ESCALATING STANDARD OF PROOF LAW The presumption of innocence is a principle acknowledged in all major legal systems, because societies have decided it is preferable to see a guilty person walk free than to imprison someone who is innocent. For that reason, courts have developed a sliding scale when it comes to standards of proof: the greater the consequences to personal liberty, the higher the standard. For example, if the police suspect you have committed a crime, they can arrest you and temporarily take you into custody. This, obviously, impacts your immediate personal liberties. But because this is only short-term, the standard of proof is relatively low. On the other hand, if you are taken to trial and found guilty, you may face a much longer sentence, and, for that reason, the standard of proof is much more rigorous at trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) than at the arrest stage (reasonable ground to believe). WHY DOES THIS MATTER? This matters to frontline documenters because this sliding scale also applies to evidence. At the investigation stage, an investigator can rely on a video if they have reasonable grounds to believe the video is authentic and not faked or manipulated. If a lawyer wants to use that same video in trial, they must prove to the court that the video is wholly trustworthy and in fact shows what it purports to show. Since investigators, analysts, and lawyers often rely upon information and assistance from frontline documenters, it is important that the information you gather — including video documentation — meets at least the lowest standard of proof, so it can be used at the initial stages of the criminal justice process. For example, if you have a video of a mass grave, an investigator must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is in fact a real mass grave and not a fictional clip from a Hollywood film. To use that same clip in court, the lawyer must be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the clip is in fact of a real mass grave. FOR MORE INFORMATION Find techniques for capturing and preserving footage to a trial-ready standard in “Filming Secure Scenes,” “Adding Essential Information,” and “The Activists’ Guide to Archiving Video” at library.witness.org KEY POINT As highlighted in the section “The Role of Video Beyond the Courtroom,” the video you collect does not have to meet the highest standard to be valuable. It is often impossible for frontline documenters to collect trial-ready footage. However, if it is possible and practical to collect evidence to the highest standard, then why not do so? If you can, this will make it easier for everyone involved, from journalists and investigators to lawyers and decisionmakers, to rely upon your content. The easier you make it for them to use the video you collect, the better your chances that they will not only see it, but that they will use it, even if not as evidence in court. To illustrate how video activists, human rights organizations, and lawyers have used video at different stages of the advocacy and criminal justice processes, below is a story about the warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 22 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: STAGES & STANDARDS OF PROOF V 1.0