evolve or take place over extended periods. The same individuals may be involved in multiple incidents in multiple locations; they may also change roles, ranks and organizational units. Databases and most spreadsheets allow for expansion as more information is gathered. Bespoke software is also available for this purpose. Reliability and credibility ratings are generally not included in the final version of the dossier; rather, the standard of proof that was reached for that individual/incident should be indicated. During the actor mapping or initial generation of the dossiers, however, it is helpful to have this rating information to hand. Example: Information to include in a dossier The following information could be included in a database used to generate a dossier: 1. Three separate interviews from victims alleging they had been tortured in a detention facility. One had a “high” credibility and reliability ranking, while the other two had “medium”. The one with high ratings could not name the commander, while both with medium ratings did so. 2. A newspaper story concerning a fire at the detention facility included a statement made by the commander of that facility. In the statement the commander discussed matters such as the number and status of the inmates housed in the facility. 3. A local human rights NGO report, based on 20 interviews, alleged torture in the facility, and named the commander as the alleged perpetrator. However, in a photograph featured in the report, the commander’s face did not match that published in the newspaper story, nor was the person’s rank consistent with other information on hand. 4. A page on the website of the ministry of the interior covering the promotion ceremony for certain (police or military) leaders, listed their names and ranks. The alleged commander was among those listed. 5. A defector said he had served in the detention facility and witnessed torture, but had not himself been involved. He did not divulge the names of any colleagues or commanders, but provided the rank of the commander of the facility. It matched the rank that the investigative body had on hand. In this example, the various pieces should be safeguarded in the database, whether by hyperlink,170 interview number, or attachment. Best practice entails making a copy of the webpage rather than storing only the link, in case the webpage is later removed. 170 100 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY