View previous stories
	Using government powers to interfere in individuals privacy by AFP, Guardian News, BBC & agencies   July 2014   Dangerous practice of digital mass surveillance must be subject to independent checks and balances, by Navi Pillay.   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay warned Wednesday that studies by her office and others have revealed a “disturbing” lack of transparency about governmental surveillance policies and practices, “including de facto coercion of private sector companies to provide sweeping access to information and data relating to private individuals without the latter’s knowledge or consent.”   “This,” she said, “is severely hindering efforts to ensure accountability for any resulting human rights violations, or even to make us aware that such violations are taking place, despite a clear international legal framework laying down governments’ obligations to protect our right to privacy, and other related human rights.”   Pillay said her Office has been working for over a year on the complex web of issues relating to the right to privacy in the face of modern digital technology and surveillance measures. It has examined existing national and international legislation, a number of recent court judgments, and compiled information from a broad range of sources, including via a questionnaire sent to States, international and regional organisations, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations and private sector businesses.   As part of this ongoing process, Pillay’s office on Wednesday published a report requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2013, which stresses the need for vigilance and procedural safeguards against governmental surveillance programmes.   The report, entitled “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age” warns that Governmental mass surveillance is “emerging as a dangerous habit rather than an exceptional measure” and that practices in many States reveal “a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight.”   “The technological platforms upon which global political, economic and social life are increasingly reliant are not only vulnerable to mass surveillance”, the report says, “they may actually facilitate it.”   “The very existence of a mass surveillance programme…creates an interference with privacy. The onus is on the State to demonstrate that such interference is neither arbitrary nor unlawful,” Pillay said, noting that article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.” The Covenant, a binding treaty ratified by 167 States, also says that “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”   The High Commissioner’s report points out that “Secret rules and secret interpretations – even secret judicial interpretations – of law do not have the necessary qualities of ‘law’. The secret nature of specific surveillance powers brings with it a greater risk of arbitrary exercise of discretion which, in turn, demands greater precision in the rule governing the exercise of discretion, and additional oversight.”   The report states that while judicial involvement can help assess whether such surveillance meets the standards required by international human rights law, “judicial involvement in oversight should not be viewed as a panacea.” It calls for States to establish independent, institutions to monitor such surveillance.   “In several countries, judicial warranting or review of the digital surveillance activities of intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies have amounted effectively to an exercise in rubber-stamping,” it states.   “Jurisprudence at the regional level has emphasised the utility of an entirely independent oversight body, particularly to monitor the execution of approved surveillance measures.”   While safeguards may take a variety of forms, the report notes that attention is turning increasingly towards mixed models of administrative, judicial and parliamentary oversight. “The involvement of all branches of government in the oversight of surveillance programmes, as well as of an independent civilian oversight agency, is essential to ensure the effective protection of the law,” it states.   The report emphasizes that when conducted in compliance with the law, including international human rights law, surveillance of electronic communications data can be necessary and effective for legitimate law enforcement or intelligence purposes.   Where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate safeguards are in place, a State might be allowed to engage in surveillance. “However,” the report says, “the onus is on the Government to demonstrate that interference is both necessary and proportionate to the specific risk being addressed.”   The laws governing such surveillance must also be publicly accessible and must contain provisions that ensure that collection of, access to and use of communications data are tailored to specific legitimate aims, as noted by the UN Human Rights Committee. The laws must be sufficiently precise and provide for effective safeguards against abuse.   * Access the full report via the link below.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14875&LangID=E   Apr 2014   NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has called The Guardian and The Washington Post''s Pulitzer Prize win for reporting on secret US surveillance programs a "vindication".   The British and American newspapers were awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism by the Pulitzer committee at Columbia University in New York for their reports based on documents leaked by Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor.   The US unit of the British Guardian newspaper was honoured for "helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy," the committee said.   It recognised The Post for its "authoritative and insightful reports that helped the public understand how the (NSA) disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security".   The shared award went to the two newspapers credited with breaking the news about NSA surveillance programs, without specifically citing the journalists involved.   