eyeWitness to Atrocities: Verifying Images with Metadata

  • Eleanor Farrow


Images of human rights violations provide powerful information for those investigating atrocities. Expanded smartphone and internet penetration have increased access to such images. However, digital images circulated through social media and messaging platforms are often unattributed and easy to manipulate, making them difficult to verify. Official denials or claims the images are fake, propaganda or misinformation create confusion and doubt. “eyeWitness to Atrocities” is a smartphone camera app designed for human rights investigators in response to these challenges. Its metadata-enriched photos have a protected chain of custody to facilitate authentication. This case study looks at how the eyeWitness project has collaborated with investigators to strengthen reporting and provide information to the courts.


  1. Allan, S. (Ed.). (2017). Photojournalism and Citizen Journalism: Co-operation, Collaboration and Connectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, J. D. (2016). Mobile Phones, Social Media and Big Data in Human Rights Fact-Finding: Possibilities, Challenges and Limitations. In P. Alston & S. Knuckey (Eds.), The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding (pp. 441–462). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  3. Aronson, J. D. (2017). Preserving Human Rights Media for Justice, Accountability, and Historical Clarification. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 11(1), 82–99. Scholar
  4. Ashouri, A., Bowers, C., & Warden, C. (2014). The 2013 Salzburg Workshop on Cyber Investigations: An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 11, 115–127.
  5. Bell, F. (2015, June 16). Verification: Source vs. Content. First Draft. Retrieved from
  6. Bell, F. (2017, April 25). Here’s a List of Initiatives That Hope to Fix Trust in Journalism and Tackle “Fake News”. Medium. Retrieved from
  7. Bob, C. (Ed.). (2008). The International Struggle for New Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Lüders, M., Spangenberg, J., Rath-Wiggins, L., & Følstad, A. (2016). Emerging Journalistic Verification Practices Concerning Social Media. Journalism Practice, 10(3), 323–342. Scholar
  9. Carpenter, C. R. (2010). Governing the Global Agenda: Gate-Keeping and Issue Adoption in Transnational Advocacy Networks. In D. Avant, M. Finnemore, & S. Sell (Eds.), Who Governs the Globe? (pp. 202–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter Center. (n.d.). Election Monitoring App (ELMO). Retrieved from
  11. Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Constable, P. (2007, February 18). Demise of the Foreign Correspondent. Washington Post. Retrieved from
  13. Fabijanić, D., Spahr, C., & Zlatarsky, V. (Eds.). (2016). Conflict Reporting in The Smartphone Era: From Budget Constraints to Information Warfare. Retrieved from Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung website:
  14. Freeman, L. (2018). Digital Evidence and War Crimes Prosecutions: The Impact of Digital Technologies on International Criminal Investigations and Trials. Fordham International Law Journal, 41(2), 283–355.Google Scholar
  15. Golder, Y., & Reich, Z. (2017, May 1). Journalistic Evidence: Cross Verification as a Constituent of Mediated Knowledge. Journalism, 18(5), 558–574. Scholar
  16. Goldsmiths University, London. (2011). Forensic Architecture Project. Retrieved from
  17. Goodwin v United Kingdom ECHR 1996-II.Google Scholar
  18. Heinzelman, J., & Meier, P. (2013). Crowdsourcing for Human Rights Monitoring: Challenges and Opportunities for Information Collection and Verification. In J. Lannon & E. F. Halpin. (Eds.), Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (pp. 123–138). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  19. Hermida, A. (2015). Filtering Fact From Fiction: A Verification Framework for Social Media. In L. Zion & D. Craig (Eds.), Ethics for Digital Journalism (pp. 59–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. International Criminal Court. (2004). E-Court Protocol from ICC OTP Regulations ICC-BD/05-01-09 Regulations of the Court ICC-BD/01-01-04. Retrieved from
  21. International Criminal Court. (2009). E-Court Protocol from ICC OTP Regulations ICC BD/05 01 09. Retrieved from…/ICCBD050109ENG.pdf as amended by Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10, Decision amending the e-Court Protocol, 4 (April 28, 2011). Retrieved from
  22. International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), Truth Hounds, & Civic Solidarity. (2017). Scorching Winter 2016–2017: Analysis of the Shelling on Settlements in Eastern Ukraine. Retrieved from
  23. Irving, E. (2017, August 17). And So It Begins… Social Media Evidence in an ICC Arrest Warrant. Opinio Juris. Retrieved from
