-

nr. 5

The Contribution by
(Forensic) Archaeologists to
Human Rights Investigations
of Mass Graves

KIRSTEN JUHL

Stavanger 2005
AmS-NETT 5
Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger
Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger

Redaksjon/Editorial office:
Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger
Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger
Redaktør av serien/Editor of the series: Lotte Selsing
Redaktører av dette volum/Editors of this volume: Gitte Kjeldsen & Lotte Selsing
Redaksjonssekretær/Editorial secretary: Tove Solheim Andersen

Redaksjonsutvalg/Editorial board:
Tove Solheim Andersen
Arne Johan Nærøy
Einar Solheim Pedersen
Lotte Selsing

Utgiver/Publisher:
Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger
PO Box 478
N-4002 STAVANGER
NORWAY
Tel.: (+47) 51846000
Fax: (+47) 51846199
E-mail: ams@ark.museum.no

Stavanger
07.07.2005

ISSN 0809-618X
ISBN 82-7760-118-2
UDK 343.979
URN:NBN:no-a1640

Forsideillustrasjon:
Verdenskart. EO News: NASA Olympics Blue Marble Release, February 6, 2002
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/

The front page illustration:

World map. EO News: NASA Olympics Blue Marble Release, February 6, 2002
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/

The editors preface

Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger, here presents a subject, which is not earlier published in the museum’s
series, an actual subject, which add to the discussion in society, openness and dialog. Kirsten Juhl has
collected available material about investigations of modern mass graves in the world where archaeologists
participate and archaeological methods are included as part of the investigations. This is presumably the first
collected presentation in its kind in Norway and may be also internationally. The subject is important
internationally compared to human rights, included the countries populations which are touched. The
publication shows how archaeological methods can be used analytical of very great present interest and
adding to solve new problems. The excavation reports from mass graves are mainly covered by secrecy.
Therefore much information about archaeological methods and results from the investigations are not
available and included at the moment. Probably will archaeological methods and experience in time be a more
important part during investigations of mass graves than to day as this paper indicate. The publication was at
first prepared as a master degree paper within resilience managements at University of Stavanger, at that time
University college in Stavanger.

Gitte Kjeldsen and Lotte Selsing

Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger
April 26th 2005
Juhl, K. 2005: The Contribution by (Forensic) Archaeologists to Human Rights
Investigations of Mass Graves. AmS-NETT 5, 77 pp., Stavanger. ISSN 0809-618X,
ISBN 82-7760-118-2, UDK 343.979, URN:NBN:no-a1640
Since the German “Nacht und Nebel” policy of World War II and their industrialised killing
of Jews and Gypsies in the Holocaust, state institutionalised, deliberate and systematic
practices of making people disappear – whether for political, religious, ethnic, cultural or
other motives – has been known as an efficient tool of war and repression. The systematic
practice of making people disappear is now known as enforced disappearance, and has lately
been recognized as a crime against humanity. Both genocide and crimes against humanity is
often associated with the use of mass graves in order to conceal the crime and also prevent
individual identification.
Over the past twenty years forensic experts, and among these archaeologists, have been
contracted or subcontracted to investigate such mass graves by truth commissions, local
courts and international tribunals, local and international human rights and family
associations in together more than forty countries all over the world.
The present study explores how excavating such mass graves may serve different purposes
related to the societal rebuilding processes in the aftermath of violent conflicts whether
internal or international, and thus contribute to societal security and safety. The focus is on
the role and contribution of archaeologists in this process. For this purpose a conceptual
distinction is made between excavating mass graves (focusing on the mass grave as an
archaeological feature) and exhuming human remains (focusing predominantly on retrieving
the human remains).
The history, principles and mechanics of scientific mass grave excavations are discussed and
illustrated with examples from Latin America, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and most
recently Iraq, focusing on the role of archaeology as an integrated part of a multidisciplinary
forensic team work. It is demonstrated how evidence from mass grave excavations has been
important to truth commissions in Latin America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru), and to
cases brought before human rights courts. For example the Dos Erres case where the
Guatemalan governments was sentenced to pay reparation and provide physical and
psychological treatment to survivors and relatives, and to build a memorial. It is further
demonstrated that the evidence from excavations of mass graves is an important factor in
getting war criminals convicted, as for example in the case against Krstic, who was
sentenced to 35 years in prison based on evidence from 21 mass graves related to the
Srebrenica Massacre.
It is argued that historically two investigation strategies have been employed. In Latin
America one has integrated the excavation and exhumation concept into one investigation
concept. In former Yugoslavia one has distinguished between the excavation and exhumation
concepts, but achieved a holistic strategy through complementary institutions conducting the
investigations – the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
and the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP)/the national CMPs. The
recent development of mass grave investigations in Iraq seems to introduce a third concept
and overall strategy.
It is concluded that human rights mass grave investigations have contributed significantly to
the success of national as well as international truth commissions, human rights courts,
criminal courts and tribunals throughout the world – and thus consequently to both truth and
justice. The contribution has been most evident in Latin America and former Yugoslavia.
However, the field is rapidly growing and forensic anthropology and archaeology is

3
increasingly incorporated into international crisis and conflict management strategies –
notably by the United Nations.
Human rights mass grave investigation teams have in general pursued three major purposes:
humanitarian, legal and historical purposes. Establishing a historical record – the factual
truth of what happened and in which sequence at a specific location at a specific point in
time – is paramount to pursuing the legal and historical purposes and important also to
reaching the humanitarian purpose of identifying victims. It is concluded that the
significance of the contribution by archaeologists to human rights mass grave investigations
lies with their unique ability to provide this historical record.
Kirsten Juhl, Archaeologist and Master of Societal Safety. Private: Vestlibakken 12, N-4330
ÅLGÅRD, NORWAY. Telephone: (+47) 51619352. Cellular: (+47) 90606676. E-mail:
kvjuhl@yahoo.no

Key words: Societal safety, mass graves, forensic archaeology, human rights, prosecutorial
v. humanitarian purposes, truth and justice

4
Authors preface
The present publication was originally delivered on June 30, 2004, as a thesis for the Master
degree in Societal Safety (Resilience Management) at the University of Stavanger,
Department of Media, Culture and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Norway. No
supplementary information has been added after that date. The text has been corrected as
regards grammatical and linguistic errors. Only minor alterations have been made for the
sake of clarifying the meaning of a sentence or paragraph. A number of abbreviations,
mainly of organisations central to the topic, occur in the text. These abbreviations are listed
together with the literature references. All references are basically given according to
alphabetic, subsidiary chronological order. However, a number of references have no author
in the usual sense of the word. Instead the abbreviation of the publishing organisation is used
follow by year of publication. The exception is references to cases brought before the ad hoc
International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) which
are referred to by the year the case was filed. Also references to United Nations documents
follow the specific system used by the UN. Full text World Wide Web references to
literature are given whenever possible. In case the www-reference is to an abstract only, this
is explicitly stated. All www-references have been checked to be valid as of 24 March 2005.
I want to thank my former colleagues at the Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger, Norway,
Senior Researcher, Jenny-Rita Næss, for suggesting the thesis for publication in the museum
series of publication, and Research and Development Coordinator, Lotte Selsing, for
nurturing it through to publication. I sincerely want to thank my supervisor, Odd Einar
Olsen, Professor with the Department of Media, Culture and Social Sciences, University of
Stavanger, Norway, for being always positive and continuously encouraging during my work
with the thesis. I also want to thank the Librarians Gro Hansen and Liv Bakke at the Museum
of Archaeology, Stavanger, Norway, to whom I delivered an incredibly long list of literature
that they did a great job to get me. I also want to thank the institution for granting me a leave
of absence for the spring term of 2004 in order to be able to do the thesis, and its Director,
Harald Jacobsen, for acting as my reference. Not least, I want to thank the respondents to the
questionnaire I prepared for the thesis: Ralph Hartley – Archaeologist – Archaeological
Assistance and Partnership Program Manager, Park Programs, Midwest Archaeological
Center, Lincoln, USA; John Hunter – Archaeologist – Professor of Ancient History and
Archaeology at the University of Birmingham, UK; Rebecca Saunders – Archaeologist –
Associate Curator of Anthropology, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA; Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography and Anthropology,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.; and Research Affiliate, South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology; Douglas D. Scott – Archaeologist – Great Plains
Team Leader, Park Programs, Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln and Adjunct
Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA; Mark F.
Skinner – Bio-archaeologist – Full Professor of Biological Anthropology, Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Colombia, Canada; and Eric Stover
– Human Rights Researcher – Director of the Human Rights Center and Adjunct Professor of
Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Stavanger, February 2005
Kirsten Juhl

5
1 INTRODUCTION 8

2 RESEARCH AREA, METHODS AND DELIMITATIONS 10

3 THEORY AND CONCEPTS 12

3.1 Democracy as a crucial societal security parameter 12
3.2 Managing crises and its consequences 13
3.3 Public expectations and authority responses 14
3.4 Mass graves – definitions and typologies 15
3.5 Excavating mass graves – exhuming human remains 17
3.6 What is so special about archaeology? 18
3.6.1 Forensic archaeology versus physical anthropology 18
3.6.2 Artefactual and contextual evidence 19
3.7 Investigation purposes and the concept of physical evidence 21
3.8 Evidence of identity – personal and categorical identification 22

4 MASS GRAVE INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS 24

4.1 Forensic human rights investigation teams in the Americas 24
4.1.1 Argentina and the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) 24
4.1.2 Guatemala and the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation (FAFG) 26
4.1.3 The Chilean Forensic Anthropology Team (GAF) 28
4.1.4 Peru and the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (EPAF) 28
4.1.5 The Latin American Forensic Anthropology Association (ALAF) 30
4.1.6 The Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), USA 30
4.2 Mass grave investigating institutions in former Yugoslavia 31
4.2.1 The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 31
4.2.2 The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) 33

5 SELECTED HUMAN RIGHTS MASS GRAVE INVESTIGATIONS 34

5.1 El Salvador – the El Mozote massacre (1992, 1999–2003) 34
5.2 Iraqi Kurdistan – genocide and the use of chemical weapons (1992) 35
5.3 Former Yugoslavia – initial mass grave investigations (1992–1993) 37
5.4 The Ovcara grave – Vukovar Hospital, Croatia (1992–93 and 1996) 39
5.5 Mass grave investigations of the Srebrenica genocide (1996 ongoing) 40
5.6 Kibuye and Kigali – mass grave investigations in Rwanda (1996) 43

6
 5.7 Investigations related to the Kosovo conflict (1999-2000) 45
5.8 Recent developments – Mass Grave overflow in Iraq (spring 2004) 46

6 OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE FIELD 48

6.1 Excavating mass graves – exhuming human remains 48
6.2 Including/excluding archaeologists from mass grave investigations 49
6.3 Purposes of investigations and the contribution by archaeologists 49
6.4 The identification process and the contribution by archaeologists 49
6.5 Reconciliation and the contribution by archaeologists 50

7 THE QUEST FOR TRUTH and JUSTICE – DISCUSSION 50

8 CONCLUSIONS 53

REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS 55

APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE 66
Personal data 66
Profession: 66
Extent and type of experience with mass grave excavations: 66
Forensic experience prior to becoming involved with mass grave investigations: 66
Policy and purpose of mass grave investigations 66
Levels of identification 67

7
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the White Paper on the Safety and Security of Society presented to the
Norwegian Parliament by The Ministry of Justice and the Police in 2002, the concept societal
safety and security “may be described as the ability society has to maintain crucial societal
functions and protect the life, health and fundamental needs of its citizens during various
types of strains”1. This involves an ability at the societal level to produce measures to
prevent or reduce the potentiality of undesirable events (whether intentional like terrorism or
war, or unintentional like mass disasters and natural catastrophes); measures to reduce the
damages when such events do nonetheless occur; and measures to secure the
(re)establishment of (desired) normal conditions as soon as possible after the event. It is
meant to apply both to war and major societal crises and catastrophes in times of peace. The
analyses and recommendations made in the report are of course aimed specifically at the
Norwegian society. However, the definition should be valid also to other national societies as
well as to the larger international or world society.
The distinction between national and international threats to societal safety and security is
becoming increasingly blurred. Although international terrorism to some may seem the most
obvious threat at the moment, the White Paper stresses also the international violent conflicts
that originate in ethnic polarisation and conflicts within a national state as a threat to societal
security to which Norway has to relate. This sort of conflict affects large segments of civilian
populations, often to a degree that destabilises whole regions with hundreds of thousands of
people made homeless, displaced within their own country or refugees abroad – if not killed.
They may constitute a significant problem to the international security as well as to that of
the nations directly involved in conflict. To a certain degree it affects the security of our own
society, as we are giving refuge and/or asylum to people having fled their home countries
carrying a luggage of utterly traumatic experiences, we are sending humanitarian aid workers
to help nations in conflict, and we are engaging as peace facilitators on both the political and
military level. Humanitarian considerations have thus grown to become a more direct part of
the national safety and security policy than before2.
In the aftermath of war and violent conflicts, society is on often down its knees. It has not
been able to produce measures to prevent the events from taking place, and it has not been
able to reduce the damages of the events to any significant degree or to “protect the life,
health and fundamental needs of its citizens”. Actually, in many instances society itself – i.e.
the state authorities – has been the culprit initiating as well as escalating the events. After the
events comes the multifaceted task of rebuilding society and get it (back) to a desired
normal, a long and tedious task which is more difficult, the more severe the conflict has
been. One has to come to terms with an often massively abusive past in order to be able to
move on, build new and resilient, democratic institutions, and prevent repetitive occurrences
of the conflict and its horrors.
In the general chaos of war and armed conflict, people may go missing for various reasons.
However, since the German “Nacht und Nebel” policy of World War II and their
industrialised killing of Jews and Gypsies in the Holocaust, state institutionalised, deliberate
and systematic practices of making people disappear – whether for political, religious, ethnic,
cultural or other motives – has been known as an efficient tool of war and repression. The

1
St. Meld. 17, 2001–2002:section 1.2
2
St. Meld. 17, 2001–2002:section 5.2.1

8
immediate post-war period saw the international society working intensely taking preventive
measures against such practices in order to “never again” experience the horrors of the third
“Reich”3. However, good intentions without a system to efficiently enforce them is not
enough, and thus there have been many “never agains”.
The systematic practice of making people disappear has since 1978 been known as enforced
disappearance. In 1992 the United Nations made a declaration about enforced
disappearances and with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998, that
entered into force 1 July 2002, it became fully recognised as a crime against humanity within
international criminal law4. Death is not always, but often, the final outcome of an enforced
disappearance and may be part of the practice of making people disappear. Such practices
not only inflict upon the relatives the terror and trauma of not knowing the fate and
whereabouts of their loved ones. In the absence of a death certificate of the disappeared, the
family may also suffer economically and socially, they may be threatened on their own lives
and they may be stigmatised as they become dangerous to associate with. The terror of
making people disappear thus diffuses into the rest of society as it consists not only of
individuals who choose to associate themselves with one or the other party to the conflict,
but also of individuals who choose to try and dissociate with the problems altogether.
Societal rebuilding processes in the aftermath of conflict are often designated reconciliation
processes. Reconciliation cannot be state institutionalised – it is for individuals to find and to
grant. However, the process may be facilitated by political, humanitarian and judicial means.
Over the past thirty years officially instituted reconciliation processes have thus become
typical of the transition into democracy of former authoritarian or totalitarian societies. Truth
commissions have become a popular strategy for reaching reconciliation and achieving new
democratic order. Sometimes truth investigations and legal proceedings have been conducted
parallel to each other, but very often the perpetrators of the former abuses have been granted
amnesty as happened in most Latin American countries in the 1980s and early 1990s, and in
many instances they even kept office. However, since the ad hoc International Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda began working in the 1990s, the struggle
against impunity seems to have grown stronger both internationally with for instance the
establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court in The Hague at the turn of the
century, and nationally as for instance in several Latin American countries.
This study concentrate on the type of conflicts in which state authorities have directly
ordered, induced, sanctioned, or “institutionalised” massive human rights abuses as a means
of disposing with political opponents or other “unwanted elements” by death and mass
killing, and the concealment of the fact by disposing with the dead in mass graves. Over the
past twenty years forensic experts, and among these archaeologists, have been contracted or
subcontracted to investigate such mass graves by truth commissions, local courts and

3
By the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and its adoption of The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by The United Nations
in 1948. By the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions by a diplomat conference held by The International
Committee of the Red Cross in 1949 (additional protocols I and II, 1977). And not least by the setting up of the
International Military Tribunals by the four Allied powers to prosecute the major war criminal of the Nazi
regime (the Nuremberg trial) and Japan (the Tokyo trials) in 1945.
4
UN Doc A/RES/33/173 of 20 December 1978; UN Doc A/RES/47/133 of 18 December 1992; OHCHR Fact
Sheet No. 6; UN Doc A/CONF.183/9, of 17 July 1998:Rome Statute Article 7, 1.(i). The concept is defined as
relating to persons “arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by
officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on
behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a
refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the
deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law”.