The reporters who played key roles in the story included Glenn Greenwald, who has since left the Guardian, and colleague Ewen MacAskill. Barton Gellman, who already has two Pulitzers, was the writer of most of the Washington Post reports. Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who was the point of contact for Snowden, had the unusual distinction of sharing bylines in both the Guardian and the Post on the topic.   In a statement released and posted by The Guardian after the award was given out, Snowden thanked all the journalists involved.   "Today''s decision is a vindication for everyone who believes that the public has a role in government," he said. "We owe it to the efforts of the brave reporters and their colleagues who kept working in the face of extraordinary intimidation, including the forced destruction of journalistic materials, the inappropriate use of terrorism laws, and so many other means of pressure to get them to stop what the world now recognises was work of vital public importance.   "This decision reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can. "My efforts would have been meaningless without the dedication, passion, and skill of these newspapers, and they have my gratitude and respect for their extraordinary service to our society."   After leaking explosive details of secret surveillance schemes to newspapers last year, Snowden fled the US.   US federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Snowden, charging him with espionage and felony theft of government property.   His leaks have deeply embarrassed US president Barack Obama''s administration by revealing the massive scale of America''s spying efforts, including on the country''s own allies such as German chancellor Angela Merkel.   Earlier this year, Mr Obama unveiled reforms for the country''s spy programs after coming under pressure from Snowden''s leaks to rein in the NSA''s wide collection of data.   He announced new procedures and said the NSA would no longer be able to hoard phone "metadata".   Feb 2014   NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden believes that some US officials would like to see him dead, but he says he can still sleep easily at night, because he did what he needed to do.   The whistleblower’s thinking is revealed in his first full-length television interview, screened on Dateline.   In a secret location in Moscow, he speaks candidly to Hubert Seipel from German broadcaster NDR about the far-reaching surveillance details he leaked, the treason charges he faces, and his life in exile in Russia:   http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601800/n/Snowden-Speaks http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/access-data-protection-remedies-eu-member-states http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/dec/18/nsa-spying-leon-ruling/?insrc=hpbl http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/nov/18/nsas-global-threat-free-speech/?insrc=hpbl   December 2013   Online privacy demands global action, says UN human rights chief.   United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay has associated the global response to government mass surveillance with the collective uproar that eventually helped cripple South Africa’s apartheid regime.   Pillay, the UN"s High Commissioner for Human Rights and a South Africa native, said in an interview that just as international pressure helped end apartheid in her home country, so must widespread condemnation of intrusive spying help boost online privacy rights. Pillay was the first non-white woman to serve as a High Court judge in South Africa.   "Combined and collective action by everybody can end serious violations of human rights,” she said in an interview with BBC Radio 4. “That experience inspires me to go on and address the issue of internet [privacy], which right now is extremely troubling because the revelations of surveillance have implications for human rights...People are really afraid that all their personal details are being used in violation of traditional national protections."   Pillay is tasked with preparing a report for the UN on digital privacy protections following the cascade of revelations supplied by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden regarding the American spy agency’s global surveillance apparatus.   The South Africa native has defended electronic freedoms in the past, both before and after Snowden’s leaks were unveiled in June.   “The broad scope of national security surveillance regimes in countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, and the impact of these regimes on individuals’ right to privacy and other human rights, continues to raise concern,” Pillay said during a speech to the UN Human Rights Council in September. “Laws and policies must be adopted to address the potential for dramatic intrusion on individuals’ privacy which have been made possible by modern communications technology…”   In February 2012, she denounced restrictions on internet access and the wanton detention of bloggers while insisting that governments which monitor criminal activity online must not abuse such power against activists.   "Bloggers and human rights defenders who legitimately exercise their right to freedom of expression continue to be arbitrarily arrested, tortured and unjustly sentenced to imprisonment on the pretext of protecting national security or countering terrorism," Pillay said.   "There is also a real concern that methods to identify and track down criminals may be used to crack down on human rights defenders, suppress dissenting voices and withhold "inconvenient" information,” she added.   In December 2010, following Wikileaks’ publishing of thousands of classified US documents supplied by US Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, Pillay defended the whistleblower website against tactics used by the US government and others to pressure third parties against facilitating Wikileaks’ operations.   "I am concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies including banks, credit card companies and Internet service providers to close down credit lines for donations to WikiLeaks, as well as to stop hosting the website," she said in Geneva.   "If WikiLeaks has committed any recognizable illegal act then this should be handled through the legal system, and not through pressure and intimidation including on third parties," Pillay added.   Pillay, also a former international criminal court judge, told the BBC that her experience with grave human rights abuses - including her service during the Rwanda genocide trial - does not taint or devalue her views of online protections.   "I don"t grade human rights," she told Berners-Lee, who was guest editing BBC Radio 4"s ‘Today’ program. "I feel I have to look after and promote the rights of all persons. I"m not put off by the lifetime experience of violations I have seen."   Last week, the UN General Assembly unanimously approved a resolution spurred by NSA targets Brazil and Germany, which stated "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy.”   It implores the UN member states "to review their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, with a view to upholding the right to privacy of all their obligations under international human rights law.”   The resolution is also the impetus for Pillay’s forthcoming report on internet privacy "in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance...including on a mass scale.”   She said on BBC that it was "very important that governments now want to discuss the matters of mass surveillance and right to privacy in a serious way.”   Oct 2013   Washington is under fire from its allies after reports the United States spied on their leaders communications.   The reports are the latest allegations to emerge from fugitive contractor Edward Snowden about a huge US spy programme run by the National Security Agency (NSA).   German chancellor Angela Merkel"s mobile phone has been tapped by the NSA and she has spoken with US president Barack Obama about it.   Ms Merkel made it clear she "regards such practices as completely unacceptable".   Ms Merkel demanded answers after learning the NSA monitored her phone and warned that would represent a "breach of trust" between international partners.   White House spokesman Jay Carney told media: "The president assured the chancellor the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor."   He did not speak about past activities however, and the German foreign ministry summoned US Ambassador John B Emerson in relation to the affair.   Brazilian president Dilma Roussef sharply criticised the US after the newspaper O Globo reported in September that the NSA had intercepted some of her emails and telephone calls, along with those of close aides.   Ms Roussef cancelled a planned visit to the US, but later addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York and called the spy programme "an affront to the principles...that otherwise govern relations between countries."   Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto, who took power in December, has ordered an "exhaustive" probe into reports that the NSA hacked his emails while he was a candidate last year, as well as the messages of predecessor Felipe Calderon while in office.   The allegations that Mr Calderon was spied on from May 2010 were reported by German weekly Der Spiegel after a similar report by US journalist Glenn Greenwald last month that Mr Pena Nieto had been targeted by the NSA.   On September 5, Mr Pena Nieto said that Mr Obama promised an investigation into the allegations.   Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said that "of course" he was spied on when he was in power between 2000 and 2006.   Mr Fox told MVS Radio in Madrid on Wednesday: "It"s nothing new that there"s espionage in every government in the world, including Mexico."   France summons US envoy over NSA surveillance claims. Le Monde newspaper claims that US intercepts French phone calls on "massive scale", by Angelique Chrisafis in Paris and Sam Jones.   The French government has summoned the US ambassador in Paris to demand an urgent explanation over claims that the National Security Agency had engaged in widespread phone and internet surveillance of French citizens.   The French daily Le Monde published details from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden suggesting the US agency had been intercepting French phone traffic on what it termed "a massive scale".   Le Monde said more than 70m French phone calls had been recorded in one 30-day period late last year. Techniques included the automatic recording of conversations from certain numbers, and sweeping up text messages based on keywords. The paper warned that the interceptions were likely to have targeted not just those with suspected terrorist links but also people in business, politics and the French administration.   The French prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said he was shocked and demanded the US provide "clear answers, justifying the reasons these practices were used and above all creating the conditions of transparency so these practices can be put to an end".   The White House responded by saying that the US "gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations".   Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council at the White House, said: "We"ve begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share."   Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister, warned: "This sort of practice between partners that invades privacy is totally unacceptable and we have to make sure, very quickly, that this no longer happens."   Fabius added: "We co-operate in a useful way in the fight against terrorism, but that does not justify everything."   Le Monde highlighted what it called "techniques used to violate the secrets or simply the private life of French people". The paper said: "The agency has several collection methods. When certain French phone numbers are dialled, a signal is activated that triggers the automatic recording of certain conversations. This surveillance also recovered SMS and content based on keywords."   Such methods, it added, allowed the NSA to keep a systematic record of the history of each target"s connections. Le Monde said the unpublished Snowden documents it had seen showed "intrusion, on a vast scale, both into the private space of French citizens as well as into the secrets of major national firms".   