Where  Town/city/province or other sub-national entity where the incident happened Why    Country of incident Region of incident Context of the incident Free text    Thematic area of engagement of the victim Coded (M49) Coded (M49) Reasonable basis to conclude that attack was motivated by victim’s activities as a journalist, trade unionist or human rights defender Unlawful attacks and destruction in violation of international humanitarian law leading to or intending to cause the victim’s death Controlled natural language Except for those that allow for free text and controlled natural language entries, all the different categories are to be coded (see Statistical Classification Framework). Verified case Each case will have to be verified by the data source/provider in a manner consistent with OHCHR’s human rights monitoring practice. Verification (or corroboration) refers to the process of ensuring that information gathered by a data source has been checked against other information obtained from independent and reliable sources. These can be primary or secondary sources, or sources indicating patterns of events. Verification is not just a procedural step as it facilitates the rigorous analysis of the elements, underlying context and broader implications of a particular case. The term “verified cases” refers to reported cases that contain a minimum set of relevant information on particular persons, which have been reviewed by mandated bodies, mechanisms, and institutions and provided them with reasonable grounds to believe those persons were victims of human rights violations or abuses. Identifying the victim The name of the victim is a minimum data requirement for two reasons. First, it is considered as one of the most effective means of avoiding double counting. Second, since the data is generated by human rights mechanisms and exist in the form of administrative records, there is a high probability that granular information would include this piece of information. Moreover, data sources would more likely than not consider the name of the victim as a minimum data requirement both for technical/procedural as well as substantive (e.g. to support related accountability, remedies and reparations processes) reasons. Where a victim's name is known but the data source would deem it more prudent – in order to mitigate or avoid further harm – to not disclose it, the case should still be counted provided that the other considerations (case specificity, verifiability and event distinctiveness) are met. Counting rules The basic counting unit for this indicator is the victim, which means that one case should yield one victim and the totals for both will have to be identical. A single incident that claimed two victims will have to be recorded as two cases corresponding to each victim. 7