9
international tribunals, local and international human rights and family association NGOs in
more than forty countries all over the world5.
• The present study explores how excavating such mass graves may serve different
purposes related to the societal rebuilding processes in the aftermath of violent
conflicts whether internal or international.
• The idea is not to discuss which purpose is the most preferable to pursue – truth or
justice, but rather to explore somewhat into the question of how mass graves
investigations may help bring along both truth and justice – and specifically how
archaeologists and the use of archaeological investigation techniques may contribute to
reaching these objectives.

2 RESEARCH AREA, METHODS AND DELIMITATIONS

The research area and its delimitation are defined through the working title of the study:
The Contribution by (Forensic) Archaeologists to Human Rights Investigations of Mass
Graves allegedly resulting from Genocide or Crimes against Humanity.
The emphasis is placed on the purposes and philosophy behind such mass grave
investigations and how the participation of archaeologists helps fulfil these purposes.
The field of modern mass graves investigations is narrow, and the problem it is to cope with
immense. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) presents an interactive map,
valid as of January 2003, giving an overview of the overwhelming magnitude of the
problem6. In 2002, the ICRC launched a major initiative called “The Missing. End the
Silence – Action to resolve the problem of people unaccounted for as a result of armed
conflict or internal violence and to assist their families”7. During 2002 they hosted a number
of workshops involving people from various professions and organisations, including
forensic teams and professionals, concluding the workshops with a conference held in spring
20038.
Although it is not self-evident, for the sake of delimiting the research area of this study it has
been assumed a priori that mass grave investigations are making a significant contribution to
solving the problem of the missing. This assumption is based on the fact that both
associations of relatives of the missing as well as national and international institutions have
repeatedly called for such investigations and continue to do so. However, one may make a
distinction between the mass grave as an object of investigation per se and the mass grave as
a container of human remains, these being the object of investigation. Thus, theoretically the
exhumation of human remains may be significant, while the excavation of the mass grave (or
mass grave-related feature) may not be important. This question will be addressed in the
study as it relates closely to stated purposes and possible conflicts between purposes – and
also it relates to the question of what archaeologists and/or archaeology may contribute to
reaching such purposes. However, the potential significance is not grade on any sort of scale.
The term forensic science is a collective term comprising a group of disciplines putting the
services of their particular field of specialisation at the disposal of the medico-legal system.
Among these is archaeology. All the forensic professions somehow deal with the material

5
See chapter 3
6
ICRC 2003b
7
ICRC home page, The Missing
8
ICRC 2002, 2003a

10
evidence and the physical traces produced as remnants of both human and natural agents and
preserved long after the events that caused them. They all share an attention to detail and a
proceeding by meticulous working and analysis methods. Unfortunately, even if new
methods to speed up the investigation process are constantly developed and implemented
(within archaeology for instance by using electronic mapping devices or using heavy
machinery for stripping off the top soil, within anthropology by using DNA-analysis), these
working methods are also still painstakingly slow. Thus, they may seem quite out of
proportion with the problem to solve. Being an archaeologist myself, I have chosen to
explore this specific discipline’s contribution to mass grave investigations rather than
focusing on the more obvious disciplines of forensic pathology and physical anthropology.
However, academics tend to perceive their own profession and their own specific field of it
as being of the utmost importance to whatever matter they get involved with. Thus, another
obvious question to address is:
Are archaeologists at all important to achieving the stated purposes of human rights
mass grave investigations? And if so, how important are they and in what ways?
Again, this is not self-evident. If conducting an excavation (focusing on the feature with its
contents as opposed to exhumation focusing primarily on retrieving the human remains) is
not significant, archaeologists may not be needed at all. And even if excavation is considered
significant, maybe others could do it just as well or even be more appropriate, as for instance
experienced crime scene investigators.
The application of forensic science to human rights investigations of mass graves goes back
20 years, but especially in the past decade this has been a rapidly growing field
internationally. And yet, it may still be described as a comparatively new field, not
commonly known outside of the narrow circles of those professionals directly involved.
Most, more traditionally employed archaeologists, have no notion of this particular field of
the application of archaeology, and most other people perceive archaeology as dealing
entirely with the distant past of long forgotten cultures – and maybe as suited only for this
purpose. Doretti and Fondebrider, co-founders of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology
Team (EAAF) relate their difficulties in overcoming such mental barriers when they first
pioneered archaeology into the field9. Even professionals dedicated to human rights
investigations do not seem to have been fully aware of archaeology being a profession
having something to contribute in this respect. After nearly 20 years of application, a
workshop on human remains, part of the above mentioned ICRC-project The Missing, as late
as 2002 listed archaeology as a forensic discipline along with pathology, physical
anthropology, odontology, entomology, radiology, fingerprint identification, photography,
molecular biology, and mortuary science, only after the completion of the workshop10.
This study therefore is meant primarily to be exploratory, and will be descriptive rather than
analytical, my main sources being literature, official documents and internet sources. As the
field is generally little known, I have tried to paint as broad a canvas as possible of human
rights investigations of modern mass graves resulting from abuses by state agents. As a
prehistoric archaeologist I have planned, conducted and documented excavations within
various types of archaeological sites and periods. On this background I feel able to appreciate
the work of the archaeologists working within human rights investigations. However, I have
no first hand experience within the field. Thus, my appreciation of the relative importance of
the archaeologist’s contribution to the various objectives of mass grave investigations could

9
Doretti & Fondebrider 2001:141.
10
ICRC 2002: section 2.1.1.4. Archaeology was not included in the preparatory documents: see section 5.2.7

11
easily become pure speculation. In order to have the personal opinion and experience of
some of those who have actually worked within the field to set me right, an open-ended
questionnaire was prepared. The questionnaire was made with a specific view to former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as these are the only places where international criminal tribunals
have been set up (Appendix A). The questionnaire was send by e-mail to nine individuals
being either key player, participants to or in other ways involved with mass grave
investigations, as well as to two organisations, The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team
(EAAF) and The Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation (FAFG) respectively.
These two organisations did not answers at all. One respondent preferred not to try to answer
the questionnaire at all, while two others originally said they would come back later with a
reply. However, for some reason or other they never got around to it. Thus, six respondents
replied to the questionnaire: four archaeologists, one bio-archaeologist and one non-
archaeologist.
The advantage of primarily getting answers from people generally within my own line of
profession is that they can be supposed to associate more or less the same connotations with
concepts used in the questionnaire that I do. For instance, the archaeological concept of
context refers to the physical context in which finds occur, and is distinctly different from a
societal concept of context which refers to the specific societal situation in which a
phenomenon (in this case mass graves) occurs. The disadvantage is that the respondents may
be biased as to the importance of their own contribution, but on the other hand they may also
be the only ones to recognise the unexploited potentialities of their profession. I had hoped to
have more non-archaeologists answer the questionnaire to sort of balance this disadvantage,
but as previously mentioned I did not succeed in this.
However, the questionnaire was always meant to be supplementary to the main sources. On
purpose, it was very open-ended as I wanted the respondents to answer according to their
own perception and personal experience of the relative importance of various aspects of
investigating mass graves. The purpose was not to find a pattern that could be considered
representative, but rather to deepen my insight into the field. Thus, the questionnaire has not
been followed up with new rounds of questions exploring further into individual answers, as
I might have done, had the answers been my main source of information. Still, I have tried to
make some generalisations based on the answers. These are presented in chapter 6. I did not
promise the respondents anonymity, and no respondent has required it. As I have not
subsequently consulted the respondents, I can only hope they will not consider my way of
using their answers a contortion of the opinions they have offered.

3 THEORY AND CONCEPTS

3.1 Democracy as a crucial societal security parameter

In an effort to describe all unlawful killings by government in the 20th century, the American
scholar R.J. Rummel invented the term democide11 to comprise genocide12, politicide and
mass murder. The concept covers any action by government designed to kill or cause the
death of people. Rummel uses the legal definition of genocide which applies to the
destruction of national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, but restricts his interest to

11
From Gr. demos, people + -’cidium, murder, from Lat. caedere, to kill. Rummel 1994:chapter 2.
12
From Gr. genos, race, nation or tribe, + -’cidium, murder, from Lat. caedere to kill. The concept genocide
was originally developed by the scholar of international law, Raphael Lemkin 1944: chapter IX.

12
genocidal killing13. Instead of stretching the concept of genocide beyond its legal
definition14, Rummel preferred to introduce the term politicide – defined as the premeditated
killing or murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for
political purposes. Mass murder was defined as the indiscriminate murder of any person or
people by a government15. Rummel presents a figure of 170 million or more victims of
democide in the period 1900–1987. Of these 38.5 million alone became victims of genocide,
a number that equals that of battle-dead in national and international wars in the same
period16. These figures are thought-provoking, and yet they do not include such victims of
genocide as the Iraqi Kurds (1987–1988), the Muslims of former Yugoslavia (1991–1995
and 1999), the Rwandan Tutsis (1994), or victims of other types of democide since 198717.
Rummel was able to demonstrate a direct correlation between the degree of power resting
with government and state authorities (divided into democracies where power is divided and
limited, authoritarian and totalitarian states where power is concentrated or absolute) and the
extent to which government inflicts democide upon both its own subjects and foreigners.
Although democracies fight non-democracies, they do not make war on each other; and
although they have committed democide, democracies are responsible for less than 1.5 % of
all democide in the period studied. Predominantly, democide by democracies is foreign
democide committed during war such as indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, for
instance the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the atrocities committed by the
Americans in Vietnam18. Rummel’s conclusion is clear: “The way to end war and virtually
eliminate democide appears to be through restricting and checking Power. This means to
foster democratic freedom”19.
According to Rummel then, democracy as a societal system in itself promotes societal
security with respect to state institutionalised mass killing of civilians.

3.2 Managing crises and its consequences

According to Rosenthal et al. an omnibus definition of the concept crisis may be “a serious
threat to the basic structures or the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under
time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making critical decisions”20.
Crises are characterised by upheaval and collective stress, uncertainty, inconceivability, a
sense of urgency; and not least they are culturally and politically defined events containing
various levels of conflict and arousing strong emotional responses. A crisis is not necessarily
a distinct event; rather Rosenthal et al. strongly stress the dynamic aspects of the concept of
crisis. They have causes and both short-term and long-term consequences which may be very
hard to repair and which may produce “crises after the crisis”. Crisis is to be seen as a

13
UN Doc GA/RES/260(III) of 9 December 1948 Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of
the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
14
Genocide as a crime aiming also at political groups was part of the definition in both first and second draft,
but was explicitly excluded from the final convention – First draft: UN Doc E/447:article I,I; second draft: UN
Doc E/AC.25/SR.1 to 28:article II; Schabas 2000: chapter 2.
15
Rummel 1994: chapter 2
16
Rummel 1994: chapter 1, table 1.2 Details of figures and calculations in Rummel 1997.
17
Rummel 1994: Preface, note 2.
18
Rummel 1994: Table 1.6 and fig. 1.6
19
Rummel 1994: end of chapter 1.
20
Rosenthal, Boin & Comfort 2001:10

13
process leading a system from one temporary state to another which may take the form of
both linear escalation and reinforced feedback loops. Most importantly the crisis need not
come as a surprise; often it has had a long incubation period. Crisis thus must be considered
in terms of the linkage between three interrelated dimensions: its characteristics, its
preconditions, and its consequences21. Managing the crisis before and while it develops and
not least its consequences, is all part of societal safety and security management.
Rosenthal et al. identify four trends characterising today’s crises: transnationalisation,
mediasation (the media being increasingly involved in defining the nature of a crisis and its
consequences), technological developments (technology becoming increasingly more
complex with unprecedented consequences for the causes and characteristics of crises) and
dissipation of state authority (crisis responsibilities becoming increasingly a shared concern
and co-production between private and public actors).
In accordance with the new concept of crisis and the new trends in crisis development
Rosenthal et al. defines four different areas of crisis management challenges:
• The prevention challenge – balancing prevention and resilience
• The planning challenge – institutionalising a contingent way of thinking
• The response challenge – coping with crisis dilemmas
• The aftermath challenge – opportunity management
Of special interest to the present study is of course the trend of dissipation of state authority
and the challenges that arise in the aftermath of conflict. Often in the transition phase from a
state system having massively abused the human rights of its citizens to a democratic system,
the new order is fragile. The transitional government may be weak, former societal
institutions may be compromised and new ones not yet implemented; and in general people
may have learned the hard way to be deeply distrustful of state institutions and not yet be
daring to put confidence in the institutions of a dawning democracy that no one can be sure is
going to last.

3.3 Public expectations and authority responses

In her book “Flirting with Disaster. Public Management in Crisis Situations”, Schneider
presents a theory of how the correlation between the norms emerging in a population struck
by disaster and the norms of the response system may be paramount to the success or failure
of managing the crisis. Although she is explicitly exploring natural disasters in the US and
the response of well-established US governmental agencies that are not only expected, but
also trusted to take hand of the situation, her model and some of her findings may still have a
bearing on situations as the ones being at the bottom of the present study. Existing social
norms guiding standard human interactions are upset when a crisis occur. The crisis may be
so severe, and the conditions so previously unimaginable and incomprehensible that
universally understood and accepted values no longer appear relevant. According to
Schneider, in nearly every such disruptive situation there appear to be an invariant sequence
of behaviours among the population affected – a phenomenon known as collective behaviour
defined as non-institutionalised interactions and behaviour patterns22. This sequence consists
of four basic components or phases:

21
Rosenthal, Boin & Comfort 2001:21
22
Schneider 1995:48–54

14
 • The milling phase – defined as the widespread search for meaning and appropriate
standards of behaviour, being most pronounced when existing organisations and
institutional procedures are inadequate or inappropriate, and further exacerbated by
breakdowns in communication and transportation. This phase is usually completed as
quickly as possible
• The rumour phase – in lack of appropriate or believable accounts from traditional
authorities, people start to seek critical information on the situation via informal and
unconventional channels of communication
• The keynoting phase – the selection of specific ideas and concurrent elimination of
others will eventually give meaning to the situation. The keynoted, or shared, image of
the situation enables the affected population to end the milling process
• The emergent norms phase – reaching a new set of norms to guide their behaviour and
enable them to cope with their conditions and circumstances. The exact content of
these norms is situation specific and usually cannot be predicted on a priori grounds
According to Schneider, the emergent norms are discarded and traditional norms come back
into play when the crisis is managed and pre-disaster conditions are restored. How the crisis
is managed and what approach of the response system is invoked, depends on how well
correlated are the emergent norm among the affected population and the, predominantly
bureaucratic, norms of the response system – the bigger the gap, the more problematic the
crisis management. A very big gap may even produce new crises after the crisis.