Le Monde questioned why the French government had remained so discreet for months on the NSA question, compared with the tougher stance shown by Brazil and Germany.   In July Hollande threatened to suspend negotiations for a transatlantic free trade agreement after reports in the Guardian and Der Spiegel that the NSA spied on EU offices and European diplomatic missions in Washington and at the UN in New York.   Also in July, Le Monde reported that France runs its own vast electronic surveillance operation, intercepting and stocking data from citizens phone and internet activity, using similar methods to the NSA"s Prism programme.   June 2013   NSA surveillance: Majority in US want greater oversight.   Poll finds two-thirds of Americans want NSA"s role reviewed, and 56% find current congressional oversight insufficient.   A clear majority of Americans are concerned about the actions and operations of the National Security Agency (NSA) and want the intelligence body to be subjected to further review and greater congressional oversight, a Guardian poll has found.   In the opinion poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, two-thirds of voters who responded said that in the light of the leaked disclosures about the NSA"s surveillance activities they wanted to see its role reviewed.   In a separate question, 56% said that they believed Congress had failed to conduct sufficient oversight of the NSA, which is a branch of the department of defence charged with collecting and analysing national security information. Recent disclosures by the Guardian have unveiled the NSA"s vast data-mining programs of telephone records and other digital communications involving millions of Americans.   The revelations originated with a former contract worker for the NSA, Edward Snowden, who said he decided to blow the whistle on the agency"s digital dragnet operations because he wanted the public to know about the "federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive power that rule the world".   The poll suggests that his stated ambition has, at least for now, been achieved: some 90% of those surveyed said they had heard about the recent news involving the NSA"s collecting and storing of Verizon phone records and gaining access to data from major internet companies, and 61% said they believed a fresh debate was needed over the balance between privacy and security.   The poll shows that a substantial majority of Americans – 60% – want their government to be more open about its data collection so that the public can understand what is going on. A much smaller proportion, only 35%, said they agreed that the government needs to keep the data it collects secret in order to protect national security.   Despite these areas of relative agreement, Americans are much less firm in their opinions when asked about official data gathering activities. Some 44% of respondents approve of the government collecting internet and/or phone data from them, and a relatively close 50% think it is a bad idea.   Similar results were found when the sample was asked what they thought of the government"s collection of metadata, with 40% approving and a 50% disapproving. The term was explained in the survey as being the collection of characteristics such as length of a phone call and who called whom but not the content of the phone call itself.   The Obama administration has attempted to justify the NSA"s actions in the light of the recent leaks by saying the agency only skims metadata information rather than listening into conversations. Advocates of greater openness in official affairs say that this is misleading.   "It"s not surprising that people are more ambivalent about metadata because many people have little knowledge about how deeply personal metadata can be. It can be a window into every aspect of your life – who you are speaking to, for how long, where from – it"s a database of everything you do," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney at the campaign for online rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.   One group more than any other has intense qualms about the expansion of executive powers in data sweeping: young Americans. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, a commanding 81% want to see the NSA"s role reviewed and 69% think there needs to be a wider debate about privacy versus security.   June 2013   NSA surveillance: the US is behaving like China, writes Chinese activist Ai Weiwei.   Both governments think they are doing what is best for the state and people. But, as I know, such abuse of power can ruin lives, says Ai Weiwei.   Even though we know governments do all kinds of things I was shocked by the information about the US surveillance operation, Prism. To me, it"s abusively using government powers to interfere in individuals privacy. This is an important moment for international society to reconsider and protect individual rights.   I lived in the United States for 12 years. This abuse of state power goes totally against my understanding of what it means to be a civilised society, and it will be shocking for me if American citizens allow this to continue. The US has a great tradition of individualism and privacy and has long been a centre for free thinking and creativity as a result.   In our experience in China, basically there is no privacy at all – that is why China is far behind the world in important respects: even though it has become so rich, it trails behind in terms of passion, imagination and creativity.   Of course, we live under different kinds of legal conditions – in the west and in developed nations there are other laws that can balance or restrain the use of information if the government has it. That is not the case in China, and individuals are completely naked as a result. Intrusions can completely ruin a person"s life, and I don"t think that could happen in western nations.   But still, if we talk about abusive interference in individuals rights, Prism does the same. It puts individuals in a very vulnerable position. Privacy is a basic human right, one of the very core values. There is no guarantee that China, the US or any other government will not use the information falsely or wrongly. I think especially that a nation like the US, which is technically advanced, should not take advantage of its power. It encourages other nations.   