Documenting Violations: Choosing the Right Approach
New Tactics's picture
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

This important on-line dialogue featured Documenting Violations: Choosing the Right Approach from January 27 to February 2, 2010.  This dialogue featured practitioners that have developed database systems to document human rights violations, organizations on the ground documenting violations, and those that are training practitioners on how to choose the right approach and system for their documentation.  We looked at options for ways to collect, store and share your human rights data safely and effectively.  If you are trying to figure out the best documenting system for your work - or if you have found something that works well, please add your comments to this dialogue to share your questions, ideas, resources and stories!

Featured resource practitioners for this dialogue include (click here for more biographical info):

  • Vijaya Tripathi and Megan Price work with the Martus database developed by Benetech
  • Bert Verstappen and Daniel D'Esposito work on the OpenEvSys database developed by HURIDOCS
  • Nathan Freitas of the Guardian Project
  • Jorge Villagran and Sofia Espinosa of the Guatemalan National Police Archive Team
  • Patrick J. Pierce,  head of the International Center for Transitional Justice - Burma Program
  • Oleg Burlaca, utilizes HURIDOCS methodology and working on websites for World Organisation Against Torture and SOVA Center for Information and Analysis
  • Patrick Stawski, Human Rights Archivist at Duke University and Seth Shaw, Duke's Libraries' Electronic Records Archivist
  • Jana Asher, M.S., is the Executive Director of StatAid
  • Agnieszka Raczynska of Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos, Mexico
  • Daniel Rothenberg is the Managing Director of International Projects at the International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI) at DePaul University College of Law

Main Themes

Please add your comments beneath these main themes by replying to their corresponding comments in the dialogue:


Summary of the Documenting Violations Dialogue

In the dialogue titled Documenting Violations: Choosing the Right Approach, participants discussed the range of methods that can be used to thoroughly document human rights violations, and utilize them to motivate a response. Participants shared a myriad of powerful examples from their own work, proving the importance and vast range of impact that documentation has.

What is documentation?
Documentation is a process of strategic and systematic gathering of quantitative or qualitative data. This process consists of several activities, namely:

  1. determining what information is needed and establishing means for acquiring it;
  2. recording the discovered information and storing such in appropriate containers (called documents) or collecting already-existing documents containing the needed information;
  3. organising the documents to make them more accessible; and
  4. actually providing the documents to users who need the information.

Before starting data collection, it is important to have a concrete end goal for the data, as that will largely influence the type and scope of data collected, and determine the parameters of the collection process. Furthermore, it is essential to establish baseline data to which new data can be compared and contrasted with.

Documentation builds a strong platform for advocacy for it provides evidence that can oppose what governments or newspapers are reporting. Here is a 10-step plan on how to use documentation for human rights advocacy.

An important lesson learned is to review the impact of the documents on particular human rights efforts and store data safely.

Data Collection Software:
Two main kinds of software were mentioned throughout the dialogue – Martus and OpenEvsys. What tool for what purpose? The differences of the two documentation systems are discussed here.

Martus secures your data by encrypting it on your computer and (if you choose to) automatically backing it up to remote, dedicated secure servers around the world. If your computer is lost, destroyed or stolen, you can retrieve your information from the remote servers. Martus is a very good tool for use in countries with very repressive regimes, where you and your sources can get into serious trouble if your data is found.

OpenEvsys can be used both to collect and organize stories, but also to provide "who did what to whom" quantitative analysis of the violations in these stories: how many acts of torture by military in X province, what is the gender breakdown of the victims, etc.OpenEvsys is different, in that you can also record in as much detail as needed what happens inside these stories. You can record violations, link them to the victims, and the perpetrators, and the sources.  It is a fully relational system, so you only enter perpetrator X once, and then you link perpetrator to all the acts that he or she has committed, in all your stories, and then you can get a "bio" of all the acts that perpetrator has committed.

Compiling Different Documents
Although different organizations will use different software, the contents of their documentation are likely related. Advocacy efforts benefit by compiling data and creating a bigger picture of human rights violations.
Metadata , or simply “data about data,” is a set of structured data or content types that characterize an information object. Metadata can be used to compile data from multiple databases, thus creating a larger document. Developing a useful metadata system for the human rights community could have tremendous impact for the human rights community for it would allow drawing connections between different data sets and discover greater patterns of abuse.

What data can be collected?

  • violations
  • testimonies – For example, the Iraq History Project collected thousands of testimonies documenting the destructive impact of political violence under the Saddam Hussein regime.
  • monitoring indicators – particularly helpful for discrimination, ongoing oppression
  • legal investigations & researching government data - archives of repressive regimes may contain important information. For example, the Guatemala Archive Project revealed that many government-supported atrocities were well documented in their own archives.
  • scanning media
  • documenting HR interventions
  • anthropological research
  • ecological studies
  • realtime data - for example, a dynamic realtime geo-map of the post-election situation in Kenya and a range of projects on the use of mobile technology can be found here.


