Transitional
Justice is a term used to describe a post conflict period that encompasses
accountability for crimes committed. We live in a globalizing world, anything
happening thousands of miles away is reported to us by CNN or social networks
such as Facebook and Twitter. Still when it comes to hundreds of
thousands victims of crimes committed during a conflict, the victims are stuck
in a long legal limbo. Refugees fleeing Syria for example have described being
raped by the government forces and the rebel forces. Many have lost their
relatives and are unable to locate them post conflict or after fleeing. How can
we assess the true impact a major conflict has on the civilian population? Well,
I believe that it’s very clear that we need to use technological tools to
enable a more efficient collection of data, which can be used to create crowd
mapping.
Crowdsourcing is a method of getting a feedback from a community through
various electronic devices. The reporting process is simple and often easy to
use with a simple mobile device with a SIM card in places where access to
computers is scarce. Currently the United Nations collects its statistical data
through various international agencies and NGO’s working in regions of
conflict. But the statistics cannot be very reliable since the regions
that are in turmoil and experiencing human rights violations are also too
dangerous for organizations to put people on the ground to collect data. The
challenge for transitional justice is to ensure that the data collected is not
only reliable and well documented, but the International Criminal Court is able
to use that data to prosecution at a later date.
The
data attained through crowdsourcing can be used to create a crowd-map, during
this process the data is visualized through the use of maps. Crowd-mapping currently
being utilized in Syria by many different NGO’s in order to keep the world more
informed. Syria Tracker, a crowd mapping
dealing with crimes ranging from water tampering to killings. The question is
how useful has the collection of data been as far as prosecution of those
committing crimes against humanity is concerned? While we have yet to see any
legal actions against the regime or member of the regime in Syria, since the
conflict is still ongoing. We can certainly analyze past prosecutions of war
criminals to see what sort of data is required to actually prosecute a war
criminal.
In 2002, the International Criminal Court was established to prosecute
individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of
aggression. Since its foundation the ICC handed down only two verdicts. First
in July 2002, the ICC found Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a military commander from the
Democratic Republic of Congo for violating various crimes against humanity and
sentenced him to 14 years in prison. The second man to receive a verdict was a
militia leader by the name of Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui also from the Democratic
Republic of Congo and this time the court delivered an acquittal. The ICC
recognized that mass murders took place in the country, which occurred while
Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was a militia leader. When reading the acquittal the ICC stated that the witnesses presented were
not credible and therefore there was not enough evidence for a conviction. The
ICC pointed out that there is a lack of valuable data collection as the basis
for the acquittal. In order to insure justice in places where it may be very
difficult to gain access. The ICC must set a standard of collecting evidence
through crowdsourcing, which can be used during trials. We must as members of
the human community seek to close the gaps and come together to put an end to
human rights abuses, especially during conflicts.

Presiding Judge Bruno Cotte from France (L) and Judge Christine Van Den
Wyngaert from Belgium (R) stand during the verdict of the trial of Congolese
warlord Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The
Hague, December 18, 2012. Source: Voacongostory
Crowd mapping as a concept is a great tool, but for the purposes of collecting
evidence it must be incorporated with legal experts to help guide the
collection of data and there must be cooperation and collaboration with the
United Nations. The collaboration must include local population, lowest level
of government body still able to provide reasonable amount of security, and
legal experts such as law enforcement experts and lawyers. Finally, all the
participants must be able to not only look at the collected data, but also
provide recommendations. The collaborated data must then be submitted to the
prosecutors of war crimes in order to prosecute those responsible at a later
date or whenever reasonable security may allow.
In practice, crowd
source mapping would work something like this. A person in Syria sends a text
‘witnessed 3 people get shot by the Syrian military’ to the widely publicized
website, the website would in a series of texts gain relevant data (legal
requirements established by the ICC for this case). The website is
automatically programed to use the relevant information to contact the legal
professional (interested in human rights and war crimes). These professionals
sort through the data and prepare a report to be forwarded to collaborative
international organizations (e.g. United Nations). These records are then kept
on file in order to present them to the ICC once the military conflict is over.
In
conclusion, as I pointed out justice at the international level has been moving
at a very slow pace, as compared to our technological advances. In order to
level the field a more collaborative crowd mapping system is needed. One in
which legal experts from around the world can provide their inputs on cases.
While crowd mapping will provide the locations and other data on crimes the
technical experts can assist in ensuring the quality of the data collected is
up to the ICC standards, through perhaps a peer review process. Finally,
there must be collaboration with the United Nations and NGO’s in order to
perhaps share resources in order to hold perpetrators of heinous crimes
responsible.