Jump To:

Challenge

Response
& Vision

Challenge

Those who document, investigate, report, research, monitor and otherwise gather and use information about systematic and conflict-related sexual violence (“SCRSV”) should be guided by existing law, minimum standards and best practices on how to properly undertake such work. There are numerous technical publications from different sectors which reflect such guidance and best practices. They include the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict (2017). However, there are persistent reports that some actors are unaware of or do not follow the applicable law and available guidance.

Survivors have described some of the problems from their perspective. Those who document or gather and use information about SCRSV – for purposes ranging from advocacy, human rights monitoring and fact-finding to media reporting, academic research, transitional justice, strategic and criminal litigation – have also identified problems concerning the safety, use and effectiveness of documentation. Such problems include:

  • repeated and unnecessary re-interviewing of survivors

  • interviews carried out by untrained or unskilled interviewers with rushed, ineffective, unsafe or otherwise harmful methods

  • documenters being unaware of the ways in which such methods can cause harm to or re-traumatise survivors

  • unclear or rushed informed consent procedures which do not give survivors the full information on options and risks, or the time and space to make their own choices

  • survivors not receiving promised feedback on outcomes

  • lack of medical and psycho-social support which survivors may require following their experiences or because of the effects of re-traumatising interviews

  • insufficient planning and mitigation measures regarding security and other risks and local contexts, including meeting survivors in places where the interview can be observed, overheard or interrupted by others.

Ineffective, unsafe or otherwise unethical documentation practices, however well-intentioned, cause or amplify harm suffered by survivors. While often not recognised, it also harms their chances to access justice (e.g., if repeated interviews result in inconsistent or inaccurate records). It undermines respect for other human rights of survivors and may undermine their trust in the rule of law and other governance and crisis-response systems. Information-gathering practices which disrespect such minimum standards are rarely effective and do not add value of the kind promised to survivors. Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic may result in even fewer resources for the documentation of SCRSV, and pressure to reduce necessary in-person documentation. Such consequences will exacerbate ineffective, unsafe or otherwise unethical documentation practices.


Response & Vision

A voluntary global code of conduct is part of a possible solution, with commitment and implementation by governments, UN bodies, other inter-governmental organisations, police services, other international and national investigating authorities, local and international NGOs, researchers, journalists, funders and others – a code which applies regardless of who undertakes, manages, requests, funds or outsources such documentation, or who uses information or evidence collected by others.

The concept of a ‘code of conduct’ can vary across languages, cultures and professions. Often, there is a professional body or institution which mandates and monitors conduct of its members or employees against such a code. Although it is rooted in international law, the Murad Code of Conduct will not, as such, be legally binding or have a professional body or institution associated with it. The vision for this Code is that those who voluntarily commit to it, individuals and organisations, use it to build and support a culture of practice within which there is an expectation of commitment and adherence, and to hold themselves and their partners and team members accountable. The vision also is for there to be improved cooperation and coordination between different sectors in support of the survivor-centred and effective gathering and use of information about SCRSV.

A globally supported code of conduct by itself may not greatly improve the situation. It will be a process involving self-reflection, dialogue, shared learning and support, and partnerships across sectors and between survivors, actors and stakeholders. It will require the review of existing approaches, policies and procedures. It will require a joint effort over time, the removal of drivers of ineffective and harmful documentation, and the strengthening of incentives for survivor-centred work. In short, it will require the construction of a safer, more effective and more co-ordinated ecosystem within which the gathering and use of SCRSV takes place.

During preliminary discussions held between July 2019 – February 2020 on the idea of such a code and the global consultation phase which started in June 2020 and which was based on the Draft Murad Code, survivors, practitioners and stakeholders from various sectors and regions expressed support for such a code and associated tools as a constructive contribution to address the identified problems and achieve the interlinked goals of the Murad Code project.

While there are specific reasons why the Code is focused at this stage on SCRSV, survivor rights apply to all, and ideally this Code would be applied regardless of the crime or systematic human rights violation endured by the survivor. Some feedback received recommended a broader application of the Code beyond just SCRSV to other forms of sexual violence, other gender-based violence and to other crimes or human rights violations. Based on the feedback received, actors and stakeholders should guard against applying rigid boundaries around the Code’s application which could create disparities in work with survivors of different forms of crimes or human rights violations. The consideration of a broader application of this Code beyond its initial focus is encouraged. The Draft Code of June 2020 has resonated far beyond where it started.

Systemic resource and power inequities and disparities are a barrier for implementation and use of the Code in communities affected by SCRSV. Ways to tackle this, and ways of incentivising and supporting the Code’s implementation, will be explored with actors and stakeholders, survivors included, in the roll-out of the project implementation strategy and plan.