A CONTRASTING EXAMPLE LAW To counter the Endorois’ arguments, the Kenyan government decided to submit their own video. But unlike the Endorois’ submission, the government’s video was long and roughly edited. The Commissioners did not want to watch several hours of videos, so they watched only a part of the government’s film. The screening resulted in a moment in court that every lawyer looks forward to in his or her career. The video submitted by the Kenyan government included an interview with a member of the Endorois community. As the Endorois Chief was speaking in Kiswahili on camera, English subtitles appeared below. One of the subtitles quoted the Chief as saying that all the Endorois had been fully compensated by the Kenyan government. One of the African Commissioners spoke Kiswahili. As he listened, he noticed that the Kiswahili audio did not match the written English subtitles, so he asked the government to rewind and play a section of the video again. Upon listening for a second time, the Commission discovered that the Chief had actually said the opposite: the Endorois were not fully compensated. The Kenyan government’s credibility was gone! TAKE HOME POINTS First, in addition to using video in the criminal justice process, it is important to consider how it can also be used for human rights monitoring and advocacy, in the media, to secure reparations, and in truth and reconciliation processes. In this case, the Endorois successfully used video at the ACHPR, and in front of key target audiences that could make policy changes. Second, video captured for justice processes must be relevant and reliable. However, it only needs to meet the highest standard when it’s being introduced in a court of law, such as the Endorois’ Evidentiary Submission to the ACHPR. Even if the video does not meet a “trial-ready” standard, it can still be valuable for protecting human rights, as we saw with the use of Rightful Place. Third, the same footage can be edited to serve different purposes. In this case, the footage was used as evidence in front of the ACHRP and then re-edited for advocacy directed toward government decision makers, media outlets, and grassroots-awarenessraising efforts. It also serves as an important historical record for the tribe. FOR MORE INFORMATION To learn more about “relevance”, “reliability” and what makes video “trial-ready”, see “All About Evidence”: bit.ly/WITNESS_ Video_Evidence Fourth, it’s important to think strategically about how, when, and where to share footage. The nine-minute video submission to the ACHPR was embargoed. In other words, it could not be shared publicly until the ACHPR’s decision was final. Sometimes you will be unable to share eye-opening footage because of process restrictions. Fifth, never, ever compromise your credibility, because once it’s lost, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to get back. Sixth, be thoughtful about the length of your video. The Commissioners happily watched a nine-minute video but did not watch the hours of video submitted by the government. 13 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: VIDEO BEYOND THE COURTROOM V 1.0