Start here
A short guide to the archive's records, evidence, grades, legal terminology and corrections.
Last updated
What this archive includes
Not every incident in this archive is alleged to constitute a war crime. It also documents alleged rights violations, abuses of power and democratic concerns. Records are classified individually according to their factual and legal evidence. Editorial assessments are not court findings.
Browse the register, or read the methodology. Before-office conduct is listed separately, outside the official-power grading scale.
Read a record in four steps
- Check the date and status. The incident date and record update date serve different purposes. An ongoing incident is not necessarily an ongoing court case.
- Read the evidence and sources. Follow numbered citations and the source list. Prefer the underlying filing, order, report or document; distinguish what it establishes from an author's interpretation. A source count is not a confidence score.
- Read the legal posture and threshold. An allegation, interim order, filed charge and final judgment have different meanings. Read the posture note and chronology before drawing a conclusion.
- Check corrections and preservation. A correction notice explains a revision. A preserved copy helps audit what was captured; it does not establish that the original claim was true. Evidence preservation and its limitations.
The five grades
These are the archive's editorial categories, not sentences imposed by a court. Read the full definitions and evidentiary thresholds.
| Grade | Category |
|---|---|
| 5 | International Crime (Rome Statute) |
| 4 | Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern |
| 3 | Serious Rights Violation |
| 2 | Major Abuse of Power |
| 1 | Significant Democratic Concern |
Classification and jurisdiction
Read these questions separately:
- Classification: what legal category does the record argue the conduct falls within?
- Evidence threshold: how strongly does the record say the cited evidence supports that assessment?
- Jurisdiction: could a particular court hear the case through an available legal pathway?
- Judicial finding: what, if anything, has a court actually decided? Check the named court, document and procedural posture.
A Rome Statute relevance flag identifies a subject for legal analysis. It does not establish that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction, that prosecutors have brought charges, or that a court has found anyone guilty. See the record's legal analysis for any documented jurisdictional limits; an absent analysis means jurisdiction has not been established here.
Check our work
Read the corrections and update log. If a source contradicts a record, that matters: use the contact information to identify the record, disputed claim and supporting document. Do not send private or identifying information about vulnerable people through a public channel.