The answer to the question, “Should we videotape interviews of witnesses and survivors of human rights abuses for advocacy?” seems to have a clear answer: Yes, so long as it’s within the confines of safety, security and ethics. A primary reason being that personal stories propel our advocacy efforts.

I have also asked a number of investigators and attorneys, “Should we videotape interviews of witnesses and survivors of human rights abuses for evidentiary purposes?” The answer is not so clear. As a matter of fact, the answers are all over the board. So I wanted to set out an initial list on when it might make sense to use a camera when interviewing for evidentiary purposes and when it doesn’t hoping others will add in their thoughts too.

One key note first: Whether or not we should or shouldn’t videotape an interview in some ways doesn’t matter as activists on-the-ground will, absolutely, collect video testimony. Knowing this, WITNESS would like to provide the activists we work alongside with good solid guidance to:

• Help them think about whether to pick up a camera or not; and
• If they do, help them interview safely, ethically and effectively.

So here’s the first question we discuss at trainings when talking about whether to videotape interviews for evidentiary purposes and the list of why or why not.

QUESTION: Is video the most appropriate choice to document an interview for evidentiary purposes or is it better to take a written statement or make an audio recording?

Initial Thoughts on Reasons to Use Video:

• Timing: In many human rights situations, time to talk with witnesses is limited. Video can serve as an efficient way to capture information about an incident that can be analyzed later. For instance, UN investigators had 7 1/2 hours to investigate the alleged sarin gas attacks in Ghouta, Syria in August of 2013. Given the limited access to witnesses – and the limited chances of relocating witnesses at a later date - video served as an efficient way to capture interviews to be thoughtfully analyzed later.
• Credibility Assessment: A video taped interview will more easily allow members of an investigation or legal team who are not present in the field to assess the credibility of a witness. Videos show people’s physical features, voice and background that add valuable information to the factual information provided by the video.
• Limited Interview Opportunity: Sometimes a key witness may not be available for trial because of imminent death, relocation or other extra-ordinary circumstances. In some jurisdictions, and in specific circumstances, portions of an interview may be allowed in court without the possibility of cross-examination and therefore, a videotaped interview statement may prove very helpful.
• Video is Often Good Lead Evidence: Since video taped interviews are not likely to find their way into the courtroom, there is often no harm to a case caused by interviewing witnesses because the initial on-the-ground interviews tend to provide good leads to investigate versus being key courtroom evidence.

Initial Thoughts on Reasons Not to Use Video:

• Timing: An investigator, analyst, lawyer can quickly scan written interview summaries or transcripts to find relevant information. With video, they must review the entire video to find the information they need. This can prove to be very time consuming so if you use video, it is best to: have clear and complete metadata; and include a summary of the interview and transcriptions when possible. [Note: Transcriptions of video taped testimony tend to be very time consuming, and usually costly, and therefore should only be done when valuable.]
• May Undermine Credibility: If an interview is recorded, and then weeks, months or years later, the interviewee is asked to testify in court, inconsistencies between the recorded interview and in-court testimony could undermine the witnesses credibility.
• Security: A video file of a person’s testimony may increase the risk of security threats.
• Ethics: Some people are either uncomfortable providing information about human rights violations on video or experienced extensive trauma and the recording of an interview will only enhance the re-vicitimaztion they experience. Take special care and seek advice from psychosocial support experts when interviewing witnesses and survivors of human rights abuses.

After discussing the above, we then ask activists, “If you decided that a video camera is the most appropriate recording method for the interview, how can you do it safely, effectively and ethically?” This is always a dynamic conversion.

I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this follow-up question too. I will also post our thinking on both questions our blog later this year.