Digital Evidence Database
Showing 41 to 50 of 120 results.
-
Ethical Guidelines: Using Eyewitness Videos in Human Rights Reporting and Advocacy
- Institution
Witness
- Language
English
- Reference link
- https://lab.witness.org/announcing-witness-ethical-guidelines-for-using-eyewitness-footage-in-human-rights/
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- The purpose of the guide is to fill a gap with regard to new challenges that arise from using videos - especially using videos that have been produced by other people, filmed by bystanders, activists, victims, survivors and sometimes event perpetrators of abuse.
- Description
- As ethical guidelines, the document addresses the principles of ethical documentation, which include matters regarding consent, intended audience, and the safety, dignity, and privacy of individuals and communities filmed. It also describes the role of professional judgment, providing assistance in the absence of clear indicators of informed consent, how to make a professional judgment about whether using footage could violate the consent, privacy, or dignity of those filmed, and weigh the intended social good with the potential risks involved. The document also includes practices in light of the 'do no harm principle'. It contains guidances on issues regarding the source, such as when the videos are filmed by perpetrators, credit and contex, and at-risk sources. Lastly, it includes a list of questions to assess when it is appropriate to share graphic footage.
- Target group
- investigators, journalists, advocates, filmmakers, and others who use eyewitness videos for reporting or documenting human rights
-
Evidence Matters in ICC Trials
- Institution
International Bar Association (IBA)
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2016-08-09
- Reference link
- https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=B9B8DC23-6616-41BA-8EF2-3D209398BDBD
- Executive summary
- In this report, the [International Bar Association (IBA)] examines the maturing trial practice of the [International Criminal Court (ICC)], as it is situated within a lineage of institutions that deliver international criminal justice. The number of trials and legal issues before the ICC continues to increase. By considering evidence matters, the IBA builds on its previous report on Witnesses before the International Criminal Court to focus on existing issues and future considerations for fair trials before the ICC. In Evidence Matters in ICC Trials, the IBA takes into account the existence and relevance of new types of evidence, and the development of ICC procedural law for hearing and ruling on evidence.
- Purpose
- The report aims to provide a comparative perspective on the selected evidence matters and arising from the court's trial practice.
- Description
- The document examines the International Criminal Court (ICC) trial practice concerning its evidentiary practice. It addresses evidence in a forward-looking manner, assessing new types of evidence such as digital and technologically derived evidence, as well as the ICC's approach thereto. Moreover, it analyzes the admission of prior recorded testimony in ICC trials and the ICC's evidence assessment within its trial proceedings. Chapter 2 of the document deals with digital and technologically derived evidence. In this chapter, the IBA outlines the relevance of new forms of evidence such as digital evidence and discusses how to present and assess digital and technologically derived evidence. The chapter also talks about the ICC’s approach to digital and technologically derived evidence, key considerations for digital and technologically derived evidence in ICC trials, sources of digital and technologically-derived evidence, compiled and formatted evidence, future considerations for digital and technologically derived evidence and recommendations on how to handle digital evidence.
- Target group
- Academics and practitioners
-
Expanding Skype Forensics with OSINT and Python: IP Addresses
- Institution
Bellingcat
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2016-06-01
- Reference link
- https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2016/06/01/expanding-skype-forensics-with-osint-and-python-ip-addresses/
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- To provide assistance on retrieving information on IP addresses and their geolocation.
- Description
- The guide follows up on the guide 'Expanding Skype Forensics with OSINT: Email Accounts'. The guide explores techniques to extract IP addresses and their geolocations from SQLite databases. It also explains how to present the results, for example using maps.
- Target group
- Open source researchers and investigators
-
Expanding Skype Forensics with OSINT: Email Accounts
- Institution
Bellingcat
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2016-05-02
- Reference link
- https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2016/05/02/expanding-skype-forensics-with-osint-email-accounts/
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- To provide assistance on retrieving email accounts.
- Description
- The guide explores techniques to extract emails from SQLite databases. It also explains how to present the results, for example using maps.
