Institutionalization: A Way Forward to Prove the Role of Open-Source Intelligence to the Courts

[Deniz Mykola Dirisu is an international OSINT consultant and co-founder of OSINT For Ukraine, with experience in building and leading diverse teams across borders within the context of digital investigations and justice.

Manon-Catherine Balbinot serves as the War Crimes Task Force Leader at OSINT For Ukraine, leveraging OSINT techniques to uncover war crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. She is also a consultant for the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime, and specialises in international criminal law, counter-terrorism and organized crime]

The decentralized nature of open-source intelligence (OSINT) renders it a compelling tool for advancing accountability, particularly in contexts where access to traditional investigative methods is limited. However, this same decentralization poses significant challenges when attempting to introduce OSINT-derived information as admissible evidence in judicial proceedings. Chief among these challenges is the absence of standardized methodologies, which complicates the application of evidentiary rules and hinders consistent assessments of reliability and probative value. A second, related issue concerns the treatment of OSINT as expert evidence—particularly the necessity of qualified experts who can adequately explain and defend the technical processes underlying the collection, verification, and analysis of open-source material. Institutionalization offers a pathway to address these challenges. By developing shared standards, practices, and professional recognition, institutionalization can enhance the legal credibility and operational effectiveness of OSINT.

Defined broadly as the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information derived from publicly available sources, OSINT distinguishes itself from other forms of intelligence by operating entirely within the public domain, without reliance on covert means or classified information. This defining feature expands the universe of accessible data while simultaneously raising unique concerns regarding the authenticity, provenance, and verification of such information.

Despite its increasing relevance in both journalistic and legal spheres, OSINT remains conceptually underdeveloped as a distinct discipline. There is no universally accepted definition, and methodological approaches vary widely across academic fields, investigative organizations, and intelligence communities. The absence of a unified conceptual framework or recognized disciplinary boundaries impedes efforts to standardize practice and undermines the acceptance of OSINT in legal contexts. As intelligence communities and legal institutions begin to engage more substantively with open-source investigations, the need for a coherent and institutionalized OSINT field becomes increasingly urgent.

OSINT in the Legal and Criminal Context

The use of OSINT in legal and criminal contexts has gained substantial momentum, particularly within international investigations. Rooted in disciplines such as information theory, data science, geography, and intelligence studies, OSINT embodies a multidisciplinary methodology. However, its effective application in judicial settings is hindered by the absence of a centralized regulatory or accreditation body, as well as the lack of standardized definitions, verification protocols, and evidentiary guidelines. These inconsistencies complicate the assessment of the reliability and admissibility of OSINT-derived material in court. Moreover, open-source information is often collected without legal accountability frameworks in mind, resulting in a lack of technical indicia or corroborative sources to attest to its authenticity.

As reliance on OSINT continues to grow in both domestic and international proceedings, the absence of dedicated legal procedures, combined with the proliferation of disinformation and manipulated media, underscores the urgent need for formal institutionalization. Establishing clear standards, verification practices, and accreditation mechanisms is essential to ensure that OSINT can be consistently integrated into legal processes in a manner that upholds evidentiary integrity and due process.

Attempts at Codification and Standardization 

Efforts to codify and standardize the use of OSINT in legal contexts can be broadly categorized into two phases: those preceding and those following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Initial attempts, particularly during the Syrian civil war, were largely driven by non-governmental organizations and independent researchers who recognized OSINT’s potential for documenting atrocities and supporting accountability processes. These early initiatives laid critical groundwork by showcasing how OSINT could complement traditional investigative methods. However, they often lacked formal institutional backing and struggled with challenges of evidentiary admissibility, methodological consistency, and legal credibility.

Among the first structured attempts to formalize the field was the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations, which set minimum standards for the collection and preservation of online content. While it represents a significant milestone in the recognition of OSINT as a legitimate form of evidence, its primary focus is on broad principles and ethical considerations rather than operational guidance or implementation. Similarly, the Leiden Guidelines on Digitally Derived Evidence (DDE) aim to assist practitioners in navigating legal frameworks for submitting digital evidence to international courts. However, the guidelines remain general in scope and do not explicitly address open-source investigation methodologies or provide practical tools for implementation.

In the post-2022 context, the rapid proliferation of OSINT investigations—particularly in documenting international crimes in Ukraine—has led to more targeted and practical efforts to develop standardized approaches. This period is marked by increased engagement from both civil society and institutional actors, driven by the recognition that open-source material is not only abundant but often central to international accountability mechanisms. Efforts have focused on improving the consistency, transparency, and legal usability of OSINT by developing clear methodologies for data collection, verification, analysis, and preservation.

The Global Rights Compliance (GRC) Basic Investigative Standards (BIS) manual represents one such initiative aimed at enhancing the quality and legal viability of evidence collected in Ukraine. While it includes references to OSINT and digital evidence, its scope is broader and not exclusively dedicated to open-source practices. In contrast, the Bellingcat–GLAN methodology, specifically designed for post-24 February 2022 investigations in Ukraine, offers detailed standard operating procedures aligned with the Berkeley Protocol. It emphasizes practical techniques for content discovery, verification, and archiving. However, its regional and temporal focus may limit its wider applicability.

Most recently, the guide “Evaluating Digital Open Source Imagery: A Guide for Judges and Fact-Finders”, developed by experts from academic institutions and NGOs, seeks to bridge the gap between practitioners and legal decision-makers. This guide educates judicial actors on the evidentiary and methodological dimensions of OSINT without attempting to regulate the field or prescribe courtroom procedures. While it does not serve as a practitioner’s manual, it represents an important step toward fostering judicial literacy in digital evidence.

Collectively, these efforts reflect an evolving consensus on the need for institutionalized OSINT standards that are legally robust, methodologically sound, and ethically grounded. As OSINT becomes increasingly central to international accountability, the development of formal frameworks and accreditation processes will be essential to ensure its sustained legitimacy in legal proceedings.

Current Challenges 

The inherently technical nature of OSINT necessitates the use of expert testimony to convey its methodological nuances in judicial contexts. Yet, identifying and classifying qualified OSINT experts remains a persistent challenge, largely due to the absence of formal academic programs or standardized training pathways. This lack of institutional recognition contributes to OSINT’s ambiguous status within the broader intelligence community, where debate continues as to whether it constitutes a distinct discipline or merely a subcomponent of existing intelligence methodologies. This disciplinary uncertainty underscores the urgent need to establish a system of certification for OSINT professionals, in order to provide legal institutions with a reliable pool of recognized experts.

At the international level, institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) require expert witnesses to meet specific educational and experiential criteria. These requirements are relatively straightforward in traditional forensic disciplines such as ballistics or DNA analysis, where formal education and professional accreditation are well established. In contrast, the majority of OSINT practitioners acquire their expertise through a combination of informal experience, on-the-job training, and self-directed study. As a result, many highly skilled individuals may be excluded from expert roles in legal proceedings simply due to the absence of formal academic credentials or recognized certification mechanisms.

In domestic legal systems, similar challenges persist. Under Ukrainian law, for instance, a clear distinction is made between experts and specialists. For an individual to serve as a court-recognized expert witness, they must be listed in the Register of Certified Experts, having been formally accredited by an expert qualification commission. By contrast, a field specialist—while permitted to assist the court—must demonstrate their expertise directly during proceedings in order to be qualified to testify on evidence presented.This distinction is particularly relevant in the context of OSINT, where practitioners may be called upon to authenticate and interpret digital materials such as satellite imagery or metadata. Given the lack of formalized OSINT training programs, many civil society investigators, particularly those from outside Ukraine, are unable to meet the requirements for entry into the Register. Ukrainian law only permits the accreditation of foreign forensic experts who are certified in their country of origin, thereby excluding a significant portion of international OSINT practitioners from formal expert recognition.

