Forensic Science Expertise for International Criminal Proceedings: An Old Problem, a New Context and a Pragmatic Resolution

Abstract

Expert witness testimony provides an important source of information for international criminal proceedings, and forensic science expertise from mass graves is no exception: findings from exhumations and examinations have featured in the ad hoc tribunals' trials and judgments. Whilst the issues surrounding the law-science relationship have been explored within the realm of national legal systems, the mixed system adopted by these tribunals presents an established discussion with a new context. Using forensic archaeology as an example, this article explores some theoretical underpinnings and practical realities surrounding the use of forensic science during international criminal investigations into mass graves before looking at how Trial Chambers aim to establish the relevance and credibility of forensic science evidence. As little guidance regarding admissibility of expert evidence is provided, it is through the case-specific legal process of cross-examination and presentation of

Expert Interpretation of Bitemark Injuries—A Contemporary Qualitative Study

“… established that there was no significant difference in the ability of senior or junior forensic odontologists to distinguish between an adult or child's bitemark, and that both forensic odontology groups outperformed police, social workers, and general dentists, yet this study says nothing about the fundamental ability of odontologists to decide whether patterned injuries are likely to be bitemarks or not. Simply relying on “experience” as a means of justifying forensic claims, including that of whether injuries are likely to be bitemarks or not, has been criticized widely . This criticism is particularly warranted when it has been garnered in situations where ground truth has never been known with certainty, as is the case with most legal contexts.…”

Introduction

“…Th e work of the EAAF soon expanded to other post-confl ict zones, such as Guate-mala, Chile, El Salvador and Rwanda (Keenan and Weizman 2012; Crossland 2013), and other independent forensic teams quickly appeared in Latin American countries in following decades (Dutrénit 2017). Forensic expertise and corporeal evidence became also relevant to the endeavours of International Criminal Tribunals such as those for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) (Klinkner 2009;Keenan and Weizman 2012: 61;Rosenblatt 2015) and to the work of other courts in domestic transitional justice processes (Olarte-Sierra and Bermúdez 2019, 2021). As Adam Rosenblatt has observed, since the fi rst human rights exhumations of mass graves occurred, forensic investigations 'have been craft ed from a complicated dance between scientifi c techniques that continue to evolve, a growing international consensus about the moral obligation and legal authority to exhume mass graves aft er atrocities, and the particular political, legal and logistical challenges' (2015: 6) presented by each (post-)confl ict scenario.…”

Bury or display?

“…Indeed, it was at the ICTY that, in order to forestall attacks by the defence on the credibility of the work carried out by Bill Haglund, the prosecution had Élisabeth Anstett and Jean-Marc Dreyfus -9781526125019 Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 06/07/2019 02:38:03AM via free access to remind the court that 'in spite of the management and logistical problems, the scientific validity of his work cannot be questioned' . 29 According to the prosecution, any mistakes were mainly due to the speed with which these investigations were forced to be carried out. 30 When called as an expert witness for the defence during the trial of Georges Rutaganda, however, Kathleen Reichs did nevertheless point out what she perceived as a number of methodological errors.…”