REASONS TO DOCUMENT PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS IN WRITING REASONS TO DOCUMENT PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS ON CAMERA Expediency: An investigator, analyst, or lawyer can quickly scan written interview notes and summaries to find the key information they seek. With video, they must review the entire video to find the information they need. This can prove to be very time-consuming. If you do use video, it is best to pair the video file with a synopsis of the interview, a full transcription of the interview, and a summary of the file’s metadata. Although new technologies are being developed to automate the transcription of video, transcriptions can still be timeconsuming and/or expensive to complete. Timing & Speed: During or in the immediate aftermath of a human rights incident, time with witnesses is limited. An interview recorded on video can be accomplished much more quickly than one in writing. The video file can then later be reviewed, analyzed, and transcribed in a calm and secure location. Interviewer Skill: Interviewing eyewitnesses to a crime is a specialized skill; if you decide to press record, the mistakes you make as the interviewer will be captured as well. Witnesses are a critical part of every case, and an improperly conducted interview — even if the interviewer has good intentions — can permanently compromise the possibility of the witness providing further information to investigators, lawyers, and courts, resulting in the exact opposite result you are striving for. Consistency: Each time a witness recounts an incident, their recollection contains small, unintentional changes; stories are never told exactly the same way twice. If an interview is recorded and then weeks, months, or even years later the interviewee is asked to testify in court, inconsistencies between the recorded interview and in-court testimony could undermine the witness’s credibility. If the interviewer writes down what the interviewee says in notes, it will be more difficult for the opposition to identify who is responsible for the inconsistencies — the interviewer or the interviewee. Safety: While any interview can put a person at risk, written interview notes only divulge a person’s name along with their testimony. A video file also includes their face and voice, making them easier to identify. Re-victimization: Some people are uncomfortable providing information about human rights violations on video, and in some situations, a camera pointed at the witness could feel intrusive. Others may have experienced extensive trauma, and the recording of an interview may cause them to feel re-victimized. Watching playback of their interview can also cause trauma. Taking the testimony in writing can help you avoid some of these dangers. Informed Consent: It can be difficult, if not impossible, to secure informed consent when working in the aftermath of a human rights incident. If you cannot secure informed consent, the internationally agreed-upon best practice is to not record the interview. However, should you decide to record an interview without informed consent, keep in mind that written documentation is a better option because there are likely fewer security risks if the person’s face and voice can’t be seen or heard. See Part V below for more about informed consent and what to do when it’s not possible to secure. Access: During or in the immediate aftermath of a human rights incident, access to witnesses can also be limited. The situation may make it impractical or unsafe to pull out a pen and paper and take a written statement. There are times when video or audio recording are your only viable options. Availability: Sometimes a key witness may not be available for trial because of relocation, death, or other extraordinary circumstances. In some jurisdictions and under rare and specific circumstances, portions of an interview may be allowed in court without the possibility of cross-examination if the person is no longer available to testify. Assessment of Credibility: A videotaped interview will allow members of an investigation or legal team who are not present in the field to more easily assess the credibility of a witness. Videos show physical affect, voices, location. If interviews are conducted while the incident is ongoing, the video may even show the events in the background. This adds valuable contextual information to the spoken testimony that a written account cannot capture. Aid to Memory: Justice processes can be slow. In many situations it can be months, years, or even decades between the first time a witness gives an interview and subsequent interviews or testimony in court. Testimony recorded earlier on camera could be used to refresh a witness’s memory at these later dates. Withdrawn Testimony: Witnesses sometimes withdraw their testimony for personal reasons or because they are pressured to do so. The legal term for this is “recant.” If their original testimony is on camera, it may be possible to use it in court under specific circumstances. Advocacy: Finally, as highlighted at the beginning of this section, legal accountability is only one of many valid reasons to interview a witness on camera. You may have other reasons for pressing record. 146 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: FILMING PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS V 1.0 FILMING PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW: ON CAMERA OR IN WRITING?