3.4 Mass graves – definitions and typologies

Various definitions and typologies of mass graves have been put forward. Each definition or
typology employs and/or emphasises different qualifiers such as the minimum number of
individuals buried, different formation and transformation processes, the physical
relationship between buried bodies and the specific micro-environment it creates, societal
and legal aspects of the killing or the creation of the grave, and so on.
According to Mark Skinner a mass grave contains many (at least half a dozen) individuals,
while Mant is more modest regarding numbers: two or more bodies in contact with each
other suffice to define a mass grave23. Haglund, Connor and Scott state that “Mass, of course,
means a large quantity or aggregate, usually of considerable size”24. All three definitions
recognise a most important characteristic of the mass grave – the human remains being in
close contact. Contrary to the situation in multiple burials where the bodies are laid out
parallel to one another reflecting a general concern for the dignity of the deceased, in mass
graves they are placed indiscriminately, tightly together and with no reverence for the
individual25. To this definition Skinner et al. have later added murder being the manner of
death and concealment on the part of the perpetrator during times of war or civil conflict
being the origin of the feature26.
The final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts to the former Yugoslavia
defines a mass grave as any site intended as a place of permanent interment from which the
bodies are prevented from being moved by natural elements, and which contain two or more

23
Skinner 1987; Mant 1987
24
Haglund, Connor & Scott 2001:57
25
Skinner, York & Connor 2002:294 note **; Haglund 2002:245
26
Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic 2003:82 note 4

15
bodies27. Non-burial methods of body disposal such as dumping them into rivers where they
can float away or just leaving them on the surface, clearly do not qualify as methods of
interment. On the other hand, the term interment will include some quasi-burial methods of
body disposal, for instance gathering people in confined spaces and setting the place ablaze.
As the structure collapse, the debris will bury the remains and thus create a mass grave. “The
Marquez house” of the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador may serve as an example28. The
Experts Commission identified four general types of mass graves focusing on the legal
aspects both of the grave and of manner of death of those contained29:
• Sites containing bodies of not unlawfully killed civilians or combating soldiers, buried
in a proper way
• Sites containing such bodies, buried in an improper way
• Sites containing the bodies of victim of mass killing, buried in a proper way
• Sites containing such bodies, buried in an improper way
Not unlawful reasons for creating mass graves may be sanitary necessities, time constraints,
security conditions and the magnitude of the death toll.
Another definition focusing on legal aspects is that of the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Bacre Waly Ndiaye – defining a mass
grave as a location where three or more victims of extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary
executions, not having died in combat or armed confrontations are buried30. This definition is
used by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Like the Experts
Commission’s definition it allows for other types of features than actual graves, like village
wells and natural ravines.
The co-founder of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Team, Stefan Schmitt, sets off the
criminal mass grave from the accident-related mass grave, and the type of mass grave that
requires medico-legal investigation from the type that does not (mostly a matter of
chronology setting off modern mass graves from ancient ones)31. The criminal mass grave is
containing the remains of a group of individuals (meaning more than one) who share “some
common trait that justified their assassinations in the eyes of the perpetrators”. Schmitt
points out that, although mass graves originating from war crimes, genocide or crimes
against humanity are often designated clandestine graves implying secrecy and lack of
knowledge, always somebody knows about their existence even if unable to point out their
exact geographical location. He also points out that in many instances the party creating the
mass grave is not the one responsible for the killing, giving as a reason that at the time of the
crime perpetrators needed not fear reprisal. The need for concealment often comes only later.
Erin Jessee has recently put forward a definition merging some of the above mentioned
definitions: a mass grave being any location containing two or more tightly-packed,
indiscriminately or disrespectfully placed bodies representing victims who have died as a
result of extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, not including military combatants,
who have died as a result of armed confrontations32. She is primarily concerned about the
mass grave as a unique archaeological phenomenon. In order to improve investigation

27
UN Doc S/1994/674, Annex X, section II A
28
EAAF 2001b:57–60; see chapter 4.2.1
29
UN Doc S/1994/674, Annex X, section II A
30
UN Doc E/CN.4/1993/50, Annex I, article 5; ICTY 1996b
31
Schmitt 2002:279
32
Jessee 2003:59–64

16
methods and their outcome, she has developed an archaeological typology of mass graves
and mass grave-related sites with an experimental research design attached to each type. She
also discusses shortly the archaeological evidence potentially to be associated with the
different types in regard to the specific formation process and the events related to the site.
• Mass grave-related sites: surface execution sites; grave execution sites; temporary
surface deposition sites; and permanent surface deposition sites.
• Inhumation sites: primary inhumation sites (primary mass graves) sometimes being
simultaneously also a grave execution site, secondary inhumation sites (secondary
mass graves), multiple deposit interment sites (a grave containing a stratigraphic series
of body masses separated by soil and deposited over a period of time), and looted
inhumation sites (a grave from which human remains have been removed). Multiple
deposit interment sites may include both primary and secondary inhumation sites.

3.5 Excavating mass graves – exhuming human remains

Obviously, burial, quasi-burial and non-burial methods of disposing with the dead pose
different professional challenges to the investigator – not least the archaeologist. Another
distinction that has a bearing on what professional challenges will meet the investigator,
what goals may be achieved and (maybe) whether the inclusion of the archaeologist is
needed or not, is the distinction between mass grave excavation and mass grave exhumation.
• The term mass grave exhumation I would like to restrict to diggings entirely focused
on the retrieval of the human remains for the sake of identification and repatriation.
This definition does not imply that the digging itself is not done with the utmost care
or that archaeological excavation techniques may not be employed. Nor does it imply
that there will be absolutely no focus on context in as far as it has a bearing on the
identification.
• The term mass grave excavation I would like to restrict to diggings carrying a more
holistic perspective focusing of course on the retrieval of the human remains and their
identification, but as much on the contextual evidence for the sake of establishing
factors involved in the formation of the site and the sequence of events and activities
leading to its coming into being. In this definition human remains are treated as part of
the context, a find like other finds.
I have to point out, that although Connor and Scott are making the same sort of distinction33
it is not a distinction that is frequently made within the field. On the contrary, exhumation
(which literally means digging up a corpse and which is the traditional medico-legal term) is
the term normally applied in the literature to the whole scale of diggings, from pure
excavations in the archaeological sense of the word to pure exhumations.
A particular methodological challenge to mass graves investigators is created by the unique
microenvironment and transformation pattern that decomposition of large body masses
creates in interplay with other, both natural and man-made, preservation factors such as
burial method, contact only with other bodies or also with grave fill, soil conditions (like
quality, compaction, porosity and percolation characteristics), time passed, clothing, climate
etc34. This phenomenon was first documented in 1950 by the British pathologist Arthur Keith
Mant, who used the term “feather-edge effect” to describe the different decomposition rates

33
: Connor & Scott 2001b.
34
Haglund 2002:247–252; see Rinehart 2001 for factors influencing the decomposition of surface remains

17
that occur within a large body mass35. In the same mass grave one may encounter partially to
fully fleshed human remains at the centre, while simultaneously finding partially to fully
skelotonised remains at the outskirt of the grave, and also mummification may occur. The
depth or shallowness of the backfill and its compaction also influence the preservation of the
human remains. An example is the difference between the partially to fully fleshed human
remains found in the Ovcara grave near Vukovar in Croatia after five years of interment as
opposed to the fully skeletonised remains in the Cerska grave after only one year. While the
Ovcara was deep, the Cerska grave was covered only with a thin layer of loose soil. It was
shallow, only 1–3 bodies deep and beginning only 45 cm below surface36.

3.6 What is so special about archaeology?

3.6.1 Forensic archaeology versus physical anthropology
In Scandinavia, as in most of Europe or at least North Europe37, archaeology and physical
anthropology are separate disciplines originating in the distinctly different educational
departments of archaeology and anatomy/forensic medicine respectively. The European
archaeologist needs to be familiar with physical anthropology (or human osteology) for the
sake of being able to excavate ancient human remains in a proper way – and not least in
order to be able to realise when his or her skills are not sufficient and a true expert has to be
called in on an excavation. The European physical anthropologist on the other hand need not
become familiar with archaeology at all – unless he or she takes a special interest. In Norway
for example, there are many prehistoric and/or medieval archaeologists, but only two
physical anthropologists. One is working within archaeology researching ancient human
remains; the other is working within anatomy, doing also forensic examinations. To the
European academic, the distinction drawn between the forensic anthropologist (sensu stricto)
and the forensic archaeologist (sensu stricto) by Skinner et al38 is then the natural distinction
to draw.
In most of North America a four-field educational system of anthropology is applied, within
which archaeology is taught as a sub-discipline along with physical anthropology, cultural
anthropology (in Scandinavia called social anthropology) and linguistics39. As a result most
North American physical anthropologists will have at least a basic course within archaeology
and thus be somewhat acquainted with the discipline. Archaeology came into human rights
investigations of mass graves through the pioneering work of an American physical
anthropologist recognising the value of applying archaeology to such investigation – Dr.
Clyde Snow working in Latin America in the 1980s and early 1990s40. All the Latin
American forensic human rights organisations are called forensic anthropology teams
although they consist of both archaeologists and anthropologists, and apply both sciences41.
Still, the focus seems to be predominantly on physical anthropology, and archaeology to be a
subordinate discipline. Very often, the term forensic anthropology is used to refer
indiscriminately to both physical anthropology and archaeology – or to what I as a
Scandinavian archaeologist clearly would perceive as being archaeology. Conventional
archaeologist – i.e. archaeologists being first and foremost archaeologists – only came to be

35
Mant 1950; Haglund, Connor & Scott 2001:58
36
Haglund 2002:252
37
Hunter 1997
38
Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic 2003: section 2
39
Connor & Scott 2001:2, Jessee 2003:65 Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic 2003:82–83
40
Crist 200; the role of Dr. Clyde Snow is mentioned in several of the references quoted, chapter 4 passim
41
Chapter 4.1

18
involved in the field in greater numbers when large-scale mass grave investigations were
launched in Rwanda and specifically the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and they are still
struggling to define their role42. Skinner et al. are trying to overcome the differences that may
arise when professionals of different traditions and perspectives are to work together on
international missions by suggesting a set of guidelines for the exhumation of mass graves43.
They introduce a new term – forensic bio-archaeology – to unite the roles of physical
anthropology and archaeology and at the same time include biological sciences such as
botany, entomology and zoology.
Shortly stated:
• Forensic anthropology is the application of the methods and goals of physical
anthropology to questions of medico-legal significance with a core expertise in
obtaining information from hard tissue (bones and teeth) variation whether genetic or
acquired (whereas the forensic pathologist is concerned about the soft tissue)44.
• Forensic archaeology is the application of archaeological paradigms, methods, and
goals to questions of medico-legal significance45.

3.6.2 Artefactual and contextual evidence

Classifying and analysing earth found objects and groups of objects as chronological,
cultural, social or individual identifiers have been a cornerstone in archaeology ever since the
Danish numismatist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen in 1816 organised prehistory into Stone
Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age based on the artefact material and became the founder of
archaeology as a scientific profession. In case the objects are fixed/firm and have a
superstructure we call them monuments; in case such objects have no superstructure we call
them features (for instance a grave, a posthole) or subsurface structures (for instance a house
foundation); and in case they are loose objects, in English they are usually called artefacts.
This literally means a crafted object. Thus strictly speaking it does not include human bones,
animal or fish bones, macrofossils, pollen or insects – objects that may be encountered at any
excavation site and have a great bearing on how to interpret and understand the events that
led to the formation (and subsequent transformation) of that site. In order to include loose
objects of any sort and avoid semantic discussions, in Scandinavia we use the term “a find”
in stead of artefact. While artefact studies are a traditional archaeological analysis method,
the “artefact” study or analysis of such other finds is the speciality of other professions –
physical anthropology/human osteology, zoo-osteology, botany, palynology and entomology.
Thus, when in the questionnaire I am asking about the importance of artefactual evidence in
comparison to biological, physical or anatomical evidence I am referring to this distinction.
Examples of artefacts found in modern mass graves:
• Identification papers, wallets and their contents, coins, amulets and other personal
ornaments, clothes, cartridges, cartridge cases and bullets.
Example of a typical archaeological artefact study:
• The ballistic analyses performed by one of my respondents, the American
archaeologist Douglas D. Scott, on cartridges and cartridge cases recovered from for

42
Connor & Scott 2001a, 2001b; see also chapter 4.2.3–4.2.7 and 4.3.1
43
Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic 2003
44
Snow 1982; Rinehart 2001; Scott & Connor 2001:101; Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic 2003:82
45
EAAF home page; Connor & Scott 2001b; Scott & Connor 2001:101

19
 instance sites related to the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador or to the Anfal
campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan46.
After having identified the various firearm types, individual weapons may be identified by a
sort of wear pattern analysis and it may be identified how many shots each fired. By
processing the contextual evidence as well, using find distribution maps of the artefact in
question and analysing how it relates (the find association) to other finds including those that
are not artefacts, the pathways of the individual weapons and some of the specifics of the
formation of the site in question may be revealed. Especially Scott and Connor point to the
core archaeological paradigm behind such analyses – the idea that human behaviour is
patterned and thus also the physical remnants of human activities will be patterned47. The
find association concept refers to the way finds may be linked to other finds (e.g. a wallet to
particular human remains) and to the physical environment, while the find distribution
concept refers to the spatial distribution of finds and their spatial relation to each other and
the environment including their individual orientation. Find distribution analyses may be
used to identify activity areas within a site and find association analyses for linking finds or
activity areas together. In this way a behavioural pattern arises.
Another part of the archaeological concept of context is the stratigraphic evidence referring
to the vertical (and sometimes the horizontal) sequence of finds and features, cultural (man-
produced) and natural (sediment) layers revealing temporal aspects of the site formation even
when the time span itself is short.
For dating modern mass graves, in many cases one will have to fall back on traditional
archaeological dating methods. Relative dating may be provided by styles of clothes and
other accessories, while absolute dating may be provided by the terminus post quem and
terminus ante quem dating methods. Terminus post quem (“date after which”) refers to the
fact that an artefact cannot possibly be included in an undisturbed physical context before its
own production date, and thus the youngest dated artefact will establish the eldest possible
date of the formation of the site in which it is found. Such dating artefacts may be coins or
cartridges48. Terminus ante quem (“date before which”) accordingly refers to finds that prove
the formation of the site to be older than the date of the find. Such datings may be provided
for instance by the year rings of twigs growing out of the clothing (or the very remains) of a
human being49. Archaeological dating methods may be valuable by themselves or they may
corroborate estimations of time since death made by pathologists and physical
anthropologists. New scientific dating methods such as for instance soil chemistry may also
become valuable50.
Just as there is laboratory work to be done after the excavation/exhumation, there are also a
number of essential tasks to carry out before getting as far as the actual excavation or
exhumation in order to plan and carry this out in the appropriate way:
• Collecting witness information (preferably from more than one witness)
• Surveying for and locating suspected grave (and/or execution) site
• Site assessment, preliminary investigation or trial excavation

46
EAAF 2000b:43, 2001b:58–59; Scott & Connor 1997; Scott 2001; see chapter 4.2.1 – 4.2.2
47
Scott & Connor 1997:27; Connor & Scott 2001b
48
Used for instance dating sites related to the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador: EAAF 2000b:45, 2001b:59
49
An example from a forensic case of such dating is given by Hunter 1997:13
50
Kimmerle 2004:9

20
Archaeologists usually have no experience collecting witness information – their witnesses
are normally silent or silenced objects. For the other two tasks they are well trained.
Archaeologists have developed as well as borrowed, adapted and implemented from other
professions a great variety of field investigation techniques as well as laboratory analysis
methods. Field archaeologists are trained in reading the landscape and detect topographical
and vegetation anomalies that may reveal the existence of man-made disturbances and
features. This applies not just to field walking, but also to the analysis of for instance aerial
photography. The archaeologist is also trained to detect various indicators of soil
disturbances that may reveal first of all the site itself, and secondly help define features and
structures and detect both primary and secondary disturbances to these objects. However,
some searching methods are unfamiliar to the archaeologist, like using cadaver dogs or the
sense of smell when examining the probe stick. Finally, archaeologists are trained in
(archaeological) site assessment as they usually need to plan the excavation according to a
cost/benefit way of thinking – maximising the outcome, while keeping the costs down. This
is partly due to the fact that (at least in Norway) even conventional archaeological
excavations are not done for pure research purposes, but as a consequence of planned
construction building on historical ground with other and often stronger societal interests at
stake.
There is one aspect of excavation/exhumation which it is particularly important to stress, the
fact that:
• When excavating, we simultaneously destroy the source of evidence, only the
documentation and the finds are preserved – whatever the purpose of excavation, it can
only be done once.
This destructive and unrepeatable character of excavation of course applies to any digging
into the ground, whether done archaeologically or not51. It has made it paramount for
archaeologists to apply rigorous, detailed and unambiguous documentation techniques both
to field work practices, the subsequent processing of finds and the way these are taken into
custody in order to be able to sort of reverse the process back to the original situation.
Archives “excavations” of old reports in order to extract new evidence are not uncommon.
Thus, the chain of custody to be observed in criminal investigations, although more
rigorously applied than the archaeological “chain of custody”, should not be a completely
surprising concept to the archaeologist52.

3.7 Investigation purposes and the concept of physical evidence

The five objectives of mass grave investigations stated in the questionnaire53 may be
assigned to three broad categories:
• Humanitarian purposes
• Legal purposes
• Historical purposes

51
Hunter 1997:17.
52
Melbye & Jimenez 1997; Crist 2001:45–46
53
a) Collecting evidence for the indictment and prosecution of alleged perpetrators or the responsible in
command, b) Identifying the victims and returning the remains to the families, c) Establishing factual truth
counteracting historical revisionism, d) Acknowledging the legal and human rights of the offended party, e)
Contributing to preventive measures – based primarily on Haglund, Connor & Scot 2001 & Haglund 2002

21
In the literature, humanitarian purposes in relation to mass grave investigations seem to refer
almost exclusively to the needs of relatives for identification and repatriation of the remains
of their loved ones in order to bring closure and be able to move on with life – hence also the
distinction between excavation and exhumation above. This seems a rather narrow definition
that will be discussed more fully later, but for the sake of identifying the potential
contribution of archaeologists/archaeology it is kept as this.
Closely linked to identification matters are the acknowledgement of the legal (civil) and
human rights of the offended party. Legal purposes refer both to the pursue of such legal
rights and to the prosecution of criminal offences as codified in the body of international
laws, even if pursued in local or regional courts.
Historical purposes refer to establishing a historical record that may counteract historical
revisionism. Thus, it refers primarily to factual truth, i.e. establishing facts that it is hard to
deny, although their societal implications may be an object of interpretation54.
Fulfilling the purposes of these three categories may require different types of evidence, and
even identical types of evidence may be treated differently from purpose to purpose.
However, forensic investigations serve medico-legal purposes and thus the corresponding
concept of physical evidence is the medico-legal one. The interpretation of this evidence is
done by jurists in court and produces a very specific sort of truth – a legal truth. Truth in the
eyes of survivors, relatives, historians and not least alleged perpetrators may look very
different – even if based on the same evidence and even if carrying the legal truth as an
element within their own perception of truth. Even the legal truth is a variable sort of truth as
civil courts and criminal courts differ on what they will accept as evidence on which to rule
their judgement.