Qualitative or quantitative research?
A big challenge in the field of documentation is whether to rely on quantitative or qualitative data. Both are important, quantitative data draw the big picture for us and qualitative data supply the emotive, social, and political aspects of a person's experience.  A related question – How structured should documentation be? - poses a challenge to field research. Narrowly defined questionnaires will likely omit a large portion of the person's experience, whereas powerful individual testimonies are difficult to summarize into big reports that ought to quantify impact. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed here.

Documenting civil and political & economic, social, and cultural rights
Some of the traditional approaches (such as documenting violations) have been used primarily in the case of civil and political rights. However, the human rights community is strengthening its focus on the documentation of economic, social and cultural rights. Three broad categories of approaches to ESC were mentioned in the dialogue:

  • state violations resulting from government actions, policies, and legislation.
  • violations related to patterns of discrimination.
  • violations related to the state’s failure to fulfill minimum core obligations of enumerated rights.

Challenges

  • when released, some data can be harmful to the very individuals it aims to protect
  • accuracy – it is important to be aware of our biases as those who collect documents, “record the story not your interpretation of the story.”
  • activist vs. scientists – NGO documentation is sometimes not trusted by scientists. Cooperation between experts and activists is key to solid documentation
  • security -  Recognizing the need of organizations to combine their data to create greater impact, it is all the more important to ensure a secure transfer and storage of data that does not put people (both those documented and documenting) at risk

Resources

drothenberg's picture

The Iraq History Project

Dear colleagues:

These discussions are very interesting.

I’m not sure if what I will post now is useful, but I decided to share with all of you a brief overview of a project that I have run here at the International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI) of the DePaul University College of Law. It is called the Iraq History Project (IHP). We documented the profoundly destructive impact of political violence under the regime of Saddam Hussein and following the US-led invasion by gathering thousands of testimonies with a methodology that plays off of many issues raised here.

Over the past six and a half years, studies show that 100,000 to 800,000 Iraqis have been killed and the United Nations estimates that one out of every six Iraqis have fled their home because of violence, creating one of the world’s most significant refugee and displacement crises. All of this has occurred in a country that suffered devastating losses over three decades of authoritarian rule in which the Ba’ath Party government killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and forced the entire nation to live under a state of constant surveillance and brutal repression.
The IHP has collected 8,911 testimonies representing over 55,000 pages of personal narratives recounting the individual experience of torture, massacres, assassinations, rape, kidnapping, disappearances and other violations.
The goal of the project is to provide Iraqis with an opportunity to talk about their experiences and thereby document the truth of political violence while placing a human face on the suffering of the Iraqi people. In this way, the project is similar to truth commissions in South Africa, Guatemala, Peru and elsewhere as well as to projects like the Shoah Foundation’s database of Holocaust testimonies and the REMHI project in Guatemala (particularly since these initiatives were not officially sanctioned processes like truth commissions).
The project has three main objectives: documenting past and present violations by collecting large numbers of testimonies from around the country; analyzing this material to reveal patterns of violence and repression; and, encouraging the development of domestic and international policies to assist victims through reparations, memorialization, education and national reconciliation. The project seeks to contribute to an improved understanding of the scope, impact and severity of systematic political violence over the past four decades in Iraq and to aid a broad social process of transitional justice, national reconciliation and reconstruction.

Here is an overview of the IHP methodology:

For the IHP, we designed qualitative methodology based on a review of similar large scale human rights projects, such as truth commissions. The project trained an all-Iraqi team of over 100 interviewers who worked throughout the country speaking with nearly nine thousand Iraqis representing the country’s diverse ethnic/religious population.

The interviews were carefully recorded by hand and then transmitted to a central office where they were entered into a secure and searchable database using Martus. Some of this material was transferred to a secondary analytic database using Access and SPSS.

The quality of the material gathered relies to a large degree on the skills and training of the IHP interviewers. Interviewers were selected to represent diversity of gender and religious/ethnic background. They ranged in age and professional background and included physicians, professors, lawyers, and journalists.

Interviewers used social networks, victims’ organizations, and local non-governmental organizations to identify and contact potential interviewees. Interviewers were paired with interview subjects in a manner that maximized their comfort and encouraged the collection of detailed testimonies. For example, women were interviewed by other women, Kurds by other Kurds, Assyrians by other Assyrians, etc. In addition, interviewees generally worked in the governorate or region where they live.

