From pixels to proof: how digital evidence reaches criminal courts

Together with criminologist Isabella Regan, we follow the journey of a fictional video of an alleged airstrike. From pixels on a screen to potential evidence in court.

Within an hour, the video circles the globe. Social media users and politicians share it in outraged posts. Somewhere, behind a computer screen, the real work begins. The footage is paused, examined pixel by pixel, and frame by frame. Is the location accurate? Does the angle of sunlight match the stated date? And who can guarantee the video wasn’t recorded years earlier in another conflict?

From momentary post to lasting record

The first step is preservation. Viral material may be deleted within hours by platforms moderating content or by uploaders removing it. NGOs and researchers therefore immediately archive copies, including metadata and screenshots, to prevent loss.

NGOs as investigators

The playing field is broad. Journalists use open-source investigation to fact-check stories, citizen investigators scour the internet from their bedrooms, and law enforcement increasingly applies it in their own work. But NGOs have taken on a central role in recent years. From large international players like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to smaller initiatives such as Mnemonic (The Syrian Archive) and the Ukrainian group TruthHounds, NGOs are often among the first to secure new material thanks to their connections in conflict zones.

The art of verification

Verification is key. To determine where (geolocation) and when (chronolocation) footage was taken, investigators look for recognizable features: a roofline, a billboard, a street corner, then compare these with Google Earth or commercial satellite images. Shadows and weather conditions are checked against meteorological data: was it sunny or overcast that day? In some cases, even the flowering of trees in the footage can be a valuable clue.

This level of detail is not a luxury but a necessity. A single video may be misleading or taken out of context. “In conflicts, manipulated or misleading videos circulate widely. Without scrutiny, such footage can fuel false narratives or collapse instantly in court. Only through detailed verification can raw footage be transformed into credible evidence,” says Regan. 

Deepfakes, cheapfakes and faux transparency

Concerns about AI-generated deepfakes are real, but according to Regan, much deception is far simpler. Computer game footage is recirculated as propaganda, old videos are relabeled as new, or clips are edited to hide crucial context. The so-called cheapfakes. 

“Even transparency, a strength of open-source investigation, can be exploited,” she adds. “States seeking to control a narrative can mimic the style: polished reports complete with screenshots and arrows, but leading to deliberately false conclusions. To an untrained eye, it can look like convincing proof.”

From investigation to courtroom

When citizen investigators, journalists, or NGOs have collected and verified material, they often publish their findings on websites or in reports. Transparency is central, ensuring results are open to scrutiny. Such reports can provide valuable leads for law enforcement, but they remain only a starting point. 

Regan emphasizes that police and prosecutors are legally responsible for investigations. Specialized teams also work with online open sources, sometimes requesting access to archives held by external investigators or requesting additional information. Yet they cannot simply rely on findings by other parties: for evidence to stand in court, all material must be independently verified and submitted by official investigators. 

Between ideals and risks

Parties such as NGOs are pioneers in this field, but that role came with certain risks. In the early days, the lack of standards or coordination sometimes meant that material was stored in ways that later made it unusable, while untrained volunteers occasionally exposed themselves to danger. Protocols have since been developed, but the field is still evolving.

Regan also points to the matter of inequalities: “Large international organizations have the money, software, and training needed to integrate open-source methods into their work. Local groups often lack such resources, and that imbalance influences which conflicts are investigated and ultimately seen.”

Digital evidence concerns us all

After a decade of rapid technological growth, the field has taken a step back. “At first there was mainly enthusiasm,” Regan notes. “It seemed like the solution to the problem of evidence in war crimes trials. Now there is more room for reflection.”

In the coming years, she expects closer cooperation between international and local organizations, and greater attention to equality. But she also adds a broader hope: “That we not only become better at exposing deception, but also more critical in how we ourselves engage with digital information. In the end, this is not just an issue for researchers or courts; it affects us all.”