Pagina dettaglio corso numero uno

by Martina Caslini, PhD Student at the University of Rome “La Sapienza” 

On June 17, 2025, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan presented an oral update to the Human Rights Council on the country’s dire situation, reporting that it had recently conducted 240 interviews, verified 30 videos, and geolocated 8 attacks. This intervention takes place within a broader context where the data collection and evidence assessment methodologies employed by UN investigative bodies have become intertwined with the emergence of new technologies and the generation of digital material. 

In this framework, recognizing the new criminological challenges related to information gathering and evidence evaluation concerning systematic violence is particularly important. 

The widespread use of new technologies is a defining feature of contemporary conflicts. Drones are employed both for military operations and surveillance activities; equipped with high-resolution telephoto lenses, they can zoom in on images, allowing for closer analysis of specific situations. These devices can also record digital footage that can later be reviewed or used as evidence in judicial proceedings. Moreover, in current conflict settings, armed forces have access to digital technologies capable of providing precise terrain information. A notable example is Starlink, the satellite internet constellation operated by SpaceX, which played a crucial, albeit controversial, role in the Russo-Ukrainian war. 

At the same time, civilians, equipped with mobile phones, can directly document events and share evidence through digital platforms, as well as use applications specifically designed for collecting evidence of international crimes, such as eyeWitness to Atrocities, developed under the initiative of the International Bar Association. 

When judges are called upon to assess the reasonableness of the conduct of investigators, military personnel, civilians participating in hostilities, or more generally those contributing to violence, based on the intelligence available to them, they may refer to footage obtained via drones or mobile devices rather than relying solely, for example, on testimonies. In proceedings related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression, it is essential to collect a significant amount and a heterogeneous variety of evidence. However, the proliferation of fake news and disinformation has introduced significant challenges, particularly concerning the reliability of secondary sources, the validity of information, and the integrity of the data collection process, further complicating the methodology of international investigations. Additionally, questions arise regarding the impact that open-source and proprietary information may have, alongside the potential use of data analytics tools for the rapid processing of collected material. 

In light of these considerations, a more structural reflection emerges concerning the possibility of documenting violations occurring in contexts where violence is perpetrated on a large scale. Limited or entirely blocked access to certain territories, often due to the lack of consent from the involved state or the inherent dangers of conflict zones, renders it impossible or extremely difficult for investigative bodies to gather direct evidence or verify relevant information on-site. This situation raises questions about the number of crimes that escape observation and documentation even through the new technologies previously mentioned. 

In this regard, the criminological concept of the “dark figure” of crime, that is, the set of offenses that, for various reasons, are not recorded in official statistics, can be invoked. Research has demonstrated a significant gap between actual and reported crime, referring to behaviors classified as crimes under positive law (Ambroset and Pisapia, Numero Oscuro della Devianza e Questione Criminale). Transposed to the settings investigated by the UN Human Rights Council’s investigative bodies, this notion invites reflection on the indefinite and undefinable number of serious violations, potentially constituting international crimes, that go undocumented because they occur in completely isolated areas, in contexts of total informational disorder, or through modes that prevent detection even with the most advanced technologies. This inevitably creates a gap that not only limits the ability to thoroughly establish the facts but also affects the possibility of delivering justice to victims. 

More specifically, information collected in contexts of mass atrocities, in addition to forming the foundational elements of reports by these non-judicial investigative bodies, may carry probative value in proceedings before national and supranational courts. This informational partiality thus highlights an area of impunity, which could undermine the trust of affected populations in international institutions and post-conflict judicial mechanisms. 

Moreover, this limitation compromises the full recognition of victims’ suffering, negatively impacting their ability to access adequate forms of reparation, both material and symbolic. In this perspective, it is essential to acknowledge the value of listening to individual truths, as the subjective narrative of trauma itself constitutes an essential form of recognition and justice, even in situations where “knowledge” of certain facts is lacking or entirely absent. 

In conclusion, while the use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence tools represents an indispensable aid in strengthening investigative capacity and combating impunity, it is crucial to recognize that these tools, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fully bridge the gaps caused by the lack of physical access to locations where violations occur. From this viewpoint, it is methodologically important to integrate material collected through technological sources with direct on-the-ground observation. Consequently, states must guarantee independent experts’ access to crisis contexts within their mandate’s scope. At the same time, aware of the gravity and scope of the violations committed, an all-encompassing approach to truth-seeking is imperative; a perspective that places victims, all victims, including those of so-called “invisible crimes” at the center, ensuring their voices are heard and their suffering does not remain confined in the “darkness”.