The interview process was designed to allow victims, their families and others to talk openly about their experiences in a manner that was both personally meaningful and useful for gathering material on specific violations and broad patterns of abuse. Since it is difficult for many victims to discuss their experiences of past repression, interviewers devoted special attention to approaching interviewees with kindness, respect and patience. Interviews typically lasted many hours and, in some cases, interviews took place over several meetings.

The IHP interviewers arrived at a designated location to meet interviewees. They provided the interviewee with a clear overview of the project and would then seek to establish a positive, trusting relationship. Because it is often emotionally difficult and even traumatic for people to discuss their experiences of political violence and repression, interviewers were trained to approach interviewees with great care.

Interviewers explained that the basic goal of the project was to prepare an account of political repression in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein and after the U.S. led invasion through the personal stories of victims and their families. The interviewers described how these testimonies are gathered from victims and their families all over the country and that the material is stored in a database and that some of the results are to be published in various media with the goal of informing the Iraqi people about the suffering caused by the prior regime and in the past six and a half years. Interviewers sometimes discussed the possible use of the material in courses in schools and universities as well as the hope that the project might encourage the government to create programs to address victims’ needs.

We have presented the material gathered in books, newspaper inserts and on call-in radio programs in Arabic and Kurdish that have been heard by an estimated audience of over 500,000 Iraqis.

Interviewers highlighted the fact that participation was entirely voluntary and that there were no immediate financial or material benefits of being interviewed. Interviewers explained that interviewees should only participate if they were interested in contributing their story to the larger collection of testimonies about past political violence in Iraq. Interviewers then explained that they would answer any questions potential interviewees may have. They tried to ensure that interviewees had as clear an understanding as possible of the project. Interestingly, a number of interviewees later told our team that they were pleased that the project was honest in offering no direct benefits for participation. This was especially true for victims in places like Halabja where many prior interviews have been conducted, often alongside substantial promises of aid and assistance.

The interview methodology began by allowing the interviewee to speak openly about his or her experiences. Interviewers asked interviewees to tell their story in an unstructured manner. The IHP methodology allowed interviewees to talk about their experiences of past human rights violations in the way that is personally meaningful. Interviewers worked in a focused, yet informal manner, listening closely to the stories presented and carefully recording the testimonies by hand. They would write down everything the interviewee said in a word-for-word manner, interrupting the narrative only when absolutely necessary or to slow the process down to make sure all of what was said is accurately recorded.

Interviewers were encouraged to respect the fact that every person has their own way of telling their story. The methodology focused on the specific facts of each person’s story as well as the unique ways in which each interviewee chose to tell their own story. Interviewers were trained to work with each interviewee as an individual and to help victims feel as comfortable as possible while discussing these difficult and traumatic issues.

After the interviewee finished their story with minimal questions and prompting (a process that often took hours), the interviewers began asking questions. These questions followed the testimony as it has been recorded and focused on clarifying data, such as names, dates, and other relevant information. The interviewer might ask questions about dates, times, as well as how a particular event occurred or how a series of violations progressed. The interviewer might also seek clarification on feelings, descriptions, witnesses, information on perpetrators and anything that seemed necessary to fully understand the testimony. Interviewers would then mark down each element of additional information, whether a specific fact or a lengthy description, as well as any new elements of the testimony that arose from these questions.

After completing that stage, the interviewer would then read the testimony slowly, line by line, to the interviewee, asking him or her to correct or clarify any aspect of the narrative that they wanted changed. The purpose of that stage is to ensure that the interviewee fully accepted the testimony in terms of its accuracy, style and tone as a reflection of their personal experience. In this way, each interviewee approved the text of his or her testimony.

Then, the IHP staff would thank the interviewee and return home with the relevant paper records from the interview. Each interviewer would then prepare a clean version of the testimony using set guidelines. All original paper and notes would be destroyed. The final testimony material would be coded for safety and then transferred to the main office for review and entry into the project database.

The general data on each interviewee as well as the testimony would then be entered into the Martus database by staff working under the supervision of the database manager. The database encrypted the identifying information and narratives which are stored on a server located outside of the country to protect material from tampering, theft, or accidental damage. All paper records were destroyed after being entered into the database, which is password protected and can only be accessed by authorized staff.

Following the data entry, we engaged in selective analysis of material based on specific violations, historical events and other issues.

We worked closely with colleagues all over the world on this project, including excellent assistance from Benetech.

This is an ongoing project and we will post a revised website in Arabic, English and Kurdish shortly (www.iqhp.org).

I am planning to draft a detailed review of the methodology and to make available all of our training materials on how to conduct interviews, etc.

Any comments?

Daniel Rothenberg
Managing Director of International Projects
International Human Rights Law Institute
DePaul University College of Law
Chicago, IL USA