This article provides an ethnographically informed comparative case study of the atrocity archiving work being undertaken by two entities: the not-for-profit, civil society organization, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA), and the United Nations’ International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism for Syria (IIIM). Insights from data collected are read alongside debates within the fields of international criminal law, transitional justice, and archival studies. The article argues that this archival work is of significance in exploring how international lawyers respond to the Syrian tragedy, how they understand the possibilities and limitations of criminal trials, as well as their ethical responsibilities in possessing so much sensitive material. The example of the Syrian atrocity archive, and the innovative technological approaches it requires, provides new ways of thinking through the relationship between evidence, custodianship, and the legitimacy of (possible future) criminal trials.

中文翻译：

---

为叙利亚收集暴行档案

本文提供了一个以民族志为依据的比较案例研究，该研究由两个实体开展的暴行存档工作：非营利性民间社会组织国际司法和问责委员会 (CIJA) 和联合国国际公正和叙利亚独立机制 (IIIM)。来自收集的数据的见解与国际刑法、过渡司法和档案研究领域内的辩论一起阅读。文章认为，这项档案工作对于探索国际律师如何应对叙利亚悲剧、他们如何理解刑事审判的可能性和局限性以及他们在拥有如此多的敏感材料方面的道德责任具有重要意义。叙利亚暴行档案的例子，