Before the information age the Chinese government could decide you were a counter-revolutionary just because a neighbour reported something they had overheard. Thousands, even millions of lives were ruined through the misuse of such information.   Today, through its technical abilities, the state can easily get into anybody"s bank account, private mail, conversations, and social media accounts. The internet and social media give us new possibilities of exploring ourselves.   But we have never exposed ourselves in this way before, and it makes us vulnerable if anyone chooses to use it against us. Any information or communication could put young people under the surveillance of the state. Very often, when oppressive states arrest people, they have that information in their hands. It can be used as a way of controlling you, to tell you: we know exactly what you"re thinking or doing. It can drive people to madness.   When human beings are scared and feel everything is exposed to the government, we will censor ourselves from free thinking. That"s dangerous for human development.   In the Soviet Union before, in China today, and even in the US, officials always think what they do is necessary, and firmly believe they do what is best for the state and the people. But the lesson that people should learn from history is the need to limit state power.   If a government is elected by the people, and is genuinely working for the people, they should not give in to these temptations.   During my detention in China I was watched 24 hours a day. The light was always on. There were two guards on two-hour shifts standing next to me – even watching when I swallowed a pill; I had to open mouth so they could see my throat. You have to take a shower in front of them; they watch you while you brush your teeth, in the name of making sure you"re not hurting yourself. They had three surveillance cameras to make sure the guards would not communicate with me.   But the guards whispered to me. They told stories about themselves. There is always humanity and privacy, even under the most restrictive conditions.   To limit power is to protect society. It is not only about protecting individuals rights but making power healthier.   Civilisation is built on that trust and everyone must fight to defend it, and to protect our vulnerable aspects – our inner feelings, our families. We must not hand over our rights to other people. No state power should be given that kind of trust. Not China. Not the US.   http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/03/uk-reaction-nsa-leaks-human-rights Visit the related web page
	The politics of numbers by Fragkiska Megaloudi IRIN News   August 2013   Varied death tolls emerging from Egypt’s latest clashes are a reminder that obtaining mortality statistics in emergencies is still a disputed, complicated and, at times, politicized task. But tallied correctly, researchers say mortality data can boost aid efficacy and improve funding decisions.   “Funding to save people, in the aftermath, is driven by death tolls,” said Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Brussels-based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), noting that death tolls are also a good indicator for survivors who need life-saving assistance.   Unlike mortality data from natural disasters, the number of dead from armed conflict can be used for political purposes and thus become subject to manipulation or misuse, according to CRED, which has maintained an “emergency events” database on the occurrence and effects of more than 18,000 mass disasters worldwide from 1900 to the present.   The politics of numbers   In Egypt''s current political crisis, death tolls have differed wildly depending on the source. In the hours following the forcible clearing of a mass sit-in of Muslim Brotherhood supporters by government forces on 14 August, the Brotherhood''s initial death toll was 500, while state TV said four people had been killed.   The government’s toll has since risen to more than 600 while the opposition’s toll is more than three times as high.   Many of the dead in Egypt were taken to makeshift hospitals run by the Brotherhood movement itself, which made outside verification of the figures difficult. The official death count is based only on bodies that passed through a hospital.   Darfur   Sudan’s Darfur conflict, which broke out 10 years ago and for which a ceasefire was signed in 2010, has generated a significant debate on death counts. The UN estimates some 300,000 died, while Khartoum puts the number closer to 10,000. In 2006 the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) published an analysis of mortality estimates from Darfur to examine the methodology behind death tallies.   In Darfur lack of access to some regions of the conflict, inaccurate population data and varied manipulations of baseline mortality rates (death rates in times of non-crisis) led to data shortcomings and disputed death estimates, the analysis concluded.   The US Department of State reported that between March 2003 and January 2005 a total of 98,000 to 181,000 people died, while five other studies produced estimates ranging up to nearly 400,000 people between February 2003 and August 2005. The GAO study judged none of the death tolls accurate, although it noted some estimates were more reliable than others.   A recent analysis (2010) of mortality estimates in Darfur based on retrospective mortality surveys estimated that the overall number of “excess” deaths (those attributable to crisis conditions and not just direct conflict) in Darfur between early 2003 and end of 2008 was some 300,000 people.   However, the authors acknowledged that the limits of data and problems over its interpretation that plagued earlier death tolls, persisted in theirs.   Syria   The Syrian conflict presents another data dilemma for mortality statisticians.   In a complex armed conflict as is the case of Syria, fatalities can be at the centre of political controversy with each party to the conflict wanting to downplay civilian deaths.   