The Standards Behind the Record

Justice for Hadi is a memorial and documentation project. It covers Sharif Osman Hadi’s life and public work, his killing and the related case, and the history and accountability questions of the July 2024 uprising. July’s victims, survivors and contributors are part of a wider history, not an extension of one biography.

The same care is needed in a memorial account, a case update and an archive caption. Advocacy for remembrance and accountability does not turn an allegation into a finding. Readers should be able to distinguish what is documented, what is reported, what is disputed and what remains unknown.

A consequential statement needs an identifiable basis. Names, dates, locations, institutional titles and legal descriptions should be checked at the precision the sources allow. An unknown date stays unknown; an approximate date is not made exact for the sake of a cleaner timeline. Historical context matters as much as a correct isolated fact: a later report must not be mistaken for a contemporaneous account.

Sources establish different things. A court record can establish that a proceeding or order occurred, but not the truth of every allegation it repeats. A government statement establishes what an institution said. Journalism reports findings and testimony under its publisher’s responsibility. An eyewitness can describe direct observation while remaining incomplete or mistaken. An image or recording needs origin and context before it is used as evidence.

Independent corroboration is valuable for significant claims. Repeated articles based on one agency dispatch are not independent confirmation. The source catalogue records publisher details and original links where available; its categories describe origin, not a numerical truth score or blanket verification of every statement. The research methodology explains the underlying evaluation in more detail.

An allegation, a reported claim, an investigative conclusion and a judicial finding are different kinds of statement. Arrest does not establish guilt. A charge is not a conviction. A filing records what a party submitted; it is not itself a finding by the court. A trial, acquittal, conviction or appeal must be described by its actual procedural status, case and date.

Coverage of the Hadi case and July accountability proceedings should distinguish complaints, police statements, charge sheets, objections, hearings, orders and judgments. Where a court document has not been obtained, a news report about it remains reporting, not an authenticated copy. Status language must be revisited when a later development is established; an old status should not be silently presented as current.

Read the case record , its investigation account and the court record for dated examples of those distinctions.

When accounts conflict, their differences should be visible: who made each claim, when, on what basis, and what remains unresolved. Relevant denials, explanations and contrary evidence should be represented accurately. That does not give unsupported rumour equal weight with a documented proceeding or independently supported account.

Serious claims about an identifiable person or organisation deserve particular care. Their case relationship, dated legal status and the source of the accusation matter. Responses already in the public record should be considered alongside the allegation. The project has not documented a universal advance-notice or formal right-of-response process; no page should imply one has been completed for every person mentioned.

Editorial judgment should follow evidence and context, including material that complicates an expected narrative. This is a standard for the account, not a claim of verified institutional independence or a formal conflicts-of-interest procedure. The project has not yet published confirmed governance, affiliation or recusal arrangements.

A quotation should identify its speaker and source. Excerpts need enough surrounding context to avoid changing their meaning. An editorial summary is not a direct quotation; a transcript, translation and original recording or document should remain distinguishable. Missing or unclear words should not be supplied as certain speech.

Bangla and English can carry different shades of meaning, especially in political and legal language. Where a translation is used, it should be identified as such; the original wording should remain accessible when lawful and practical. Material differences between versions should be explained rather than silently harmonised.

Dates also need labels: when an event happened, when a source was published, when a court acted and when this site reviewed or changed an entry are not interchangeable. A recent website update does not make an old source a new witness to an event.

Bereaved families, injured survivors, witnesses, minors and other vulnerable people are not public material simply because a source names or depicts them. Private addresses and contacts, identity numbers, medical details and information that could put someone at risk require a compelling public reason before any disclosure. Restricted case material does not become publishable through possession alone.

Graphic violence is not illustration for a memorial or archive landing page. The existing photo selection excludes material for graphic and privacy reasons, and portraits of July martyrs and survivors have not been reproduced without family permission and privacy review. More detail is not always a better public record; some items should remain metadata-only or withheld.

Before a consequential claim is published, its wording should match what the cited material actually supports; uncertainty belongs in the headline and summary as well as the body. A relevant response, correction or later legal development can change how the claim is presented. Material may be hosted, linked, embedded from its publisher, represented by metadata, restricted or withheld according to its evidence, context, rights and safety.

Present catalogue fields and page content show editorial decisions, but the repository does not establish a site-wide approval state machine, independent two-person review or designated authority for high-risk allegations. Those cannot be claimed as current safeguards. A source listing alone does not mean every assertion in that source was independently checked.

Wrong names or dates, mistranslations, misattribution, misleading captions, incorrect legal status, omitted context and inappropriate disclosure can all require editorial action. New information is an update; a previously inaccurate statement needs a correction. Wording that misleads may need clarification. Unsupported or unsafe material may need withdrawal, redaction or removal. A meaningful change should explain what happened while retaining appropriate editorial history.

Changes currently depend on manual editorial work. There is no public correction intake, published response timetable or site-wide revision log. The existing contact and corrections routes do not yet provide a working submission mechanism, so this page does not direct readers to a form that cannot deliver their concern. The process for receiving and documenting concerns still needs to be established.

The corrections account sets out the distinctions and current limits. Editorial responsibility, conflict disclosures, recusal and an escalation path for privacy, rights or serious allegation concerns also need a confirmed project owner and approved procedure. Until then, this page does not name a board, formal independence credential or review body that the project has not documented.