3.8 Evidence of identity – personal and categorical identification

In the medico-legal sense of the concept, according to Skinner there are four fundamental
varieties of physical evidence that can be obtained from mass graves: 1) evidence of identity,
2) evidence of time of death, 3) evidence of pre-mortem trauma (physical trauma occurring
before death), and 4) evidence of cause, manner and mode of death by peri-mortem trauma
(occurring in association with death)55. As already indicated the concept of identity may be a
complex one. Here I am concentrating specifically on the two types of identity, of interest to
humanitarian purposes as defined above and legal purposes respectively – personal identity
vs. categorical identity56.
A positive personal identification is based primarily on physical and anatomical traits
(generic and acquired) that are unique to that particular individual. DNA-analysis may be the
ultimate and conclusive tool to establish positive personal identity. Without DNA-matches
reaching such identification is not as easy as it sounds, especially not in poor third world
countries where most people enjoy only provisory health care, or in times of conflict when
otherwise decent health records may be destroyed along with everything else. In this respect,
your dentist and your doctor may know you better than your closest relatives. Would you for
instance be able to tell the number of fillings your husband has or give his height as it is
stated in his passport? You may want him to be without blemish, but in case he goes missing

54
For instance the number of individuals missing after the fall of Srebrenica is a fact that can be established
with some certainty, but the recognition of such figures by the government of the Republika Srpska is an
example of such facts being interpreted in a specific way, see ICMP home page
55
Skinner 1987:269
56
Haglund 2002:257-258

22
you should rather wish for one or two clear-cut physical defects. Circumstantial evidence,
evidence affiliated with a particular set of human remains – such as identification papers and
family photographs carried in wallets, particular personal item, particular outfits and the like
– may be produced archaeologically to aid the personal identification process. However, it is
important to be aware that the formal identification remains in the hands of a forensic
pathologists authorised to issue the death certificate. The evidence provided by for instance
physical anthropologists and odontologists (so-called hard evidence) and archaeologists and
others (so-called soft evidence) thus has to satisfy the pathologist who makes his or her
decision based on the totality of evidence.
Contrary to domestic homicides, for the prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity
and genocide, personal identification is not a primary issue57. Those killed are not killed
because of their private qualities, and the killer usually does not personally know the people
he or she is killing. Rather, frequently people are targeted because of their ascribed quality of
“otherness”, revealed through their membership of a particular group of people. Within the
Geneva Conventions various groups are protected, most notably civilians and prisoners of
war. Within the Genocide Convention national, ethnical, racial or religious groups are the
protected groups. As to crimes against humanity, the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal
for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), and the permanent International
Criminal Court give different specifications of what crimes fall within this concept58. With
ICTY and ICTR the same nine crimes are listed: murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, persecutions on political, racial and religious
grounds, and other inhumane acts. To ICTY they are punishable if committed against any
civilian population in armed conflict, whereas to ICTR they are punishable if “committed as
part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national,
political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds”. The International Criminal Court statute adds
to this list of crimes against humanity: forcible transfer of population (which will include
ethnic cleansing when falling outside of the legal concept of genocide), sexual slavery/
enforced prostitution/ forced pregnancy/ enforced sterilisation/ other grave sexual violence,
persecution of ethnic, cultural or gender groups, enforced disappearance, and apartheid. As
with ICTR these acts have to be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
against any civilian population, but excluding the group perspective. Shortly stated, the only
lawful group for a state to kill is soldiers or equivalent groups (like guerrilla fighters) and
only when done in battle or after previous judicial proceedings.
The contribution by physical anthropologists to group identification in respect to mass graves
is the construction of a demographic profile of the victims based on biological characteristics
(sex, age, stature, and ancestry). However, even biological characteristics are not culturally
independent parameters. Rather, they depend on population specific parameters such as
variable growth and ageing patterns due to biological, environmental and cultural variation59.
In spite of such difficulties, the demographic profile may provide some biological group
characteristics that contradicts allegations by perpetrators of those buried in a mass grave as
being lawfully killed. However, archaeologically produced circumstantial evidence may also
be highly valuable. Thus for instance the victims found in the Ovcara grave could be
categorically identified as patients and hospital staff due to the presence of bandaged limbs
or limbs set in plaster casts and slings, a pair of broken crutches, a catheter dangling from a
pelvis, hospital smocks and white clogs60.

57
Haglund 2002:258, ICTY 1996b
58
ICTY Statute:article 5; ICTR Statute:article 3; UN Doc A/CONF.183/9:article 7 (ICC Statute)
59
Kimmerle 2004:12–16
60
Stover 1997:45–46, Stover & Peress 1998:160

23
The classification of people into national, ethnical, racial or religious groups is particularly
difficult as these concepts are not “objective” scientific expressions, but pure social
constructs evasive of clear-cut definitions. Thus in the Genocide Convention, according to
Schabas, they not only overlap, but also help define each other operating as four corner posts
delimiting an area within which a myriad of groups are finding protection61. He warns
against trying to find autonomous meanings for each of the terms as has been tried by the
ICTR or in the US Genocide legislation. To North-European archaeologists, the idea that
ethnicity can be recognised in archaeological assemblages and contexts has been a
particularly touchy subject ever since the abuse of archaeology by the Nazi regime during the
Second World War as a mean to sustain and justify the Jewish genocide62. In my opinion
there is still every reason to be careful about categorical identifications of national, ethnical,
racial or religious groups even in modern populations as such identifications are highly
context-dependent and based purely on cultural interpretations.

4 MASS GRAVE INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS

4.1 Forensic human rights investigation teams in the Americas

4.1.1 Argentina and the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF)
Although excavations of mass graves containing missing military personnel goes back to
World War II and the post-war period63, the historic first application of forensics and
archaeology to human rights investigations goes back to Argentina’s re-transition into
democracy in the mid-1980s. According to the report Nunca Mas (Never Again) of the
National Commission on the Disappearance of people, almost 9000 people were made to
disappear during Argentina’s “Dirty War” 1976–198364. The truth commission was set up in
1984 by the newly elected president Raul Alfonsin under pressure from human rights family
associations. The military junta had not only killed detainees by the individual, but had
conducted mass executions as well and later secretly disposed of the victims. Without any
corpus delicti, they thought criminal prosecution would be impossible. Some were dropped
from airplanes into the ocean, while others came to be buried in anonymous graves in
municipal cemeteries. These latter victims were typically left in public places, collected and
buried by the police after being photographed, fingerprinted, and forensically examined, and
given both a death and a burial certificate.
Local judges started to order exhumations of such graves, but done unprofessionally the
results were not significant. Thus, the head of the truth commission, Ernesto Sabato, and the
NGO Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo requested the help of Eric Stover of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He brought to Argentina a
multidisciplinary team of forensic scientists who started training young students of
archaeology, anthropology and medicine how to excavate the graves and identify the
exhumed remains. Among the AAAS team members was Dr. Clyde Snow, a forensic
anthropologist, who would return to Argentina continuously for the next five years to train
the hard core of these students. In 1986, the hard core of these students established the
Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) as a non-profit NGO to apply mainly

61
Schabas 2000:111–112
62
Arnold 2002
63
Haglund, Connor & Scott 2001:58
64
CONADEP 1984

24
physical anthropology and archaeology to investigations of human rights violations.65 The
team, consisting today of thirteen full and part-time members, has since worked to recover
and identify the remains of disappeared Argentineans in Argentina, and from 2000 onwards
also in Uruguay. So far, close to a 1000 Argentinean victims have been recovered.
Criminal trials against former military regime officials were conducted until 1986–1987
when two amnesty laws, the Full Stop Law and the Law of Due Obedience, were passed by
the Alfonsin government. The Menem government subsequently (1990) pardoned military
officials implicated in human rights violations. Between 1986 and 2001 all investigations by
the EAAF in Argentina therefore has been carried out purely for humanitarian reasons,
commissioned by various associations of the relatives of the disappeared. Although the
majority of human rights NGO’s were convinced of the importance of forensic investigation,
some radically opposed to exhumations. Thus, the NGO Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, who
in 1977 staged a protest against the disappearances and in 1982 had been in favour of
exhumations, in 1985 split between those in favour and those against exhumation66. The two
amnesty laws were ruled unconstitutional, null and void by court in 2001, opening up for
renewed criminal court proceedings67. The Argentine Chamber of Deputies voted to annul
the laws in August 2003, but as of spring 2004 the Supreme Court still has to rule about the
laws’ constitutionality68. Still, civil cases for reparation have been processed and Argentine
criminal cases taken place in various foreign countries with EAAF members as expert
witnesses69.
From 1986 onwards, the EAAF also expanded their work beyond Argentina. As of spring
2004, they have been on missions to 30 different countries worldwide70. Non-team members,
archaeologists or physical anthropologists, from Argentina or other countries are often
invited to participate. Also Dr. Clyde Snow has worked with the team on many cases
abroad71. Most of their missions have involved fieldwork, while others have been training
and advisory missions. The objectives of their work are to:
• Apply forensic sciences to the investigation and documentation of human rights
violations
• Provide this evidence in court, special commissions of inquiry, and international
tribunals
• Assist the relatives of the victims in pursuit of their right to recover the remains of
their “disappeared” loved ones, so that they can carry out the customary funeral rites
and mourn their dead

65
Kreisler 1999; Stover & Ryan 2001:9–11; Doretti & Fondebrider 2001; Fondebrider 2002; Doretti & Snow
2003:291–293; EAAF (Equipo Argentine de Antropologia Forense) home page
66
Robben 2000:81, 91
67
Amnesty International Library 2001
68
HRW 2003b
69
EAAF 2000a:18–30
70
Venezuela (1989), Colombia (1989–1995, 1997, 1998, 2001), Guatemala (1991–1995, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2002), El Salvador (1991–1992, 1999–2003), Brazil (1991, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2001), Chile (1991, 1998),
Bolivia (1992, 1994–1997), Panama (1992, 1994, 1995, 2001), Iraqi Kurdistan (1992), Croatia (1992, 1993,
1996), Paraguay (1993, 1994, 1999), Peru (1993, 1998, 2001, 2002), Ethiopia (1993, 1994, 1996, 2002),
Romania (1993), Honduras (1994, 1995, 1998), Haiti (1995, 1997, 2000), French Polynesia (1996), South
Africa (1996, 1997, 1999), Bosnia (1997–1999), Democratic Republic of Congo (1997, 1998, 2002, 2003),
Zimbabwe (1999–2000), Uruguay (2000 onwards), Kosovo (2000), Philippines (2000, 2001), East Timor
(2001), Cote d’Ivoire (2001–2003), Mexico (2002, 2003), Indonesia (2002, 2003), Sierra Leone (2002, 2003),
Kenya (2003), Angola (2003) – See EAAF home page, Reports by Country & Year
71
Doretti & Snow 2003:292, 294

25
 • Collaborate in the training of new teams in other countries where investigations into
human rights violations are necessary
• Conduct seminars on the human rights application of forensic sciences for
humanitarian organisations, judicial systems, and forensic institutes in any country
where people express interest in this subject
• Contribute to the historical reconstruction of the recent past, often distorted or hidden
by the parties or government institutions which are themselves implicated in the
crimes under investigation
Since their involvement with the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for former
Yugoslavia, the EAAF seem to have become still more involved on the international scene
conducting missions on behalf of national truth commissions, prosecutor’s offices or various
entities within the United Nations. In 1997 they contracted to assemble and lead an
international forensic team as part of a larger UN mission in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. However, the entire mission was withdrawn in April 1998 without the team getting
into doing excavations72. Also the missions to the Ivory Coast73, to East Timor74 and to
Sierra Leone75 were commissioned by entities of the United Nations – the EAAF in each
case being contracted through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR). Likewise contracted through the OHCHR, in 2001 they prepared a “Model
Protocol for the Forensic Investigation of Suspicious Deaths Resulting from Human Rights
Violations” to be proposed as law by the Mexican government in 200376.

4.1.2 Guatemala and the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation (FAFG)

Much the same story as with the EAAF passed in Guatemala77. In 1954 a US-managed
military coup inaugurated one of the bloodiest regimes in the Americas. In the early 1960s
civil war broke out, lasting for 36 years until finally a peace accord was signed in 1996.
Things started to loosen up in 1986 with the first government to be democratically elected
since the coup in 1954. In 1990, peace negotiations between the government and a coalition
of guerrilla groups were mediated by the United Nations, leading eventually to the
establishment of a United Nations truth commission in 1997 (CEH). In its report delivered in
1999, the commission had itself recorded 669 massacres affecting approximately 42 000
people. Taking into account additional sources, the commission stipulated that more than 200
000 people had been killed and/or disappeared by government agencies since 196278. Most
of the killings were termed genocide against the Mayan rural population disguised as
counterinsurgency campaigns against guerrilla groups79.
CEH was the historic first truth commission to explicitly recommend an active governmental
policy of locating and excavating clandestine graves, considering this “in itself an act of
justice and reparation and an important step on the path to reconciliation”, and to
recommend it done by forensic teams like the Argentinean team80. At that time forensic

72
EAAF 1996–97; 1998a; 2002a
73
EAAF 2001f; 2002d
74
EAAF 2001a
75
EAAF 2002g
76
EAAF 2001d, 2002e
77
EAAF 1998b; Stover & Ryan 2001:11–15.
78
CEH 1999:Conclusion, section I 1–2
79
CEH 1999:Conclusion, section II 108–120
80
CEH 1999:Conclusion, section III 28–31

26
scientists had already been working for years excavating mass graves and trying to identify
the victims. As in Argentina at first unprofessional exhumations had been carried out and
again the help of Stover and Snow was requested. A training program conducted by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1991 with the
participation of the EAAF led to the formation of a similar anthropological team in
Guatemala as in Argentina – The Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation (FAFG)81.
In 1997, the Office of the Archbishop of Guatemala also formed a forensic team, and in 1999
a third team was formed by a local human rights organization82. These three teams united in
late 2001. For the Public Ministry of Guatemala, together they have made a manual of how
to proceed with forensic anthropology investigations83. During the spring of 2002, eleven
members of these teams received death threats supposed to originate from former military
and intelligence officers involved in mass killings during the civil war, a threat that still
prevails84. According to their home page, as of spring 2004 the FAFG had investigated 166
cases related to the internal conflict plus 43 other cases, exhumed 1971 skeletons and
analysed 1 569 of these. While the two other teams seem to be working solely in Guatemala,
members of FAFG have subcontracted to work also internationally, either with AAAS
(Haiti) or Physicians for Human Rights (Iraqi Kurdistan, Honduras, Rwanda and former
Yugoslavia). EAAF and FAFG further have a mutual agreement to regularly exchange
members and to work together on foreign missions.
As in Argentina an amnesty law was passed, in the Guatemalan case before the truth
commission had finished its work and just before the peace accord was ratified in December
1996. However, it did not include the crime of genocide. The first conviction fell in 1998
when three army officers received death penalty for their role in the Rio Negro massacre in
the province of Rabinal, based on evidence from the excavation conducted by FAFG of a
mass grave containing 177 individuals85. Still, the country’s judicial system remains weak,
and a number of cases have instead been brought before the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (IACHR). In 2000, President Alfonso Portillo admitted state responsibility for
past violations before the IACHR, including the December 1982 Dos Erres massacre of
about 500 people86.
In 1994-1995, FAFG/EAAF exhumed the skeletal remains of at least 162 people, 67 being
children under 12 years old, from the town well in Dos Erres in the province of El Peten. The
remains of another nine individuals were found in the nearby woods87. In 1996, the case was
filed with the IACHR by various human rights organisations and the family association
FAMDEGUA88. In 2001, the families of the victims were awarded the first reparation to be
paid by the Guatemalan government for human rights crimes comitted during the war. In
addition, the government was obliged to provide physical and psychological treatment to
survivors and families of the victims, to investigate and try those responsible, and to build a
memorial89.