  24. Koettl, C. (2017). Sensors Everywhere: Using Satellites and Mobile Phones to Reduce Information Uncertainty in Human Rights Crisis Research. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 11(1), 36–54. Scholar
  25. Land, M., Meier, P., Belinsky, M., & Jacobi, E. (2012, November). #ICT4HR Information and Communication Technologies for Human Rights. World Bank Institute, Nordic Trust Fund, Open Development Technology Alliance & ICT4Gov.Google Scholar
  26. Land, M. K. (2016). Democratizing Human Rights Fact-Finding. In P. Alston & S. Knuckey (Eds.), The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding (pp. 399–424). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowe, R. (2015, June 11). eyeWitness: Witnessing Atrocity. International Bar Association.
  28. Mast, J., & Hanegreefs, S. (2015). When News Media Turn to Citizen Generated Images of War: Transparency and Graphicness in Visual Coverage of the Syria Conflict. Digital Journalism, 3(4), 594–614. Scholar
  29. McPherson, E. (2015a). ICTs and Human Rights Practice: A Report Prepared for the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions. Centre of Governance and Human Rights. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. McPherson, E. (2015b). Digital Human Rights Reporting by Civilian Witnesses: Surmounting the Verification Barrier. In R. A. Lind (Ed.), Producing Theory in a Digital World 2.0: The Intersection of Audiences and Production in Contemporary Theory (2) (pp. 193–209). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  31. McPherson, E. (2016). Source Credibility as Information Subsidy: Strategies for Successful NGO Journalism at Mexican Human Rights NGOs. Journal of Human Rights, 15(3), 330–346. Scholar
  32. McPherson, E., & Probert, T. (2017). Special Procedures in the Digital Age. In A. Nolan, R. Freedman, & T. Murphy (Eds.), The United Nations Special Procedures System (pp. 261–270). Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pantti, M., & Sirén, S. (2015). The Fragility of Photo-Truth: Verification of Amateur Images in Finnish Newsrooms. Digital Journalism, 4(3), 495–512. Scholar
  34. Platt, E. (2014, October 9). Citizen Journalists Playing a Crucial Role in Syrian War. Time. Retrieved from
  35. Powers, M. (2015). NGOs as Journalistic Entities: The Possibilities, Promises and Limits of Boundary Crossing. In M. Carlson & S. C. Lewis (Eds.), Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices and Participation (pp. 186–199). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raymond, N. A., & Sandvik, K. B. (2017). Beyond the Protective Effect: Towards a Theory of Harm for Information Communication Technologies in Mass Atrocity Response. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 11(1), 9–24.
  37. Reporters Without Borders (2013, November). Journalism in Syria, Impossible Job? Retrieved from
  38. Safran, S. (2005, December 15). How Participatory Journalism Works (Nieman Reports). Retrieved from
  39. Sambrook, R. (2010, December). Are Foreign Correspondents Redundant? The Changing Face of International News. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism & Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
  40. Shapiro, I., Brin, C., Bédard-Brûlé, I., & Mychajlowycz, K. (2013, December 1). Verification as a Strategic Ritual. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 657–673. Scholar
  41. Silverman, C. (2012). A New Age for Truth (Nieman Reports). Retrieved from
  42. The Engine Room. (2016a). Datnav: How to Navigate Digital Data for Human Rights Research. Retrieved from
  43. The Engine Room. (2016b). Technology Tools in Human Rights. Retrieved from
  44. Tuckwood, C. (2014). The State of the Field: Technology for Atrocity Response. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 8(3), 81–86. Scholar
  45. Umberg, T., & Warden, C. (2014). The 2013 Salzburg Workshop on Cyber Investigations: Digital Evidence and Investigatory Protocols. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 11, 128–136.
  46. United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (UNOHCHR). (2011). Basic Principles of Human Rights Monitoring Manual on Human Right Monitoring. No. 7/Rev. 1, HR/P/PT/7/Rev. 1. Retrieved from
  47. Van der Windt, P., & Humphreys, M. W. (2014). Crowdseeding in Eastern Congo. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(4), 748–781. Scholar
  48. Wardle, C., Dubberley, S., & Brown, P. (2014). Amateur Footage: A Global Study of User-Generated Content in TV and Online News Output. Retrieved from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism website:
  49. Witness. (n.d.). Video as Evidence Field Guide. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleanor Farrow
    • 1
  1. 1.eyeWitness to AtrocitiesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations