Yes, I also send it in the chat. So in your opinion, how should the international human

rights courts approach citizen media evidence as means of evidence, particularly considering

domestic legislation that might preclude its use during domestic proceedings?

So thinking about that question, I first of all want to say that there's a lot of work and

advocacy that also still needs to happen even within the domestic space. That's the space that's

closest to most people. So I would first even advocate for us to think about how domestic

courts and domestic tribunals are also able to handle the volume, the proliferation of video

evidence coming before them because it's true. Currently there's a challenge as to how to tackle

that. But for international tribunals and international courts, international human

rights systems, there would need to first of all be an acknowledgement of the fact that the

landscape has changed from what it used to be. We now are confronted with a massive volume of

video evidence, which usually is what we only have as proof of an atrocity having been committed.

And what we increasingly find is on most instances, the current laws around admissibility

have not also transitioned to the point of being able to admit the videos as evidence

or to place the right kind of weight on the videos themselves. And in other instances,

that there's a requirement of the witness for instance to be present physically in court,

to be able to speak to the evidence that has been presented. And that is not sustainable because if

you think about it, there are times when the evidence that we have was extracted from social

media, we may have obtained it even through an individual that documented but is no longer

available because maybe they got killed or they fear for their lives. And when courts still would

require the witnesses to an atrocity to be physically present to give credence to that evidence,

it becomes challenging in the landscape that we currently are in. Because sometimes not just about

the witness protection, it's just that the witness is no longer even available or cannot even be

found. And we've seen many cases that have been brought even recently before the International

Criminal Court that have leveraged significantly on the evidence that has been obtained through

social media. And in some instances, all we are able to do is actually to be able to verify

this pieces of evidence and not be able to know who shot them. We then bring it into the final

point. I think something that needs investment in is raising the expertise level of the ability

to verify. The courts would need to figure that out. In my own research, I've seen how

there hasn't been enough reliance on expertise. Just the same way we would bring in an expert

on ballistics or bring in an expert on how did this person die and all of that. We should start to

think about how do we bring in experts on open source intelligence and verification so that they

can be able to ascertain for a fact that the evidence before the court is what it says it is

because it's not as simple as looking at a video and determining that. It requires certain layers

of that. So first, just to recap would be one, that we need to first acknowledge that the

landscape has changed. The volume of videos coming at us now are largely documented by civilians.

And second is to adjust our rules of evidence to make it easier to admit videos being shot by

civilians and think about the question of witnesses being there physically to present the evidence.

And third is to think about how we do verification and to build up expertise, not just for

bringing them into the court from external experts but also within the court itself so that judges

can be better equipped to analyze and interrogate video evidence that's brought before them.

I hope that helps.