81
Fundacion de Antropología Forense de Guatemala, until 1997 called Equipo de Antropología Forense de
Guatemala (EGAF). FAFG home page, http://quiche.net/exhume/fafg.html and
http://quiche.net/exhume/resume.html.
82
ODHAG (Proyecto de Exhumaniciones de la Oficina de Derechos Humanos del Arzobispado Guatemala)
and CAFCA (Centro de Analisis Forenses y Cienceas Aplicadas) respectively
83
FAFG/ODHAG/CAFCA 2003, archaeology is explicitly mentioned in section 3.1, 3.7 and 3.14
84
AAAS 2002, 2003; EAAF 2002h
85
EAAF 1998b
86
HRW 2001
87
EAAF 1999c
88
Asociacion de Familiares de los Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Guatemala
89
EAAF 2001c

27
From the onset of mass grave excavations conducted in Guatemala, teams of mental health
workers have accompanied FAFG in order to work with survivors and family members, just
as family members have helped out as workers at the excavations. In 2002, donors of the
FAFG and the mental health programs wanted to conjoin the programs. A major evaluation
of the activities of FAFG 1998–2002 was carried out under the auspices of the United
Nations Program for Development90. In addition to examining a vast documentation
produced by the two teams, interviews with donors, directors of FAFG, members of various
Guatemalan mental health and human rights groups and NGOs, teams of physical and social
anthropologists, anthropologists and laboratory technicians, and archaeologists as well as
evaluators and coordinators of the team from the United Nations Program for Development,
were carried out and local groups visited in the countryside. Almost all those interviewed
believed the work of FAFG to be a crucial link between civil society and recent Guatemalan
state history, critical to potential future reconciliation and in general a contribution to peace
in Guatemala.
The process implies at the very least:
• Documenting the different actors in the conflict and its aftermath
• Providing factual proof and evidence of the violence
• Restoring the remains of victims to their families
• Ensuring that reports of the exhumations reach competent legal authorities

4.1.3 The Chilean Forensic Anthropology Team (GAF)

The same sort of agreement as between EAAF and FAFG used to apply also to the Chilean
Forensic Anthropology Team (GAF91) which was formed in 1989 to investigate cases of the
Pinochet regime 1973–1990. Like FAFG, also GAF members participated in missions abroad
like Iraqi Kurdistan, Honduras, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. The team is now defunct – it
apparently dissolved in the late 1990’s – but individual former members that still work
within the field have joined other entities in their home country, and occasionally they join
EAAF’s foreign missions. As they no longer exists as an organisation, the information given
here is very brief, and largely extracted from references in reports of other organisations, like
EAAF country reports and reports on the fieldwork of Physicians for Human Rights.

4.1.4 Peru and the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (EPAF)

The Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (EPAF) was formed in 2001, at the same time as
the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR) started its search for truth and
definition of responsibilities for the political atrocities of the period 1980–2000. In 1980,
Fernando Belaunde Terry regained presidency after having been deposed in 1968 by
reformist military officers, who on their side were ousted in another military coup in 1976.
The Belaunde government (1980–1985), soon began to strike brutally back on the Maoist
guerrilla force the Shining Path and the Revolutionary Movement Túpac Amaru, who
inaugurated their guerrilla war in 1980. So did also the subsequent governments of Alan
Garcia Perez (1985–1990) and Alberto Fujimori (1990–2000). As in Guatemala, the
counterinsurgency campaigns to a great extent were carried out as massacres against the
civilian population. The truth and reconciliation commission delivered its final report in

90
EAAF 2002c
91
Grupo de Antropologia Forense de Chile

28
August 2003. The commission estimated 69 280 victims had died due to the internal armed
conflict, as in Guatemala mostly peasants, of the Quechua and Ashaninka groups in the home
department of the Shining Path, the Ayacucho department92. Contrary to the experience of
the rest of the Latin American countries where state agents were almost single-handedly
responsible, in Peru the guerrilla forces committed equally horrid atrocities as the
government93. The commission states that the Shining Path was the initiator of the conflict
and the principal perpetrator of crimes and human rights violations, responsible for 54% of
the deaths, while 1.5% of the deaths are ascribed to the Revolutionary Movement Túpac
Amaru94. Yet, state agents are still accountable for the remaining 44.5% deaths. Also
contrary to other Latin America countries, the conflict (until the 1992 auto-coup of Fujimori)
developed under democratic regimes with free elections and a free press.
In 1995, the Fujimori Congress passed an amnesty law to ensure permanent impunity for
members of the security forces and police officials responsible for human rights violations
from1980–1995, and to prohibit investigations into such abuses. The law was declared null
and void by the IACHR in March 2001 ruling on a massacre that took place in 1991 in
Barrios Altos, thus creating precedence for similar cases in the future. Actually, the Peruvian
Truth and Reconciliation Commission were mandated to ensure evidence for prosecution in
cooperation with the Attorney General's office through exhumations and forensic
investigations. This office has appointed a Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances,
Extrajudicial Executions and Exhumations of Clandestine Graves. Also, the Peruvian
government has agreed to investigate and determine criminal responsibility in some 165
cases the IACHR has on its books95.
The EPAF team consists of nine archaeologists, anthropologists and a lawyer. Most members
were already well experienced within the traditional archaeology of their own country, and
many also had substantial experience with forensic anthropology and human rights
investigations, having worked abroad in former Yugoslavia (Kosovo), Rwanda, Argentina,
Haiti, Guatemala and Congo. From the start they have worked closely both with the truth
commission, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Public Ministry (Prosecutor’s Office)
officially in charge of the exhumations of the more than 150 mass graves. A primary
objective of the EPAF when formed – in addition to assisting families of the disappeared –
was to assist the Truth Commission in its clarifying work and the Office of the Public
Prosecutor in its legal investigations of the remains of victims of disappearance and/or
extrajudicial executions96. The Public Ministry wanted the team to be directly related to this
state institution along with their own team of medico-legal experts. However, the EPAF
wanted to act as an expert’s NGO, independent of state institutions. In 2002, this led to a
conflict between the parties, partly solved with the help of the other Latin American forensic
teams97. However, disagreement still prevails on exhumation strategies and what scientific
standards to apply98.

92
CVR 2003:General conclusions, section I
93
HRW 2004, EAAF 2001e, 2002f
94
CVR 2003:General conclusions, section II A and B
95
HRW 2002
96
EAAF 2001e:91
97
EAAF 2002f
98
EPAF 2003

29
4.1.5 The Latin American Forensic Anthropology Association (ALAF)
In 2003, the forensic teams of Latin America as well as a number of individuals of other
forensic institutions and organisations created the Latin American Forensic Anthropology
Association (ALAF)99. The objectives of this association are among others:
• To establish ethical and professional criteria for the practice of forensic anthropology
that will ensure the quality of the practice
• To promote the use of forensic anthropology and archaeology among the forensic
disciplines utilized in judiciary investigations in Latin America
• To promote the accreditation of professional working in forensic anthropology through
the creation of an independent accrediting board that will certify the quality of
practitioners
• To promote mechanisms which provide the families of the deceased access to the
procedures and results of forensic investigations, in accordance with international
treaties and recommendations
• To promote the protection of the associates of ALAF and their families, considering
the risks involved in working in forensic anthropology in some Latin American
countries
• To defend the scientific and technical autonomy of forensic anthropology
investigations in Latin America and the Caribbean

4.1.6 The Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), USA

Simultaneously with the foundation of the EAAF, another human rights NGO was founded
in the Americas in 1986 – the Boston based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) – with the
broader scope of mobilising the health professions to promote health by protecting human
rights100. From the early 1990s onwards they came to play an increasingly important role
internationally in the application of mass grave excavations as a means to human rights
investigations. In 1991, PHR sent forensic teams to investigate mass graves in both
Guatemala and Brazil. In 1992, Eric Stover, who had been deeply involved with the upstart
of the Latin American forensic teams in Argentina and Guatemala, was appointed PHR’s
second Executive Director. That same year, the PHR assembled forensic teams to investigate
mass graves in Iraqi Kurdistan101 and in former Yugoslavia, and to examine the human
remains and artefact evidence uncovered by the EAAF-led mass grave excavation related to
the El Mozote Massacre in El Salvador102. In the former Yugoslavia they came to play a
pivotal role to the UN Commission of Experts established by Security Council resolution
780103. In 1995, an international forensic program was set up and Dr. Robert Kirschner, who
had been involved with the El Mozote investigation, became its first director. Also in 1995,
Dr. William Haglund became the United Nations’ Senior Forensic Advisor for ICTY and
ICTR. In 1998 he was appointed Director of the PHR’ International Forensic Program104.
PHR became the main provider of international teams of forensic experts to the two tribunals

99
Asociacion Latinoamericana de Antropologia Forense, see ALAF home page; EAAF 2002h:127
100
PHR home page
101
See chapter 4.2.2
102
See chapter 4.2.1
103
See chapter 4.2.3
104
PHR home page: forensic program, current staff

30
in 1996. The teams included forensic anthropologists, archaeologists, pathologists,
radiologists, odontologists, geneticists, biologists and ballistics experts and worked primarily
on a voluntary basis. As funding of mass grave excavations was not part of ICTY’s regular
budget, the PHR also became the main collector and provider of funding for this work, the
money being used primarily to finance transportation of equipment and personnel, purchase
of equipment and to pay statistical and logistical work105. In April 1996 they opened an
office in Zagreb independent of ICTY to co-ordinate their work in the area. They also
developed a community-based outreach program to channel information to the families of
the missing, established an ante-mortem database and started its Srebrenica Identification
Project106. This office is now closed and local entities have taken over. PHR has carried out
forensic investigations in the Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Brazil, Israel and the Occupied
Territories, South Korea, Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Kuwait,
Mexico, Panama and Thailand, Cyprus, Georgia, Abkhazia, Nigeria, and Afghanistan and are
presently deeply involved in Iraq. As a founding member of the International Campaign to
Ban Landmines, the PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
PHR investigation team's work is usually divided into five phases107:
• Phase 1: A Mapping and Surveying team of forensic anthropologists and
archaeologists maps the location and size of the mass graves and massacre sites.
• Phase 2: Forensic Archaeologists and Forensic Anthropologists undertake the
exhumation of the graves and the osteological examination of the remains, as well as
determine the number of bodies in each grave.
• Phase 3: A Forensic Pathology team conducts autopsies to determine the age, sex,
nature of trauma, and cause of death of the deceased. Following completion of the
work, the bodies will be turned over to the families of the deceased, if they are
identified, or to appropriate local authorities for reburial.
• Phase 4: A team of investigators collects ante-mortem data on missing individuals and
inputs this data into an antemortem database which will sort information to try to
identify bodies exhumed from the grave. The collection of antemortem data will occur
concurrently with the exhumations.
• Phase 5: Forensic reports, including photographic and video evidence and other
evidence collected form the sites will be submitted to the ICTY.

4.2 Mass grave investigating institutions in former Yugoslavia

4.2.1 The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
During the fifty years between the conclusion of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of the
International Military Tribunals in 1945 and the establishment of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), there was no international entity to ensure the
law enforcement of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, their
additional protocols of 1977, and not least the Genocide Convention of 1948, had never been
adjudicated and no precedents existed. Thus, both the ICTY and the ICTR have been very

105
ICTY 1996b
106
Vollen & Peress 2001:338–339
107
PHR 1996b

31
important instruments in interpreting the laws and setting important precedents of their
interpretation.
ICTY was established by the United Nations in 1993 to prosecute and try alleged
perpetrators of four different types of offences: 1) grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, 2) war crimes, 3) genocide and 4) crimes against humanity, committed on the
territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. Its objectives are fourfold:
• To bring to justice persons allegedly responsible for serious violations of international
humanitarian law
• To render justice to the victims
• To deter further crimes
• To contribute to the restoration of peace by promoting reconciliation in the former
Yugoslavia
The Office of the Prosecutor is an independently operating organ that conducts
investigations, prepares indictments and presents prosecutions before the judges of the
Tribunal. ICTY has primacy over national courts, and may take over national investigations
and proceedings at any stage it wants.
As of April 2004, 35 cases have been completed because of the indictment being withdrawn
or the accused having died. 40 cases are at pre-trial or trial stage, while 52 have been
completed by the Trial Chambers, 16 of these being at appeal. Two people have been
acquitted by the Trial Chamber, while three have been found not guilty by the Appeals
Chamber. 28 persons have received final sentences of 3–40 years. So far, 8 have served their
sentences in one of the countries that have signed an agreement with the United Nations to
accept persons convicted by the ICTY. One of these, Drazen Erdemovic, has served in
Norway. Twenty people for whom ICTY has issued arrest warrants are still at large – among
these Radovan Karadzic and Radko Mladic
ICTY began its first series of mass-grave excavations in July 1996, stating the purpose as
being threefold108:
• To corroborate witness testimony
• To recover evidence related to events reported in Tribunal indictments
• To document injuries and identify the cause and date of death
Excavations are conducted only pursuant to an investigation by the Prosecutor’s office. Only
gravesites relevant to indictments issued or to be issued in the future are of interest to the
prosecutor – and they are excavated only for reasons relating to prosecution charges. On an
average site excavation (estimated as of 100 bodies) the forensic team should include two
pathologists, two physical anthropologists and two archaeologists – in addition to members
of the Prosecutor’s staff, a legal advisor, and a representative of the host government.
Fieldwork may go on for about a month after which comes the laboratory work. Kimmerle
points to the presence of other important parties at the excavation site, such as family
members of the victims being exhumed and not least the NATO security personnel, who also
provide security to the ICMP109. Just as ICTY only conducts excavations relating to specific
cases, they also only examine the human remains strictly for prosecutorial purposes. This

108
ICTY 1996b
109
Kimmerle 2004:10; Sanchez 2001

32
means that autopsies or examinations are not done on all remains in any particular mass
grave, but only to a sample of these in order to establish patterns of death/behaviour or any
inconsistencies. Both the examined and unexamined human remains are subsequently
released to other entities, national governments or in the case of positive identification to the
family.

4.2.2 The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP)110

One of the entities to which ICTY releases human remains is The International Commission
on Missing Persons (ICMP), which was established at the G-7 Summit in Lyon in 1996 as a
mission to the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia 1991–1995. In 1999 the mission was
expanded to the Kosovo conflict, in 2001 to the Macedonia crisis, and in 2003 to the present
situation in Iraq. From 1996–97 onwards, local commissions in the Federation of Bosnia-
Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska began the so-called Joint Exhumation Process,
exhuming mortal remains buried on each others territory. Most other regions of former
Yugoslavia are now taking part in the project. In 2001, the ICMP took over the co-ordination
of the Joint Exhumation Process from the Office of the High Representative.
The main objective of the ICMP is
“to secure the co-operation of Governments and other authorities in locating and
identifying persons missing as a result of armed conflicts, other hostilities or violations
of human rights and to assist them in doing so”
with an emphasis on determining the truth without apportioning the blame. ICMP supports
families of the missing in their search for truth and justice by undertaking the whole
investigation process from collecting and analysing ante-mortem data over exhumations to
the personal identification of the dead.
Exhumations are done in all parts of the former Yugoslavia, including Serbia. Death
certificates are issued by authorised forensic pathologists, who formally determine the
identity of the deceased. The ICMP protocol emphasises the use of hard evidence over soft
evidence to establish identifications, but all lines of evidence (including archaeological
evidence) are checked. Due to lack of dental records, DNA-matching has become paramount
to positive identifications in former Yugoslavia and is the reason why ICMP has become a
world leader in this field. By August 2003, more than 2077 DNA matches had been made, of
which 1888 were related to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina with 624 cases specifically
related to Srebrenica, and 1003 individuals had been positively identified. The pathologist is
assisted by physical anthropologists. International forensic anthropologists have in fact
formed the ICMP core team. However, forensic archaeologists are also employed by the
ICMP as they conduct exhumations/excavations themselves:
“ICMP is a humanitarian organization with no mandate to collect forensic evidence so
they focus on identification but are not averse to mapping, describing and collecting (or
recommending such) of forensic evidence such as ballistics and body orientation.”111

110
This chapter is based almost entirely on the ICMP home page: http://www.ic-mp.org/icmp/home.php
111
Skinner 2004: reply to questionnaire

33
5 SELECTED HUMAN RIGHTS MASS GRAVE INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 El Salvador – the El Mozote massacre (1992, 1999–2003)

