Frequently asked questions: The ICRC's approach to confidentiality

The ICRC works on the ground in conflict zones, providing people caught up in the fighting with food and medical treatment, helping to rebuild shattered infrastructure and promoting respect for international humanitarian law.

To gain access to affected communities, we build trust by holding confidential dialogues with all the parties to an armed conflict or those involved in other situations of violence. Confidentiality is the key that opens doors that would otherwise remain shut. Without it, we risk being unable to reach people in need or the places where we need to work.

Confidentiality means we can talk candidly with people, groups and parties who might otherwise not be prepared to talk to us and build the relationships that are essential to finding solutions. It also allows us to avoid politicizing issues through public debate, and it protects the security of our staff in the field and of the communities we assist.

Our practice and policy of confidentiality has deep roots: it is directly derived from our Fundamental Principles of neutrality and independence.

Social media and mobile technology have changed the way people see the world and understand events around them, often in real time. They have changed us too: we use social media every day to tell the stories of the people we help, to explain our work and to talk about the issues that matter to us.

But when it comes to our operations on the ground, confidentiality remains critical. People today expect immediate access to information about atrocities committed in armed conflicts, and we recognize that this places our approach under pressure. Yet confidentiality remains in the best interest of the victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence: it allows us to build trust, gain access and ensure the security of both our staff and the people we are trying to help.

Our approach is not the only way of tackling abuses of international humanitarian law. We see more public methods as complementary to our focus on confidentiality – a tried and tested approach that enables us to help people as violations happen, rather than later.

Our focus is always on helping victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence, and we know from experience that confidential dialogue is vital to this. Confidentiality means we can keep a dialogue going with all sides and better address violations or abuses as they are happening, rather than after the fact.

In rare circumstances, we may also share our concerns on a confidential basis with selected third parties with a view to influencing the behaviour of parties to an armed conflict or those involved in other situations of violence. This is out of recognition that all states have an obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, and states that support a party to an armed conflict with economic or miliary support, are often in a unique position to influence their behaviour. 

We only publicly denounce when we have exhausted every other reasonable means of influencing that party, and when those means have not produced the desired result. This decision is never taken lightly. We work in many places where outside scrutiny – let alone public criticism – is extremely unwelcome. 

Any decision to publicly denounce parties must weigh the risk it might pose to the people we are trying to help, by undermining the protection and assistance that is our core purpose. For us, confidentiality does not mean silence: it means we are constantly talking to all parties, trying to resolve issues then and there.

Confidentiality does not equal complacency, and it isn't unconditional. Discretion has its limits, and we reserve the right to speak out, publish our findings or stop our work in exceptional cases. 

Because this approach carries real risks for the people we are trying to help – and those people are our top priority – several specific conditions must be met before we speak out: the violations are major and repeated, or likely to be repeated; our staff must have witnessed the violations with their own eyes, or the extent of these violations are established through reliable and verifiable sources; bilateral confidential representations and humanitarian mobilization efforts have failed to stop the violations;  such publicity is in the interest of those who are affected or threatened.

It is also worth remembering that we regularly offer assessments of the humanitarian situation in conflict-affected countries and frequently call attention to humanitarian issues – for example, by issuing news releases on the need to protect medical facilities and health-care personnel, working with journalists and photographers to highlight a dire humanitarian situation, or sharing this information through our social media channels every day.

When we communicate confidentially with parties to an armed conflict, we urge them to prevent or put a stop to actual or potential violations, to prevent such violations from recurring, and to punish those responsible.

However, these real-time confidential interventions are not meant to be used in legal proceedings. They are intended to focus the attention of the parties on our concerns so that they address them – through their own investigations or other measures – change their behaviour and respect international humanitarian law. 

If what we say to parties, or the documents we produce, were used in legal proceedings, we would be perceived to take sides and it would place at risk the confidential dialogue that is crucial to our ability to operate and to provide protection and assistance on the ground. This is why, even though we support initiatives aimed at prosecuting and punishing those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, we do not participate in legal proceedings or talk publicly about specific cases.

Yes. The importance of our confidential approach has been widely recognized.

Internationally, the International Criminal Court, the UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Special Court for Sierra Leone have all acknowledged – through case law or rules of procedure and evidence – that the ICRC has the right to decline to provide confidential information. No other organization has been granted this privilege of non-disclosure of its confidential information. This recognizes confidentiality as the cornerstone of our work.