal complaint, this form can help you to document your experience and injuries. However, an interview with a legal advocate is still recommended. This form does not solicit all information necessary for the filing of a legal complaint, such as witness or perpetrator identities.”
https://irct.org/uploads/media/IRCT_reporting_form_(english)2.pdf
Guidelines on International Human Rights Fact-Finding Visits and Reports
Created by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
This set of human rights fact-finding guidelines are the result of several years’ work and wide consultation. They arose out of concern that, despite there being no agreed international standards for human rights fact-finding reporting, such reports are frequently referred to by courts and tribunals as evidence of the facts alleged in them, as well as by governments, NGOs and other interested people.
www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/ibahri/2009/en/67896
Basic Investigative Standards For International Crimes Investigations
Developed by Global Rights Compliance
The Basic Investigative Standards for International Crimes (‘BIS’) developed by Global Rights Compliance (‘GRC’) provides a range of minimum standards for the investigation of international crimes.
https://globalrightscompliance.com/2021/04/06/basicinvestigative-standards-for-international-crimes-investigations/
Guidelines
for Remote Interviewing
Developed by the Institute for International Criminal Investigations
These guidelines focus on remote investigative interviews that may form part of non-criminal and criminal investigations into international crimes or grave human rights violations.
https://iici.global/0.5.1/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/IICIRemote-Interview-Guidelines.pdf
Guidelines on investigating violations of IHL: Law, policy and good practice
Developed by the International Committee for the Red Cross
These Guidelines aim to bring much needed clarity and support for the conduct of effective investigations into violations of IHL. www.icrc.org/en/document/guidelines-investigating-violationsihl-law-policy-and-good-practice
The wellbeing of all those engaged in or impacted by the collection, analysis and display of the information is important. In addition to any explicit guidance contained in the formal policies and procedures of any justice mechanism (and as contained in the above documents) on both investigator and subject safety, the following are useful sources:
UNITAD’s Trauma informed investigations field guide
This field guide contains a section on self-care and discusses vicarious trauma, burnout, compassion fatigue and secondary traumatic stress experienced by those investigating and working in the field. Vicarious trauma can arise when hearing about, or being exposed to, someone else’s traumatic experiences. www.unitad.un.org/sites/www.unitad.un.org/files/ general/2104429-trauma-informed_investigations_field_guide_ web_0.pdf
The Dart Center Style Guide for Trauma-Informed Journalism
Created by Columbia University’s Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
This online resource offers “brief evidence-informed guidance on news choices, language usage and ethics in reporting on the impact of trauma on individuals, families and communities; recommendations for appropriate use of relevant psychological and scientific terminology; and special considerations when reporting on consequential trauma-laden issues such as racism and sexual violence.” This can be helpful for general research into subjects concerning death, human suffering and trauma. https://dartcenter.org/resources/dart-center-style-guide
Finally, verification of digital content forms part of successful documentation of human rights violations:
Introductory Guide to Open Source Intelligence and Digital Verification
Created by University of Essex Human Rights Centre Clinic
The guide is designed to assist with verification of digital sources.
“Content available on the Internet is shared widely and rapidly and is therefore often difficult to verify, as the original source of the content can be hard to find. This guide will talk you through the verification process, and provide detailed examples of issues faced and how to resolve them”.
https://www1.essex.ac.uk/hrc/documents/Introductory_Guide_to_ Open_Source_Inteligence_and_Digitial%20Verification.pdf
Potential data entry points for mass grave mapping
The list below is for guidance only. It contains elements which mappers may want to consider for inclusion in their mapping project. The extent to which various elements will be employed will depend upon the scale and nature of the project, as well as the degree to which the resulting map is intended to be interactive. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Geolocation
• Coordinate latitude
• Coordinate longitude
Additional landmark
Number of victims
• Lower band
• Upper band
Cause of death
Manner of death
Time of death
• Lower band
• Upper band
Date of suspected creation
• Lower band
• Upper band
Is site protected?
Signs of disturbance
Preliminary investigation/ verification
• Satellite images
• LIDAR
• Geophysical survey
• Test-trenches
On-site investigation and excavation
Off-site investigation
Information on victims
• Identification numbers
• Age range
• Lower band
• Upper band
• Sex (split)
• Ethnicity
• Nationality
Return of human remains
Commemoration
Reparation
Accountability
Reported/witnessed
• By whom
• When
Mapping Decision Tree
1 2 3 4
Do you have a clearly defined and fully developed goal?