In 1980, a violent conflict which was to inaugurate a civil war lasting for 12 years, 1980–
1992, broke out in El Salvador following the assassination of the Archbishop Romero. In
January 1981, the guerrilla forces of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front began
counter offensive against the government. Due to cold war concerns the government was
ensured massive and continued US support, the US supplying both material and elite military
training to, among others, the Atlacatl counterinsurgency battalion, which in the course of
the so-called “Operation Rescue” was to become responsible for the El Mozote massacre in
December 1981112. The goal of the campaign was to eliminate the guerrilla presence in a
small sector of the Morazan province in the north-east of El Salvador, where the guerrillas
had a camp and a training centre. Instead it became the extermination of the peasant
population of six neighbouring villages: El Mozote, La Joya, Jocote Amarillo, Ranchería,
Los Toriles, and Cerro Pando. The soldiers separated the population into two groups, men
and women/children, locked them up in private houses and community buildings, tortured
the men and executed everybody including the children, burned the buildings and killed the
livestock. Survivors managed to cross the border to Honduras and take refuge in UN camps
there. Some victims were haphazardly buried in mass graves by survivors before fleeing the
country. In January 1982, the massacre became public knowledge due to articles in the New
York Times and Washington Post by journalists who had managed to get into the area.
However, both the US and the El Salvadoran government categorically denied that a
massacre had taken place, no investigation was launched and the whole thing was dismissed
as guerrilla propaganda.
In 1989, Tutela Legal, the human rights legal office of the archbishop of El Salvador,
collected witness testimony and compiled a list of 767 persons who had been killed in the El
Mozote massacre, 40% of these being children less than ten years old. On behalf of the
survivors of the massacre, in 1990 they filed a brief before the court in San Francisco Gotera,
Morazan, against the Atlacatl Battalion insisting on exhumations. In late 1989, UN-mediated
peace negotiations began which finally in January 1992 led to a peace accord between the
FMLN and the El Salvadoran government. Written into the peace accord was the mandate of
the United Nations “Commission on the Truth for El Salvador”, which included
investigating serious acts of violence113. The commission began working in 1992 and
delivered its report nine month later114. The investigation and exhumations Tutela Legal had
called for, became part of the truth commission’s investigations. However, only one site was
excavated, the convent in El Mozote, the excavation being in the hands of the Argentine
Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) and the examination of the human remains and the
artefact study of the ballistic evidence being in the hands of a team assembled by the
Physicians for Human Rights115.
The convent was a small one-room building of 31 square meters close to the church.
Remains of at least 143 individuals (131 being children under 12 years of age) were found in
the building. One female skeleton was found with the bones of her three month fetus in her
pelvic area. Due to the archaeological and anthropological evidence it could be demonstrated
that at least nine individuals were shot inside the building while lying on the floor, whereas

112
UN Doc S/25500; EAAF 1999b, 2000b, 2001b, 2002b
113
Hayner 1994:627–629
114
UN Doc S/25500
115
UN Doc S/25500; EAAF 1999b, 2000b, 2001b; Scott & Connor 1997; Scott 2001, Doretti & Snow
2003:300–304

34
some of the children may have been shot outside and subsequently dumped inside. At least
24 individual firearms were used, M-16 military rifles manufactured for the US government
by a plant in Missouri. At the time of the massacre (no coin or bullet cartridge from the site
was dated later than 1981), the Atlacatl Battalion was the only El Salvadoran army unit to
use this type of rifle. The artefact distribution pattern (bullet fragments and spent cartridges)
indicated the relative position between shooters and victims in the room. The truth
commission concluded that the eyewitness accounts of the massacre were fully corroborated
by the excavation/forensic investigations and recommended further investigations of the
same sort.
Shortly after the delivery of the report, which named over forty individuals as human rights
criminals, an amnesty law was passed that closed the matter for the next seven years. In
1998, in spite of the fact that prosecutions still cannot take place, Tutela Legal got
permission to conduct exhumations for humanitarian purposes on the ground that relatives
had a right to recover the remains of their loved ones116. In 2000–2003, excavations were
conducted or prepared by EAAF – as in 1992 with the laboratory assistance of Snow and
with Scott doing the ballistic analysis. In 2000, twelve graves were excavated, six in Jocote
Amarillo (8 individuals), and six in La Joya (30 individuals including a mother and her three
month fetus). 23 victims were under fourteen. At least 26 skeletons bore gunshot wounds. At
least 15 individual firearms were employed, and at least four different types of weapons.
Among these were US-produced M-16 rifles (dated 1978) of which thirteen seemed to
correspond to weapons also used at the El Mozote convent. Heckler & Koch G3 rifles (dated
1974) had also been used which may corroborate the truth commission’s assertion that troops
from the Commando Instruction Center in San Francisco Gotera and the 3rd Brigade from
San Miguel also participated in Operation Rescue. Personal belongings included household
items which corroborated the assertion that the victims were fleeing their houses when killed.
A coin dated 1985, however, points to one of the sites being contaminated by later
inclusions.
In 2001, the so-called Marquez house in El Mozote was excavated, in addition to four graves
in Los Toriles containing altogether 22 victims buried by survivors up to 15 days after the
massacre. In the case of the Marquez house a number of women with their toddlers were
rounded up and shot. The house was subsequently put at fire by using explosives. This made
the superstructure fall down and seal the site from later disturbances. The human remains
were badly damaged from fire/heat and crushed by falling debris. The excavation was carried
out stratigraphically. All the skeletal remains were found in one room of the house together
with the majority of spent cartridges (a metal detector was used inside and outside the
house). The bullet fragments were found in close association with the bones. Personal effects
found associated with the skeletal remains were all typically El Salvadoran female
adornments. No coins were younger than 1977. As the bones were badly damaged a MNI-
analysis (Minimum Number of Individuals) was used to determine the number of individual
victims, 12 adults and 4 children according to the odontological evidence found. The 2002
mission collected witness information of a similar massacre carried out in El Barrio also in
the province of Morazan in 1982, to be investigated in 2003.

5.2 Iraqi Kurdistan – genocide and the use of chemical weapons (1992)
The largest nation in the world not having their own state are the 25 million Kurds living in
the border areas between Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Since the 1920s Kurdish resistance

116
EAAF 2001b:55

35
fighters, peshmerga (those who face death), have fought for independence. In Iraq there were
Kurdish uprisings and regular wars throughout the 1960s and 1970s. During the final phase
of the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Baath regime took the opportunity “to solve the
Kurdish problem” once and for all through the so-called Anfal campaign of 1987–1988117.
The Anfal campaign was characterised among other things by torture, mass executions and
disappearances, killing about 50 000 civilians by the most conservative estimate, and
possibly twice that number – as well as the refusal to provide minimal conditions of life
through systematic neglect, starvation and disease, killing another 10 000. The Iraqi regime
was also the historic first to attack its own civilian population with chemical weapons
(mustard and nerve gasses). At least forty such chemical attacks on Kurdish targets have
been documented118. In 1991 the Kurds managed to drive the Iraqi troops out of the region,
and Kurdish leaders called on international human rights organizations to investigate into the
human rights abuses of the Iraqi regime119.
Eric Stover and Clyde C. Snow of the Physicians for Human Rights assembled at first one
forensic team which included also an archaeologist, who in December 1991 did a 10 days
preliminary assessment mission to Northern Iraq where the Kurds had already uncovered 145
single graves and mass graves. They strongly recommended the United Nations to dispatch a
team of legal and forensic experts to conduct more extensive investigations of the alleged
genocide. When the United Nations failed to do so, the Physicians for Human Rights
assembled a second forensic team to conduct exhumations of selected mass graves in Iraq in
May-June 1992. The forensic investigation teams were led by Snow. Both were inter-
American and multidisciplinary, consisting of lawyers, archaeologists and anthropologists
from the USA and members of the Latin American Forensic Anthropology Teams, the
EAAF, FAFG and the now defunct GAF120. On the second mission the team focused
primarily on the events taking place in a single village, serving as a representative example
of the fate of many other Iraqi Kurdish villages during the Anfal campaign – the Koreme
village massacred in 1988. In expectation of an attack by Iraqi air forces, the 150 families of
the village tried to flee to neighbouring Turkey. In the village of Warmeli, three hours walk
away from Koreme, they were met with the horrifying results of the village having shortly
before been bombed with chemical weapons. Their flight was unsuccessful, and at the end of
the day they decided to return to Koreme. Just outside their own village they were stopped by
Iraqi soldiers separating 33 men and youngsters from the rest to be executed immediately by
a firing squad. However, six men escaped the execution by pretending to be dead and were
later able to testify to the events. Soldiers returned one week later and buried the victims in
four different graves just 10 meters away from the execution line in former artillery shell
craters, deported the rest of the villagers and erased the village to the ground.
The team investigated both the execution place and the graves. The lawyers mainly collected
oral testimony, the anthropologists examined the skeletal remains and artefacts in the
laboratory, and an archaeologist (James Briscoe) took care of the site surveys, the mapping,
the artefact surface sampling, the soil sampling, the excavation of mass graves and the
documentation of the execution place121. The artefacts, consisting mainly of cartridges and
cartridge cases were analysed by Scott122. Seven individual weapons were identified, AK-47
type firearms that have detachable magazines usually containing 30 rounds. Six weapons had

117
HRW 1993a, HRW 1993b, Stover & Ryan 2001:15–18
118
HRW 1993a
119
HRW 1993a.
120
HRW 1993b, Stover & Ryan 2001, EAAF 1992
121
HRW 1993b; Stover & Ryan 2001; Scott & Connor 1997
122
Scott & Connor 1997:34–36

36
fired approximately one half of a full magazine, while one had fired more than a magazine
and thus had been reloaded at least once. The distribution pattern analysis indicated that the
victims were lined up and so was the firing squad at first. It then moved sideward (east) in a
random manner to cluster again in an unorganized group, from which four weapons
(including the reloaded one) moved north and fired while nearing the line of victims. All 27
exhumed victims were identified from clothing, artefacts, medical and dental evidence.
The team also wanted to collect evidence on the chemical weapons attack launched by the
Iraqi state against civilians during the Anfal. In the nearby village of Birjinni four people had
died instantly from the gasses released in an attack in August 1988. Two days later, two of
the victims were buried in their clothes by government soldiers on the spot where they had
been left by the fleeing villagers. The other two victims were left in the cave where they had
fallen, wrapped in plastic and nylon. The team mapped the village, took soil samples from
the impact sites of the bombs and exhumed the two buried victims. Analysis of the soil
samples showed traces of degradation products of nerve agents and mustard gas123. Finally,
the team investigated the Jeznikam cemetery allegedly containing the graves of kids that had
died out of starvation in the Beharke and Jeznikam camps. The ratio of child graves to adult
graves was calculated based on mapping the length of a statistically representative number of
graves throughout the cemetery. Three infants were exhumed and examined.
One purpose of the investigations, however, was not reached – to persuade the United
Nations to establish a special commission of inquiry to collect further evidence and an ad
hoc international criminal tribunal to hear the offences124.

5.3 Former Yugoslavia – initial mass grave investigations (1992–1993)

Before the Balkan wars of the 1990s, Yugoslavia was a federal state consisting of six
republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro) and
two autonomous provinces (Kosovo and Vojvodina), both located in Serbia. The population
was demographically and culturally very heterogeneous. Sic basic languages were spoken in
addition to which came the languages of a number of minorities, among which were the
Romani people (Gypsies). There were three major religions: Roman Catholicism largely held
by the Croats, Greek Orthodox Christianity largely held by the Serbs, and Islam. Despite a
certain geographic distribution pattern these groups had no definite geographical territories,
they lived in mixed communities and they inter-married125. With Tito’s death in 1980 the
federation started to fall to pieces. In 1991, on June 25, Slovenia and Croatia simultaneously
declared their independence. The Yugoslav People’s Army invaded Slovenia two days later,
but was defeated within ten days. In Croatia, local Serb forces with the help of the Yugoslav
People’s Army of Serbia (after the independence declarations consisting exclusively of
Serbs) started war on Croatia to acquire territory for Greater Serbia. On March 6, 1992,
Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence, and a few weeks later Serbia invaded also
Bosnia-Herzegovina. The war ended in late 1995 after NATO had bombed Serb batteries
surrounding Sarajevo and the parties in December in Paris had signed the Dayton Peace
Accord.
In October 1992, the UN Secretary-General was requested to establish an impartial
Commission of Experts to examine information received on violations of humanitarian law

123
PHR 1993, 1995
124
Stover & Ryan 2001:18
125
Ball 1999:chapter 5:121–154

37
and the Geneva Conventions and also obtain information through their own investigations126.
A five member commission started working in November 1992. The Commission conducted
a series of studies and on-site investigations and established a database of all reported grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law.
In May 1993, the UN Security Council established the “ad hoc International Tribunal for
the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991” (ICTY)127. In the
spring of 1993, the Security Council also declared first Srebrenica and then also Sarajevo,
Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, and Bihac areas under the protection of the United Nations128.
The Expert Commission’s final report of 1994 (i.e. before the Srebrenica massacre) included
twelve annexes substantiating the findings of the commission based on the information in the
database, and all the information gathered – 65 000 document pages – were by then
transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor at The Hague-based ICTY. The Annex X deals
with mass gravesites reported within the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. A total
of 187 such sites were reported, allegedly containing from 10 up to more than 500 bodies
each. Over half the sites seemed to contain victims of a mass killing conducted as the final
phase of an “ethnic cleansing” process following a distinct pattern of procedure. The disposal
of the bodies seemed primarily to have taken place in and around the area of the killing.
Coexistence of mass graves and detention facilities in as much as 54 sites suggested to the
Commission of Experts that (in the spring of 1992) “mass graves were and are deliberately
being used as a means of secretly disposing of the bodies of those persons unlawfully killed”.
The ethnicity of the victims as well as of the perpetrators was reported to be Muslim,
Croatian and Serb, however with the victims being predominantly Muslims or Croatians and
the perpetrator being predominantly Serbs.129
Further studies of mass graves were advocated for three reasons:
• A mass gravesite is the potential repository of evidence of mass killings of civilians
and prisoners of war. Such sites can yield forensic information which can provide
evidence or insight into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of those buried there
• The manner and method by which a mass grave is created may itself be a breach of the
Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as a violation of the customary regulations of
armed conflict130
• The identification of mass graves can serve a reconciliatory purpose between the
“warring factions”, so that the families of those killed during the conflict can learn the
whereabouts of their loved ones
The Annexes X.A and X.B reported on the preliminary investigations of the Ocvara grave
near Vukovar in Croatia and the excavation of a number of graves in the Pakracka Poljana
County, Croatia. In the last case, the team set out to investigate allegations of the existence of
17 mass graves created by Croats containing about 100 bodies of Serbs each. What they
found was nine smaller graves containing altogether 19 bodies. These two reports are the
only “true” excavation reports comparable to the reports one may find in the topographic
archives of any archaeological museum that I have found published. Both the 1992 and the
1993 forensic teams were assembled by Physicians for Human Rights. In 1992, the team

126
By UN Security Council Resolution 780
127
By UN Security Council Resolution 827 approving the original ICTY Statute (UN Doc S/25704)
128
By UN Security Council Resolution 819 and 824
129
UN Doc S/1994/674, Annex X, section II A
130
ICRC 1949a:article 15–17, 1949b:article 18–20, 1949c:article 120, 1949d:article 129–130, 1977a, 1977b

38
consisted of ten people131. With Stover as team leader and Haglund as forensic
anthropologist, the remaining eight team members were all archaeologists. Five were
conventional archaeologists from the US, while the three others were forensic archaeologists
from the Argentine and Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Teams. In 1993, the team
consisted of fifteen people, Stover again being the team leader132. In addition to William D.
Haglund, two more physical anthropologists were at the team, Clyde C. Snow and Isabel M.
Reveco, founder of the now defunct Chilean Forensic Anthropology Team, supplemented
with a forensic pathologist and a physician. Again most team members were archaeologists –
nine in all, the team from 1992 supplemented with a forensic archaeologist from GAF.

