Among the recording mechanisms there is a general tendency to adopt a narrow scope. This narrow approach often fails to produce a full understanding of the interconnection between different types of violence - which can reduce the impact of actions to address the problem.
When casualty-recording focuses only on one specific type of violence (such as violence in conflict zones), it can provide a misleading picture of the main victimisation factors. The 2011 Global Burden of Armed Violence report affirms: “In the majority of the countries experiencing or having emerged from armed conflict, the incidence of homicide is actually greater than the number of direct conflict deaths.” So while the data collected may shed light on a certain, specific phenomenon, the picture it portrays is partial. A more complete understanding of the overall level of armed violence is needed in order to reveal how different types of armed violence are interconnected – something that could never be achieved through a narrow analytical focus.
COUNTING THE COST: CASUALTY RECORDING PRACTICES AND REALITIES, p. 14