Partially developed
Do not collect information until you do
Refine and clarify your goal before proceeding
Are you familiar with all relevant aspects of the intended mapping context?
Re-examine your goal to ensure it is contextually informed
Have you determined a method for data collection, analysis, verification and presentation?
No/Partially developed
Are you working with local partners with contextual familiarity?
Do not proceed until you have a method
Is it realistic, achievable and appropriate to the context?
Have you conducted a risk assessment for all engaged parties, the site and the project?
Proceed with caution. Consider varying method or proposed means of data protection
Do the risks outweigh the benefits?
Do not proceed
Are you able to effectively mitigate those risks?
Can you get this another way?
Proceed only once you have relevant contextual knowledge Will this get you everything you need?
Refine method before proceeding
Do not proceed Do not proceed
Could the process of collecting data endanger or otherwise expose individuals, groups, the site or any evidence to harm?
Could the process of collecting, analysing and verifying data negatively affect the integrity or credibility of the project?
Are you able to effectively mitigate those risks?
Proceed with caution. Consider varying method and/or exploring potential for consent of those at risk
Do not proceed
Have you got a plan for secure data management and storage?
Continue to map with restricted access. Ensure all held data remains secure 4 5 6 7
Has everyone involved in the data collection, analysis, verification and entry received the neccessary training, including in relation to availabity of support?
Are you collecting personal data or any other data that could put others at risk? No
Do not proceed until all those involved are appropriately trained
Ensure secure and ethical data storage until then
Are you able to verify the data that has been collected to the level required by the project?
Does the goal of the project indicate that the data should be presented in a fully or partially accessible/open source format?
Do you, or does the project envisage the potential for future verification of the data?
Have you conducted a risk assessment?
Could open source publication of the map endanger anyone associated with the site, the site itself or evidence in respect of it?
Do not proceed until risk assessment completed
Are you able to effectively mitigate those risks?
Do not proceed without a plan
Can the problem be surmounted by, for example explicitely qualifying any publicly released data or through its presentation method or level of public access?
Could open source publication negatively affect the integrity or credibility of the project?
Do not proceed. Consider an alternative way of achieving the project goal
Proceed with caution. Keep all risks under review, especially where the context is dynamic, ongoing or volatile
Do not proceed to open source mapping
Are you able to effectively mitigate their risk?
Do the risks outweigh the benefits?
Do not proceed to open source publication, consider alternative forms of presenting the data
Proceed with caution. Keep all risks under review, especially in an ongoing volatile dynamic context
4
Risk
Risks linked to information and data
Inaccuracy
Bias
Mis-representation
Marginalisation of alternate narratives
Inaccessibility of information
5
6
Risk
Risks
Mapping Team
Risks linked to data
Format/language of information
Consistency
Accuracy
Presentation
7
Risk
Risks relating to presentation of data
Destruction/contamination risks to site, human remains and evidence
Physical or psychological harm to victims, communities, third party actors, alleged perpetrators
Risk to cultural/ Indigenous rights
Marginalisation of alternate narratives
National security, public safety, and the rule of law through political agitation
Marginalisation of communities without access to map
Undermining of future accurate recollection
7
8
Intimidation of community, witnesses, perpetrator
Breach of privacy and confidentiality
Encouragement of perpetrators/ state detection avoidance
Prejudice to legal proceedings
Disruption of commemoration activities/commemorators
Risks associated with long-term storage and protection of data
Breach of privacy and confidentiality
Identification of associated individuals
MaGMap was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant. Since its foundation in 1925, the Leverhulme Trust has provided grants and scholarships for research and education, funding research projects, fellowships, studentships, bursaries and prizes; it operates across all the academic disciplines, the intention being to support talented individuals as they realise their personal vision in research and professional training. Today, it is one of the largest all-subject providers of research funding in the UK, distributing approximately £100 million a year.
For more information about the Trust, please visit www.leverhulme.ac.uk and follow the Trust on Twitter/X @LeverhulmeTrust