5.4 The Ovcara grave – Vukovar Hospital, Croatia (1992–93 and 1996)
The city of Vukovar is situated in the Eastern part of Croatia on the bank of the Danube
which marks the border to Serbia. In 1991 its population was comprised of a little more
Croats than Serbs, and some minority nationalities. In late August 1991, the Yugoslav
People’s Army laid siege to the city, and in November it fell to the Serb forces. In the last
days of the siege, several hundred Croats sought refuge at the Vukovar Hospital hoping it
would be evacuated in the presence of international observers133. Instead the 400 people, who
stayed at the hospital, were loaded onto busses early in the morning and brought to the
Yugoslav People’s Army of Serbia barracks, and from there to a farm building in Ovcara.
Here they were beaten for several hours, two of them to death, before being transported on
trucks in groups of 10 to 20 to a ravine where at least 264 Croats (according to the latest
amended indictment) and other non-Serbs from Vukovar Hospital were shot and otherwise
killed. After the killings, the bodies were buried by bulldozer in a mass grave at the same
location.
According to the ICTY Bulletin, the discovery of the mass gravesite at Ovcara near Vukovar
in Croatia was a major factor in the Tribunal's indictment of three Yugoslav People’s Army
of Serbia officers Mile Mrksic, Mile Radic, and Veselin Sljivancanin, originally filed in
1995134. Reference to the final excavation that took place in September-October 1996 is
mentioned in the amended indictment that in 1997 added the name of Slavko
Dokomanovic135. In his case court proceedings started, but were terminated in July 1998 as
he committed suicide in the detention. The three other accused were arrested only in 2002
and 2003. They have all pleaded “not guilty” to the charges of crimes against humanity and
violations of the laws or customs of war. The investigation of the Ovcara grave has been
characterised as fairly straightforward legally and forensically, as the case involved a single
crime at one location with numerous witnesses to the various stages of the events up to the
actual killing. All physical evidence was contained in one single grave left undisturbed since
the massacre136.
Based on the testimony of a witness who had barely escaped the execution137, the Ovcara
gravesite was located by a four-member team assembled by Physicians for Human Rights in
December 1992 in an isolated, wooded area south-east of Ovcara. After having gained all the
necessary permissions from central authorities, a second site survey was made on 20 and 21

131
UN Doc S/1994/674, Annex X.A, Part Two, section V
132
UN Doc S/1994/674, Annex X.B, Part II, section VI
133
Stover 1997; Stover & Peress 1998, ICTY 1995c, 2004
134
ICTY 1996b
135
ICTY 1995b: article 15
136
Stover & Shigakane 2002:852
137
Stover & Peress 1998:102–107

39
October 1993. The permission was withdrawn by local authorities on the 22 and the team
pulled out138. Until full excavation was conducted in 1996, the site had to be protected by
United Nations protection forces. On the first site survey in 1992, two skeletonised
individuals with gunshot wounds to their heads were recovered from the surface near the
gravesite. Both bore necklaces with Roman Catholic crosses, one with the inscription BOG I
HRVATI (God and Croatians). They were wrapped in black plastic bags, marked, numbered
and left at the site139. The individual who bore the necklace with the inscription was the first
in former Yugoslavia to be positively identified, and two of the respondents to the
questionnaire point to this piece of circumstantial artefact evidence as being the decisive
piece of evidence140. A shallow test trench was dug across the gravesite and revealed nine
more bodies. A large concentration of spent cartridge cases was found in a pattern west to
north-west of the gravesite suggesting that the site was simultaneously an execution site. The
mass grave appeared undisturbed and was estimated to contain perhaps as many as 200
bodies.
On the second site survey in 1993, after being mine-cleared the site was cleared of vegetation
typical of recently disturbed land. The perimeter of the grave was surveyed and
electronically mapped, including the feature of the trench dug at the first site survey. The
general area was partly mapped topographically in order to construct a site contour map
(interrupted at 22 October). The site was surveyed with metal detection sweeps which were
also used on tree trunks. Artefacts found were piece-plotted on the maps and had auto
generated find number attached. Everything was photographed and video-taped. All
information was of course kept in log books. Sixty-one cartridge cases and one live round of
ammunition were found in two clusters with a gap between, suggesting a patterned
distribution to the firearms data. To the opposite side of the grave pit several trees bore
evidence of bullet scarring.
In 1996, a five-member team assembled by Physicians for Human Rights conducted the final
excavation of the grave. The excavation was done for the ICTY and thus no excavation
report has been published. A total of 200 bodies were recovered from the grave. All the
bodies were autopsied and the excavation provided the ICTY investigators with
“corroboration as to the manner and cause of death of the bodies found in the mass grave”.
As mentioned in chapter 3.7.1 group identifications could be made based on artefacts found.
All remains and personal effects were returned to the relevant government officials for the
ongoing identification process and the return of victims’ remains to the families for
reburial.141 So far 184 of the victims have been identified, largely based on DNA-matches142.

5.5 Mass grave investigations of the Srebrenica genocide (1996 ongoing)

Srebrenica is located in the easternmost part of Bosnia. The town escaped being targeted by
the Serbs in the Serb–Bosnia-Herzegovina war (1992–1995) until it was finally massacred in
July 1995 for two reasons: because it was declared a “safe area” by the UN Security Council
in 1993 and because it was completely surrounded by Serb-held territory and thus in reality
relied on Serb goodwill143. During the war, the population of Srebrenica had swelled with
Bosnian Muslim refugees from 8 000 to about 38 000 in July 1995, including the 300 Dutch

138
UN Doc S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. V) Annex X.A – the team did not expect to be gone for nearly two years
139
Stover & Peress 1998:153
140
Stover 1997:51, Saunders 2004: reply to questionnaire
141
UN Doc A/52/375-S/1997/729:article 66–67
142
Stover & Shigekane 2002:852
143
Honig & Both 1996, Honig 2001

40
peacekeepers and a small Bosnian Government battalion of 2 000 men144. On July 11, 1995,
the Bosnian Serb Army led by General Ratko Mladic entered the town and took 32 Dutch
peacekeepers hostages. The rest fled to their base in a factory in nearby Potocary along with
20 000–25 000 of the refugees. Potocary was soon captured as well. The Serbs separated the
men and boys from the women and small children. The men and boys were loaded onto
trucks and subsequently executed at several different sites: Bratunac, Nova Kasaba, Kravica,
and Sandici. About 10 000–15 000 of the men had not joined the retreat to Potocary. Instead,
they had hided in the mountains around the town. They now fled through the woods on what
came to be called “the trail of life and death” to reach Bosnian Tuzla. In November 4 700 of
them had succeeded. The rest had been rounded up and executed along the trail145.
According to survivors, people were buried in several mass graves around the region, which
after the war became part of the then established Serb Republika Srpska, while Tuzla today
is located within the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
ICTY has conducted mass grave investigations related to the Srebrenica massacre from 1996
until 2001 when all further excavations were ended as there were “no more known sites of
particular relevance to their investigations”. From 2000 onwards, ICTY has monitored
exhumations and seized forensic material (including the human remains) from exhumations
carried out by local authorities – the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska
Commissions on Missing Persons146.
The first two alleged perpetrators to be indicted in a case related to the Srebrenica massacre
was Radko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, charged with genocide, crime against humanity
and violations of the laws or customs of wars147. They are still both at large.
The first to be convicted in a case related to Srebrenica was Drazen Erdemovic. As a soldier
in the 10th Sabotage Detachment of the Bosnian Serb Army he participated in the killing of
hundreds of unarmed civilian Muslim men at the Branjevo farm near the town of Pilica in
eastern Bosnia. On 16 July 1995, these men were transported by busloads out of Srebrenica
to the so-called Pilica farm to be summarily executed in groups of 10 at a time. Erdemovic
himself estimated the number to be 20 busses of 60 men, making the total killing comprising
approximately 1200 individuals. Erdemovic pleaded guilty. His first sentence to 10 years for
murder as a crime against humanity was later reduced to 5 years for murder as a violation of
the laws or customs of war148. A mass grave containing 146 bodies was excavated at the
Pilica farm in July 1996, well below the number estimated by Erdemovic. US spy planes
observations and a satellite photo showing simultaneous activity at the gravesite and a nearby
plant may indicate bodies being re-excavated and moved to plant where dissolved in sodium
hydroxide149. Erdemovic served his sentence in Norway.
Erdemovic later witnessed in court against Major General Radislav Krstic, who was indicted
by ICTY in 1998 of directing the attack on Srebrenica in 1995 and sentenced to 46 years of
imprisonment for genocide, crime against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of
wars in 2001, a sentence that in April 2004 was reduced by the Appeals Chamber to 35
years. The prosecutor’s case heavily relied on forensic evidence from the excavation of 21
gravesites related to the take-over of Srebrenica150. As expert witnesses appeared among

144
EAAF 1999a
145
Stover & Peress 1998; Vollen & Peress 2001
146
UN Doc A/56/352-S/2001/865:article 191–192; UN Doc A/57/379-S/2002/985:article 224
147
ICTY 1995a
148
ICTY 1996a
149
Stover & Peress 1998:170
150
ICTY 1998: Trials Chamber I Judgement 2001, article 71–79; Kimmerle 2004:13–15

41
others Dr. Haglund and Professor Jose Baraybar, now with the Peruvian Forensic
Anthropology team151.
Contrary to mass graves related to other cases and found elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia,
many of the graves linked to the Srebrenica massacre had been reopened, and the human
remains re-deposited in secondary graves. Fourteen of the 21 excavated gravesites were
primary graves of which eight were looted. Seven of the excavated gravesites were
secondary burial sites.
• 1996: Cerska, Nova Kasaba, Orahovac (also known as Lazete 2) and Branjevo
Military Farm (also known as Pilica farm)
• 1998: Petkovci Dam, Cancari Road 12, Cancari Road 3, Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici
Road 4, Hodzici Road 5, Lipje 2, Zeleni Jadar 5
• 1999: Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje 1, Konjevic Polje 2, and Glogova 2
• 2000: Lazete 1, Lazete 2C, Ravnice and Glogova
In 1998, secondary graves were the main focus of the excavations. In 1999, the excavations
focused instead on primary graves152. Based on ballistic analyses, soil analyses and materials
analyses, links were established between certain primary gravesites and certain secondary
gravesites:
• Branjevo Military Farm (Pilica Farm) with Cancari Road 12
• Petkovci Dam with Liplje 2
• Orahovac (Lazete 2) with Hodzici Road 5
• Orahovac (Lazete 1) with Hodzici Road 3 and 4
• Glogova with Zeleni Jadar 5
• Kozluk with Cancari Road 3.
For instance, the Petkovci Dam in Republika Srpska was looted in several rounds and the
remains reburied in Lipije 2. A greenish clay specific to the primary gravesite was found in
the secondary site, and the human remains showed signs of having been removed with heavy
machinery153. This is true of many of the human remains from mass graves linked with the
Srebrenica massacre and thus the identification process has been extremely difficult154. In
1998, there were about 3 000 sets of remains and only 30 identifications155. Today,
approximately 7 500 set of remains have been recovered: 2 000 sets are complete bodies, 2
000 sets are of singular individuals, and the remaining 3 500 are of commingled remains.
DNA-analysis has speeded up the identification process and 411 individual have been
formally identified, while another 349 DNA-matches await formal identification. The list of
missing people contains between 7 800 and 8 000 names156.
Identity documents and belongings link victims with Srebrenica. Some of the bodies were
positively identified on the basis of distinctive personal items found with bodies such as
jewellery, artificial limbs and photographs. Artefacts such as verses from the Koran or a

151
Prosecutur v. Radislav Krstic: Trials Chamber I Judgement: article 72, note 139.
152
UN Doc A/54/187-S/1999/846:article 129–130; UN Doc A/55/273-S/2000/777:article 179
153
Jessee 2003:49–50 referring to the unpublished excavation report by D. Manning
154
UN Doc A/53/219-S/1998/737:article 120; Vollen & Peress 2001:338, Kimmerle 2003:4
155
Vollen & Peress 2001
156
ICMP home page: CoS Statement spring 2004

42
Muslim prayer pouch, suggest the presence of victims with Muslim religious affiliation. At
least 448 blindfolds were uncovered on or with bodies at 10 sites, and at least 423 ligatures
were located at 13 sites, some directly associated with parts of hands or forearms.
In 1996, the Physicians for Human Rights assembled the excavation teams consisting of
more or less the same professionals as in 1992–1993, and in Rwanda 1996. From 1997
onward, ICTY organised all excavations themselves, however still employing professionals
from the American teams as well as professionals from a number of other countries.
In 1996, a crisis after the crisis arose. Emergent norms developed among the Srebrenica
survivors completely uncorrelated to the norms of the authority response system in place – in
this case the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Rumours spread that the men
were not dead, but worked as forced labourers in Serbian mines. The women were infuriated
by the ICRC’s death certificate programme issuing pro forma death certificates – i.e. not
based on corpus delicti – on the Srebrenica victims, who were “obviously” alive. Rallies took
place, and the women physically attacked the ICRC headquarters. From 1996 onward, body
bags with unidentified human remains released from the ICTY investigations to Bosnian
authorities also started to pile up and were stored in an undignified manner, first in
abandoned tunnels in Tuzla and from 1998 in containers in a parking lot, which of course
further angered the family associations157.

5.6 Kibuye and Kigali – mass grave investigations in Rwanda (1996)

After the First World War, Rwanda was placed under Belgian jurisdiction. The three
population groups in the country were Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twas being Pygmy hunter-
gatherers constituted only an insignificant proportion of the population, while the Hutus were
by far the majority. Hutus and Tutsis had the same religion, the same language (Kinya-
rwanda), common customs and economic occupations; they intermarried and lived in mixed
communities. The Belgians applied a policy of indirect rule that made ethnicity a political
concept and gave the Tutsis power monopoly158. The Belgians were also the ones who in
1933 introduced the system of identity cards based on tribal affiliation, that became lethal
during the 1994-genocide. In 1959–1961 Hutus extremists committed the first Rwandan
genocide, and when Rwanda gained independence in 1962 the Hutus were exclusively in
power in a one-party dictatorship. By 1990, 600 000 Tutsis were in exile in neighbouring
countries. In 1990, the Tutsi Rwanda Patriotic Front which included also moderate Hutus
invaded Rwanda from Uganda. In 1993, a peace accord was signed in Arusha, Tanzania and
a UN peacekeeping force was stationed in Rwanda. Although signing the agreement, from
1992 onward Hutu president Habyarimana’s party was planning and organising the genocide
to come159. The formal beginning was on the morning of April 6, when the president’s air
plane was shot down by Force Armee Rwandese. Within the next 100 days one million
Tutsis – 75% of the Tutsi population – were virtually slaughtered with small arms and
machetes.
In July, the Rwanda Patriotic Front captured Kigaly and established an interim government.
On July 1, the UN Security Council established a Commission of Experts for Rwanda and in
November the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)160. The only vote
against was that of the Rwandan delegation.

157
Vollen & Peress 2001, Stover & Shigakane 2002:854–855
158
Ball 1999; Reyntjens 2001
159
Des Forges 1999, Schabas 1999:6
160
UN Security Council Resolutions 929, 935 and 955

43
Between April 8 and 17, 1994, thousands of Tutsi men, women and children congregated in
the church in Kibuye located in western Rwanda, to find protection from the ongoing
massacre. On April 17 they were attacked by gendarmes, communal police, and armed
civilians with grenades, guns, cudgels, machetes and other weapons, and killed. Their bodies
were either left on the ground or buried in large bulldozer dug graves within the following
days161. One of the two sites ever to be investigated in Rwanda under the auspices of ICTR
was related to this massacre, the site called the Kibuye Roman Catholic Church and Home
St. Jean Complex. The very first indictment to be issued by the ICTR was against two
individuals involved in this massacre. Both were convicted in 1999 on various counts of
genocide, the sentences being confirmed by the Appeals Chamber in 2001162. Clement
Kayishema, a medical doctor and the governor of Kibuye, was sentenced to life
imprisonment, while businessman Obed Ruzindana was sentenced to 25 years of
imprisonment.
Site assessment was done in September 1995 by Haglund, at that time the UN Senior
Forensic Advisor. The largest of the graves, KB-G1, was cross-trenched to confirm the
presence of human remains and a surface sampling was made. The excavation of the grave
and investigation of the surface site, KB-S (the slopes toward the Lake Kivu), was carried
out December 1995 to February 1996163. The fieldwork was divided into three phases:
• Phase 1: Computerized site documentation and electronic mapping, initial site
documentation, photographing, transecting and flagging all skeletons encountered at
the surface site
• Phase 2: Mapping, photographing, removal and analysis of the skeletal remains at the
surface site KB-S
• Phase 3: Excavation of mass grave KB-G1
The first phase lasted about a fortnight and was done exclusively by archaeologists164, while
phase 2) and 3) saw a multinational 16-member team from seven different countries
working, which included archaeologists, physical anthropologists, pathologists, and an
orthopaedic surgeon. The team was assembled by the Physicians for Human Rights. From
the mass grave were recovered the remains of 454 individuals (the biggest mass grave
excavated to that date), while remains of at least 39 individuals were sampled from the
surface site. At least 44% of the victims were children under the age of 15 – and most
victims had been beaten to death165. Identification could only be established for seventeen
individuals – six because they carried identification papers and eleven based on clothing or
personal items recognisable to their relatives. For only two victims could surviving blood
relatives be located166.
Soon after the Kibuye exhumation, the Rwanda tribunal ended its forensic program. Thus,
only Kibuye and one more site were excavated. The second place was called the Amgar
Garage and was located in a business district of the capital Kigali. It contained a series of
smaller graves resulting from the killing of people with the wrong type of identity papers
(stating their ethnicity as Tutsi), stopped in road blockades outside of the garage. Dr.
Haglund testified in court proceedings against Georges Rutaganda, Second Vice President of

161
PHR 1996a
162
ICTR 1995
163
Connor 1996, Haglund, Connor & Scott 2001:59–62; PHR 1996a
164
Connor 1996
165
Schmitt 1998; PHR 1996a
166
Haglund 2002:258

44
the National Committee of the Interahamwe, who was sentenced to life imprisonment on
counts of genocide and crimes against humanity167. The site itself is only very briefly
mentioned in the literature168. Curious as to why no excavations were carried out after the
Amgar Garage, I asked Dr. Haglund, who gave the following reasons: Chief Prosecutor
Goldstone made an agreement with the Rwandans that no further forensic exhumations
would take place, and thus ICTR made no further requests. The UN peacekeeping forces
pulled out of Rwanda shortly after the completion of the Kibuye grave. Thus, no
international security was provided for the Amgar Garage investigation, which had to rely on
unsatisfactory private security. There was a lack of funding. And the needs of ICTY
prevailed at the time169. According to Stover and Shigekane the sheer number of dead also
made it impossible to undertake large-scale forensic investigations 170.