This creates a structural barrier for international civil society actors who are often crucial contributors to accountability processes, especially in conflict settings. These individuals may face additional hurdles related to language, legal procedure, and evidentiary standards when asked to demonstrate their expertise in court—factors which can hinder the effective presentation of OSINT-derived evidence.

Finally, the rapidly evolving nature of OSINT presents ongoing challenges for legal systems that are traditionally slow to adapt to technological change. New tools and methods for data collection and analysis emerge continuously, requiring legal frameworks to keep pace in order to ensure accurate interpretation, admissibility, and procedural fairness. Without sustained engagement between legal practitioners, OSINT experts, technologists, and policymakers, there is a risk that courts will either underutilize OSINT or misapply outdated legal principles in evaluating its relevance and reliability. A continuous, structured dialogue among these actors is essential to support the integration of OSINT into judicial processes in a manner that reflects both its capabilities and its limitations.

Establishing a Unified OSINT Association

Considering the foregoing analysis, there is a clear and pressing need for a unifying professional body capable of providing methodological guidance, standardization, and institutional recognition for practitioners of open-source investigations. The proposed creation of an International Association of Open-Source Investigators (IA-OSI) would serve this function. The formal institutionalization of OSINT practice through such a body would enhance the credibility, admissibility, and evidentiary value of open-source material by enabling the systematic development, discussion, and approval of methodologies, terminologies, and ethical frameworks. Most critically, it would establish recognized certification and accreditation processes, thereby facilitating the ability of practitioners to serve as expert witnesses in both international and domestic legal proceedings.

Such an association would contribute significantly to improving the quality, consistency, and reliability of open-source investigations, while also fostering greater trust among legal professionals—including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys—regarding the use of open-source evidence in judicial contexts. Beyond standard setting, a professional association dedicated to OSINT would promote collaborative knowledge exchange and institutional cooperation by functioning similarly to established scientific societies such as the European Science Foundation. Through conferences, seminars, and digital platforms, the IA-OSI could cultivate a dynamic and responsive international network of open-source investigators.

Importantly, the IA-OSI would not represent a move toward self-policing, censorship, or the exclusion of grassroots participation. Rather, it would reinforce the democratization of the open-source investigative community by ensuring that its membership reflects diversity of origin, culture, gender, and geography, in addition to demonstrated expertise. The association would exemplify the community’s capacity for self-organization and self-regulation in a legal and criminal accountability context—without requiring external oversight or control.

In addition to promoting methodological integrity, the IA-OSI could play a vital role in mitigating cognitive and confirmation biases in investigations. By developing and disseminating standards for the systematic application of adversarial testing or “devil’s advocacy” procedures, the association would help ensure that alternative hypotheses are sufficiently explored during the course of investigative work. Where appropriate, it could issue advisory opinions or methodological critiques in high-profile or precedent-setting cases to advance best practices.

Finally, the establishment of the IA-OSI would serve to address structural disparities in legal processes that increasingly rely on open-source evidence. For instance, at the ICC, the prosecution often has greater access to OSINT expertise and resources than the defense, potentially undermining the principle of equality of arms. A professional association could help rectify this imbalance by encouraging its members and affiliated organizations to offer training and resources to defense teams, thereby promoting more equitable and robust adversarial proceedings.

Conclusion

There have been growing calls for the formal institutionalization of OSINT, including proposals to create a centralized investigative mechanism to coordinate international criminal investigations and store collected evidence in a secure digital repository. While such a mechanism would help reduce duplication of effort, its creation requires substantial financial and organizational resources, as well as significant political will from states and multilateral institutions. However, centralization alone is insufficient. Institutionalizing OSINT as a discipline must go beyond coordination and storage—it must also address the lack of methodological consistency among practitioners. Establishing shared standards, techniques, and best practices is essential to ensure credibility, interoperability, and efficiency in legal and criminal investigations. 

Therefore, any centralized mechanism should be accompanied by an initiative like the IA-OSI—one that not only brings practitioners together but also ensures they operate with a common methodological foundation developed through shared experience and consensus. Only then can OSINT reach its full potential as a reliable and professionalized field in international accountability efforts.