- Target group
- Open source researchers and investigators
-
Fair Trials' Consultation Paper on E-Evidence
- Institution
Fair Trials
- Language
English
- Reference link
- https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/Fair-Trials-e-evidence-consultation-paper.pdf
- Executive summary
- Faced with increasing use of electronic evidence in the context of criminal investigations, both the US and the EU have expressed the willingness to modernise the tools enabling cross-border access to electronic data for law enforcement authorities, and to cooperate further in the exchange of electronic data. This is an opportunity for the EU and the US to set a gold standard for the world. It is proposed that the new form of cooperation would, effectively, enable law enforcement authorities directly to seek the preservation or production of electronic data held by private companies overseas. Given the impact of cooperation measures on human rights, it will be crucial for the fair long-term functioning of any future mechanism that it is underpinned by human rights protections. To date, this has been recognised by vague and uncertain principles, but any failure to ensure adequate human rights protections is likely to have a negative impact on the fairness, effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the new mechanism. We recognise the concerns expressed by other stakeholders about the rationale itself of the proposed new mechanism, but in view of the political pressure to make this happen, we would like to focus on four key safeguards required to preserve the fundamental fair trial protections for people accused of crime: Prior notification to the suspect: In criminal trials, where the prosecution has the machinery of the state behind it, the principle of equality of arms is an essential guarantee of an accused’s right to defend themselves. It ensures that the accused has a genuine opportunity to obtain evidence to support its defence, prepare and present their case, and contest evidence put before the court, on equal footing with the prosecution. However, this is threatened by (inter alia) the lack of notification about the gathering of data. Although we recognise that specific stages of some investigations may, exceptionally, require secrecy, notification is key to enable challenges to requests and ensure that evidence supporting a person’s innocence is preserved as is other evidence. Robust prior judicial authorisation procedure: In view of the implications of the new tools on privacy and other fundamental rights, the new tools must require that law enforcement authorities meet a sufficiently high threshold in terms of suspicion of criminality (and the severity of the offence) as well as the relevance and materiality of the evidence sought, before they can request or obtain and share electronic data. In addition, requests must be subject to prior meaningful judicial oversight to avoid overbroad and disproportionate requests being issued. Meaningful remedies in the event of a trial: A key check on the legality of evidence-gathering by law enforcement authorities occurs at trial (or shortly before, after the evidence has been gathered). This is the power for the accused to challenge the admissibility of evidence on which the state is seeking to rely to secure a conviction. The accused person must have the right to challenge the request and use of data at trial, and seek specified appropriate legal remedies where electronic data has been obtained illegally. And in order to be in a position to exercise the right to challenge, accused persons must be able to obtain disclosure of the sources of the electronic evidence. Effective and systemic oversight on the use of the measures by law enforcement authorities: If the new tools are used fairly and proportionately, they are more likely to maintain public trust in criminal justice systems and law enforcement authorities. Effective oversight mechanisms will ensure that we insulate against the risk of improper use, and help protect both the reputation of legitimate law enforcement activity and those who could become victims of abuse of the tools.
- Purpose
- The purpose of the guidelines is to take a note and evaluate trial safeguards, in light of the ongoing discussions on cloud-acts and relevant provisions, and esnure that the standards is high enough to ensure fair trial guarantees.
- Description
- The paper focuses on discussing four trial safeguards: notification to the suspect, prior judicial authorisation, remedies at trial, and systematic oversight. It further describes and discusses the required fairness safeguards, before concluding with a chart outlining the proposal on e-evidence.
- Target group
- Law agencies and criminal justice actors
-
Fair Trials' Consultation Paper on E-Evidence
- Institution
Fair Trials
- Language
English
- Reference link
- https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/Fair-Trials-e-evidence-consultation-paper.pdf
- Executive summary
- Faced with increasing use of electronic evidence in the context of criminal investigations, both the US and the EU have expressed the willingness to modernise the tools enabling cross-border access to electronic data for law enforcement authorities, and to cooperate further in the exchange of electronic data. This is an opportunity for the EU and the US to set a gold standard for the world. It is proposed that the new form of cooperation would, effectively, enable law enforcement authorities directly to seek the preservation or production of electronic data held by private companies overseas. Given the impact of cooperation measures on human rights, it will be crucial for the fair long-term functioning of any future mechanism that it is underpinned by human rights protections. To date, this has been recognised by vague and uncertain principles, but any failure to ensure adequate human rights protections is likely to have a negative impact on the fairness, effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the new mechanism. We recognise the concerns expressed by other stakeholders about the rationale itself of the proposed new mechanism, but in view of the political pressure to make this happen, we would like to focus on four key safeguards required to preserve the fundamental fair trial protections for people accused of crime: Prior notification to the suspect: In criminal trials, where the prosecution has the machinery of the state behind it, the principle of equality of arms is an essential guarantee of an accused’s right to defend themselves. It ensures that the accused has a genuine opportunity to obtain evidence to support its defence, prepare and present their case, and contest evidence put before the court, on equal footing with the prosecution. However, this is threatened by (inter alia) the lack of notification about the gathering of data. Although we recognise that specific stages of some investigations may, exceptionally, require secrecy, notification is key to enable challenges to requests and ensure that evidence supporting a person’s innocence is preserved as is other evidence. Robust prior judicial authorisation procedure: In view of the implications of the new tools on privacy and other fundamental rights, the new tools must require that law enforcement authorities meet a sufficiently high threshold in terms of suspicion of criminality (and the severity of the offence) as well as the relevance and materiality of the evidence sought, before they can request or obtain and share electronic data. In addition, requests must be subject to prior meaningful judicial oversight to avoid overbroad and disproportionate requests being issued. Meaningful remedies in the event of a trial: A key check on the legality of evidence-gathering by law enforcement authorities occurs at trial (or shortly before, after the evidence has been gathered). This is the power for the accused to challenge the admissibility of evidence on which the state is seeking to rely to secure a conviction. The accused person must have the right to challenge the request and use of data at trial, and seek specified appropriate legal remedies where electronic data has been obtained illegally. And in order to be in a position to exercise the right to challenge, accused persons must be able to obtain disclosure of the sources of the electronic evidence. Effective and systemic oversight on the use of the measures by law enforcement authorities: If the new tools are used fairly and proportionately, they are more likely to maintain public trust in criminal justice systems and law enforcement authorities. Effective oversight mechanisms will ensure that we insulate against the risk of improper use, and help protect both the reputation of legitimate law enforcement activity and those who could become victims of abuse of the tools.
- Purpose
- The purpose of the guidelines is to take a note and evaluate trial safeguards, in light of the ongoing discussions on cloud-acts and relevant provisions, and esnure that the standards is high enough to ensure fair trial guarantees.
- Description
- The paper focuses on discussing four trial safeguards: notification to the suspect, prior judicial authorisation, remedies at trial, and systematic oversight. It further describes and discusses the required fairness safeguards, before concluding with a chart outlining the proposal on e-evidence.
- Target group
- Law agencies and criminal justice actors
-
Field Guide for Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations
- Institution
The Public International Law & Policy Group
- Language
English
- Reference link
- https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5900b58e1b631bffa367167e/t/5acb525a8a922dc773d9f37f/1523274331296/PILPG+Field+Guide+for+Civil+Society+Documentation+of+Serious+Human+Rights+Violations_corrected+%28SC%29.pdf%C2%A0
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- This guide is to assist relevant stakeholders to document serious human rights violations. It is a guide oriented towards ensuring that the documentation is only done, if undertaken properly, following the guide's instructions.
- Description
- This guide provides detailed and practical guidance on the documentation of serious human rights violations, it addresses practices regarding several evidence typologies, including digital evidence.
- Target group
- Civil society organizations and first responders
-
First Responders: An International Workshop on Collecting and Analyzing Evidence of International Crimes
- Institution
Berkeley Centre for Human Rights
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2014-09-01
- Reference link
- https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/HRC/First_Responders_final_with_cover4.pdf
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- The document aims to promote an open exchange of ideas on cooperation between court investigators and first responders in conflict and post-conflict situations.
- Description
- The report presents recommendations drawn from the workshop convened by the Berkeley HRC in collaboration with CITRIS in Salzburg, Austria, in September 2014. The report addresses issues relevant for prosecutors and first responders, such as the cooperation between them, communication and clarification of mandates, security concerns, capacity issues, and guidelines for the preservation and collection of evidence by CSOs and first responders. Lastly, the report sets out precise recommendations concerning the investment in first responders to enhance their capacities, investments in the Court, and information sharing. While the report includes practices and recommendations concerning general evidentiary standards, it also provides guidance in relation to digital evidence.
- Target group
- Investigators and first responders
-
Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement
- Institution
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (US Department of Justice)
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2004-04-01
- Reference link
- https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199408.pdf
- Purpose
- The report assists agencies in developing their own policies and procedures.
- Description
- The guide is not all-inclusive, but it rather deals with common situations encountered during examination of digital evidence. The main contents of the guide relate to what it includes as steps of the examination process: 1. policy and procedure development; 2. evidence assessment; 3. evidence acquisition; 4. evidence examination; and, 5. documenting of digital evidence. It further includes case examples.
- Target group
- Law enforcement officers and other members of the law enforcement community who are responsible for the examination of digital evidence
-
Geolocation Techniques – Mapping Landmarks
- Institution
Bellingcat
- Language
English
- Publication date
- 2014-07-15
- Reference link
- https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/how-tos/2014/07/15/geolocation-techniques-mapping-landmarks/
- Executive summary
- n/a
- Purpose
- To facilitate the the task of finding the locations of multiple videos from one geographical area a lot easier.
- Description
- The guide explains the technique of mapping landmarks as a geolocation technique through the case-study of Damascus in the Summer 2013.
- Target group
- Open source researchers and investigators
This is free software. Created with LinkAhead
and Django. Licenced under AGPL version 3.0 (Sources).