In August 2011 the UN Human Rights Council established the Independent International Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights and international law violations in Syria. But lack of access hampered the commission’s efforts, whose investigations have been forced to rely primarily on interviews with people in camps and hospitals in countries neighbouring Syria.   “Initially, we adopted a methodology that required one of two things for us to count the casualty, A) our eye-witness actually saw the deceased and knew his/her name or, B) our witness was a family member, and knew that his/her family member was deceased,” said Vic Ullom, legal adviser of the Commission of Inquiry (COI).   “For us, that was an appropriately high bar to get over those accounts that are fabricated or exaggerated. However, we only received a small percentage of the overall numbers of casualties, because we could only interview a small percentage of the refugee population,” he added.   According to the Centre for Documentation of Violations in Syria, an opposition website, the fatalities since the beginning of the conflict number some 69,000 people while the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, run by a Syrian who fled 13 years ago who is now based in the UK, puts the conflict’s casualties closer to 106,000 people. Both networks report on casualties from both sides and say they gather their information from human rights groups and activists in Syria.   However, experts warn that in a conflict like Syria’s, while a reliable network on the ground can provide decent statistics, it can also be challenging.   “They''ve got to be active and mobile, and they themselves [must] have good networks in the area that they cover. Being on the ground during a war, they will be very susceptible to all kinds of pressure, including to manipulate the numbers in favour of their political objectives,” said Ullom of COI, who added that it will be “extremely” difficult for such monitors to have access, but not favour either side.   In humanitarian emergencies, proper gathering, interpretation and use of mortality data can save lives as this database is the basis on which to plan a humanitarian response, say researchers.   Mortality rate is defined “as the number of deaths occurring in a given population at risk during a specified time period, also known as the recall period”. In emergencies it is usually expressed as deaths per 10,000 persons per day.   Crude mortality rate (CMR) and under five mortality rate (U5MR) are important indicators to assess and monitor the severity of an emergency situation, and are expressed per day.   CMR refers to the number of deaths among all age groups and due to all causes, while U5MR refers to the deaths of children under five years of age, out of 1,000 live births during a specified year.   According to the humanitarian guidelines known as SPHERE standards a CMR or an U5MR that is double the pre-crisis mortality rate indicates a “significant” public health emergency.   But one longstanding challenge of tallying death tolls in armed conflicts is whether to count deaths from “war-related causes”, including starvation due to lack of access to farmland in the line of fire, or from treatable diseases and minor wounds when patients cannot get treatment.   Several efforts have been made to standardize methodologies including the Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART), a network of organizations and humanitarian practitioners that has published a protocol for nutrition and mortality assessments.   But getting practitioners on the ground to apply these standards under duress is another matter.   Scarce resources, security concerns hamper data collection   CRED’s Guha-Sapir added: “At this time, there is no agreed-on methodology or even guidelines that could help operational workers who are on the ground to estimate the dead.”   The Harvard Project on monitoring, reporting and fact finding has been researching for the past two years guidelines on a common investigative methodology for mortality statistics. The project targets the work of fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry mandated by the UN and entities such as the European Union.   A major challenge for such missions is they do not compile raw data, but rather, rely on often unreliable casualty statistics compiled by other organizations.   “Commissions of inquiry frequently operate under broad mandates under scarce resource and time constraints,” Rob Grace, program associate at the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at the School of Public Health at Harvard University, told IRIN.   “For this reason, they tend to lack the capacity to undertake a comprehensive examination of all incidents that have occurred in the relevant context. Most commissions of inquiry mandated to gather information about violations of human rights endeavour to gather information about certain incidents that are emblematic of the patterns of violations that have occurred. The task of gathering accurate quantitative information about fatalities is not typically included in mandates for commissions of inquiry.”   Security restrictions are another added worry.   “Other challenges involve lack of territorial access in situations in which the host country has not granted the commission on-the-ground access, and ad hoc territorial access restrictions imposed, for example, by armed groups that control territory,” said Grace.   For Guha-Sapir, a systematic review of how governments and organizations, including the Red Cross and UN, calculate their death tolls is crucial.   The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) does not conduct mortality surveys during conflict, but rather relies on mortality data from health centres it supports, according to its health unit. For non-conflict mortality data, it relies on national health authorities, local civil society groups, and both national and international NGOs.   “They [governments and organizations] undoubtedly do their best in very chaotic conditions but it is first important to know how they do it. This can give some important insights into what the constraints are and also build from experience,” Guha-Sapir said. Visit the related web page
	View more stories