5.7 Investigations related to the Kosovo conflict (1999-2000)

Kosovo was a politically autonomous province of Serbia until 1989 when Serbian parliament
abolished their autonomy and removed the leaders and the intellectual elite of the
predominantly Kosovo-Albanian population171. The population was 90% Muslims speaking
Albanian, one of the nine original Indo-European languages. However, to the Serb
nationalists Kosovo was the cradle of the Serbs. In 1998, a small fraction of Kosovars
demanded restoration of their former rights and a guerrilla force was created, the Kosovo
Liberation Army. In February, with a 60 000 person multinational UN peacekeeping force
present in the region, the Yugoslav People’s Army of Serbia entered Kosovo with 10 000
men, jet fighters, tanks etc., to strike back on the Kosovo Liberation Army. Reports on
atrocities on the part of the Serbs, equal to the ones committed in Croatia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina, prompted the ICTY to stress its jurisdiction over conflicts in all of former
Yugoslavia and start assembling teams to investigate the alleged crimes. The conflict was put
to an end as a consequence of NATO air raids in April–May 1999 leading to the surrender of
the Yugoslav People’s Army of Serbia on June 9, and the establishment of a UN
administration in the province on June 10172. On May 27, 1999, ICTY indicted former
Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Serb president Milan Milutinovic, former Deputy
Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic, Chief of Staff Dragoljub Ojdanic, and former Serb Minister
of Internal Affairs Vlajko Stojiljkovic with crimes against humanity and violation of the laws
and customs of war173. Milosovic was additionally charges with grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions for his complicity in Croatia, and with these crimes plus genocide for
his complicity in Bosnia174.
ICTY conducted exhumations in Kosovo in 1999 and 2000. A total of 529 gravesites were
identified, at least 300 of these were investigated and a total of approximately 4000 bodies or
body parts exhumed and examined. Priority for sites was based on factors such as the
Milosevic indictment, exposed bodies, alleged numbers, personnel security and accessibility
of the sites. Fourteen countries, among these Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, the United
States, Germany, Denmark, France, Holland, and Switzerland, had forensic teams of

167
ICTR 1996
168
Haglund 2002:247; for a personal account se Koff 2004
169
Personal communication
170
Stover & Shigekane 2002:847
171
Ball 1999:149–152; EAAF 2000c, Abrahams, Peress & Stover 2002
172
UN Security Council Resolution 1244
173
ICTY 1999
174
ICTY 2002

45
altogether more than 300 forensic scientists working in Kosovo175. EAAF worked in Kosovo
in 2000, but cannot release information on their specific investigation “until the Tribunal
authorizes it”176.
The exhumations in Kosovo were mainly of known sites where local communities had
knowledge of the graves and the identities of the human remains177. Thus, the most pressing
needs of relatives were not having the remains of their loved ones found and identified for
subsequent reburial – they might have buried them themselves. Rather, they permitted
exhumation in order to reveal the truth of what happened and have the perpetrators
prosecuted – to restore memory and bring closure178.

5.8 Recent developments – Mass Grave overflow in Iraq (spring 2004)

Immediately following the US-invasion in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his
Baath regime in April 2003, Iraqis in desperate search for their loved ones started
spontaneous exhumations from mass graves throughout the country. In this process they not
only destroyed potential criminal evidence, but also to a great extent ruined their own and
other families’ chances of a successful outcome to their search. Between 300 000 and 400
000 people are believed to be contained in mass graves, each containing between six (by
definition) and 3000 bodies (one of the emotionally overrun graves)179. Several human rights
organisation, among these the Physicians for Human Rights and the Human Rights Watch,
thus called upon the occupying powers to protect potential evidence, and sites of war crimes
and human rights violations including mass graves, and to establish an official and
comprehensive program to deal with the totality of problems arising from the amount of
mass graves already known180.
The responsibility for overseeing reconstruction in post-conflict Iraq has been in the hands of
the Coalition Provisional Authority which is closely aligned with the US Department of
Defence and expected to work closely with the US Agency for International Development
(USAID), and due to be dissolved by June 30, 2004181. As of spring 2004, the Coalition
Provisional Authority had compiled a list of at least 270 mass graves suspected to originate
primarily from five major aggressions on the part of the Baath regime against Kurds and Shia
Muslims: 1) the execution of 8000 Kurds in 1983; 2–3) the Anfal campaign and the chemical
war on the Kurds in 1988; and 4–5) the 1991 massacres on Shi’ites and Kurds uprising after
the Gulf war. They also probably contain the remains of Kuwaitian, Saudis, Iranians and
Egyptians that were disappeared during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq war.
Since May 2003, several international forensic anthropology teams and teams of
archaeologist have worked on locating and assessing mass gravesites in Iraq. Physicians for
Human Rights of course, but also many other organisations have send teams like the British
INFORCE, founded in 2001 by a group of professional with prior forensic experience and
contracted by the British government to work with the CPA182, or the Archaeologists for
Human Rights (AFHR), a German group of Ancient Near Eastern archaeologists founded in

175
Abrahams, Peress & Stover 2002:84
176
EAAF 2000c:56
177
UN Doc A/55/273-S/2000/777:article 180; UN Doc A/56/352-S/2001/865: article 191
178
Kimmerle 2004:18
179
U.S. Department of State 2003; USAID 2004; Hess 2004; Powers 2004
180
PHR 2003a, 2003b; HRW 2003b, Stover, Haglund & Samuels 2003
181
Halchin 2004
182
International Forensic Center of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide, see INFORCE home page

46
June 2003 with this specific purpose in mind183. Also a forensic team from Denmark
including an archaeologist has been involved.
Each mass gravesite may contain several individual mass graves. In the spring of 2004, sixty
graves had been confirmed, while seventy graves had been discounted, but needed further
examination before being taken off the list. The Coalition Provisional Authority/USAID in
corporation with the Iraqi Governing Council has divided the graves into three types of
graves according to the way the exhumation will be approached184:
• Emotionally overrun sites – (11 sites). These sites are already disturbed and people
cannot be stopped completing their search. Iraqis will be trained to provide emotional
support to the involved communities and collect ante-mortem evidence
• Humanitarian exhumation sites – (the vast majority). Community-led exhumations:
trained Iraqi professionals are to teach the community the basics of handling human
remains. The primary purpose is identification of missing persons, although some
evidence will be recovered by local forensic team
• Full criminal investigation sites – (8–20 sites). Sites selected to be fully excavated for
the sake of prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by the Iraqi
Special Tribunal to be set up by the Iraqi Governing Council. The selection will be
based on four criteria: 1) the grave represent a main period of atrocity; 2) it is
undisturbed or intact; 3) it may give evidence of crimes against humanity; and 4) the
local population permits securing and exhumation of the site
To secure impartiality, excavations of type 3) sites, which started February 2004, are done by
international teams in coordination with the Coalition Provisional Authority. For instance,
the Finnish government who opposed the invasion agreed to send a team. Still, when
possible they are to work alongside Iraqis (selected Iraqi doctors and archaeologists) to train
them to do future forensic exhumations. The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry is setting up a
Bureau on Missing Persons, but whether this is the institution to continue the work of the
Coalition Provisional Authority after June 30, 2004, is not entirely clear as this ministry is
also an interim institution. Anyway protocol, operating procedure, administration, and
logistical support have been planned. According to the USAID, the process will be much as
in former Yugoslavia, but adapted to the specific needs and circumstances in Iraq185.
According to Stover, who in spring 2004 was assessing the mass graves situation in Iraq in
relationship to trials, desires of the families and communities, and the ability to carry out
scientific excavations on such a large scale, the situation and the way it is addressed is more
comparable to Rwanda, and not the same as in former Yugoslavia186. His conclusion was that
“(1) the vast majority of graves may need to be exhumed in collaboration with the families
and communities as commemorative sites with a very low level of ability to identify
individual remains; and (2) a few graves should be preserved for trials”. Also Haglund has
been sceptical about how realistic it is to expect a successful outcome to the identification
process as the bodies are much decomposed and Iraq is without capacity for making DNA-
analysis187.

183
Archaeologists for Human Rights/Archäologen für Menschenrechte, see AFHR home page
184
USAID 2004, U.S. Department of State 2003
185
USAID 2004:4
186
Stover 2004: reply to questionnaire, Stover, Haglund, & Samuels 2003
187
Powers 2004

47
6 OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE FIELD
The questionnaire, which is presented in appendix A, was made with a specific view to
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The following is an alphabetic list of the persons that
responded including my reasons for inviting them188:
Ralph Hartley Archaeologist – because he is a conventional archaeologist and was a
team member on early mass grave investigations in former Yugoslavia
John Hunter Archaeologist – because he is a conventional archaeologist with vast
experience within domestic forensic investigations and recently with
mass grave investigations, and has been active publishing on the subject
Rebecca Saunders Archaeologist – because she is a conventional archaeologist and was a
team member on early mass grave investigations in former Yugoslavia
Douglas D. Scott Archaeologist – because he has a vast experience with mass grave
investigations from many countries in various parts of the world, and has
been active publishing on the subject
Mark F. Skinner Bio-archaeologist – because he has a vast experience with mass grave
investigations from many countries in various parts of the world, and has
been active publishing on the subject
Eric Stover Human rights researcher – because he was the initiator of the field and
has a vast experience with both mass grave and other human rights
investigations, he is not an archaeologist, and he has been active been
active publishing on the subject

6.1 Excavating mass graves – exhuming human remains189

The answers in general confirmed the existence of at least two investigation concepts
corresponding more or less to the categories mass grave excavations (digging out forensic
evidence, including the human remains) and mass grave exhumations (digging up human
remains). Scott stressed the importance of proper context recording also with exhumations so
that the identity of remains cannot be called into question. The respondents generally related
one category to prosecutorial purposes, and the other to humanitarian purposes as
identification and repatriation. Several also stated that, in reality most investigations were for
identification and repatriation, and a few for prosecutorial purposes. Several respondents
made references to different sorts of feasibility (practical, economical, temporal), while
Hartley referred directly to the reasoning of “dominant political elites, irrespective of
funding sources”190 as being behind decisions to invest in any type of mass grave
investigations.
By most respondents the commissioning entity was clearly perceived to influence
investigation methodology and the inclusion/exclusion of archaeologists. Several
respondents pointed to the political nature of such entities. Second to political constraints
were constraints on funding, time and logistics.

188
For titles and institutional affiliation see Preface
189
Questionnaire, question 1 and 3
190
Hartley

48
6.2 Including/excluding archaeologists from mass grave investigations191
Stover referred to the societal context in Iraq and the humanitarian exhumation site-concept
adopted here, when stating that archaeologists are necessary, but not crucial. He thinks that
community members in a relatively short time can be trained to exhume mass graves under
expert supervision and that this may be beneficial to the families of the missing and the
community as a whole.
All the archaeologists stressed the importance of archaeologist being included in all
excavations/exhumations, no matter the purpose. Several stated that archaeologists and
physical anthropologist cannot substitute each other and that both were needed. Hartley
pointed to the esteem in which archaeologists are held within other forensic investigations,
like the US government’s investigations of military personnel buried in mass graves in
South-East Asia192. The archaeologists referred to the argument of others for excluding the
archaeologist as: archaeologists slow things down, they are perceived as “simply skilful
diggers rather than forensic scientists on a par with others such as pathologists”193, persons
of other professions believe they are equally skilled – or archaeologists are quite simply
excluded out of ignorance (or fear).

6.3 Purposes of investigations and the contribution by archaeologists194

The questions, to which objectives mass grave excavations per se contribute most
significantly and to which the archaeologist contributed the most, split the respondents in
halves: those who did not feel they could make a ranking and those who ventured to make
one. There was no consistency between these rankings. Those who did not make a ranking
either said it would depend entirely on the circumstances or that it contributed to all the
objectives offered for ranking.
Answers varied as to how the strict rules of confidentiality applied by tribunals affected other
objectives. Stover and Skinner both stated that since the remains were released to family or
missing persons commissions after the autopsy, there need not be any incompatibility, while
Hartley thought prosecutorial purposes might take precedence over all other objectives.
Hunter stated that it would affect the pursuit of other mass grave investigations.

6.4 The identification process and the contribution by archaeologists

Group identification: Hartley stressed the danger of playing into the political and sometimes
ideological trappings of the actors in a lethal conflict. Scott stated that it would depend
entirely on the skills of the individual investigator.
Personal identification: Most answers were to the effect that it would depend on the specific
case. Even if secondary to the physical or anatomical evidence, most respondent thought
archaeology could make an important contribution. As to stray finds of personal
identification value which cannot be confidently allocated to a particular set of remains,
nobody stated they knew if and how relatives were notified.
Mode and manner of death and pre-mortem trauma: Answers were not consistent, so maybe
Scott’s answer that it would depend on the specific case sums up all the answers. Skinner

191
Questionnaire, question 2 and 3
192
See also Hoshower 1998
193
Skinner
194
Questionnaire, question 4–5, 7–8

49
stated: “I think you need some kind of statistical analysis performed on a documented series
of bodies, with data collected purposefully so as to answer the particular question you have
posed. But my general impression is that in mass graves, the bodies themselves give
relatively little evidence of the circumstances surrounding death whereas the bullets and
clandestine burial are eloquent “archaeological” evidence of what happened.”

6.5 Reconciliation and the contribution by archaeologists195

Opinions upon which objectives contributed most significantly to reconciliation processes
varied, but repatriation and conviction were the answers most frequently offered. Stover
stated being sceptical about the ability of exhumations to promote reconciliation: “In a
nationwide, five-year qualitative and quantitative study, we conducted in Rwanda and FY
[former Yugoslavia] we found that reconciliation is largely an individual-to-individual
interaction.” Yet, he also stated that learning what happened can be important on many
levels – legal, religious, spiritual, health – and bring some closure. Most other respondents
stated something to the same effect, but also that it would vary with the individual. Hartley
additionally stated that careful and respectful exhumation contributed greatly to the process
of acceptance by the relatives. Saunders stated that finding the identity of the killer would be
important, although not contributing much to reconciliation unless all parties to the conflict
acknowledge “that there is blame everywhere and/or leadership commanding or condoning
the massacres is replaced”. Skinner stated that this was not the archaeologist’s area of
expertise.

7 THE QUEST FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE – DISCUSSION

In chapter 3.6, I tentatively made a distinction between excavating mass graves and
exhuming human remains, implicating that different roles and contributions by archaeologist
might be expected. As both the case studies and the experience of professionals that have
worked within the field demonstrate, real investigations historically can rather be placed on a
scale between the two categories. In some forensic mass grave excavations (I), establishing a
historical record has taken primacy over identification and repatriation – for instance the
criminal investigations done by the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for former
Yugoslavia (ICTY). In other forensic mass grave excavations (II), establishing a historical
record has been equally important as identification and repatriation, but with a distinct focus
on the needs of survivors and families of the victims – for instance in Latin America. At the
other end of the scale, there are the forensic mass grave exhumations in which identification
and repatriation take priority over establishing the historical record – as for instance in the
exhumations done by the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) and the
Commissions on Missing Persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.
One could argue that, historically, two strategies exist for human rights investigations of
mass graves with a systematic, long-term and large-scale perspective built into the strategy.
One is the Latin American model of forensic mass grave excavations (II), the other is the
model used in former Yugoslavia where the forensic mass grave exhumations done by
institutions such as ICMP and the national commissions can be seen as complementary to the
forensic mass grave excavations (I) done by ICTY. The Tribunal is releasing the bodies of
their excavations to these commissions, and the commissions are doing exhumations that are
related to the same events as the ones the Tribunal is prosecuting, but on the basis of other

195
Questionnaire, question 6 and 13

50
excavations. ICTY also has seized evidence for prosecution from exhumations done by the
commissions.
There have been clashes between the way ICTY conducts excavations as pure criminal
investigations (not focusing on the identification of each and every individual) and the needs
of relatives196. However, this approach has had its merits in terms of societal security, since
the results of the extensive excavation program have been successfully used in court. I have
only briefly referred to investigations of mass graves created by other parties to the Balkan
wars than the Serbs197. However, such excavations and subsequent prosecutions is a part of
the ICTY-investigations that I consider very important in order to promote overall societal
security in the region, especially because former Yugoslavia has a history of genocide and
mass graves going back to World War II, not just involving Serb Chetniks killing Jews,
Gypsies, Muslims and Croats, but also Croat Ustachas killing Serbs198. Accordingly, I also
perceive the close corporation between the various national missing persons commissions,
working to find and identify “each other’s” bodies and the recognition of the importance of
this work by the various national governments, as very important in promoting regional
societal security.
Also the Latin American model has had its merits. Enforced disappearances have been the
subject of truth commissions in Latin America and consequently these commissions have
occupied themselves also with mass graves and mass grave investigations – and either
strongly recommended or themselves commissioned mass grave excavations. Thus, mass
grave investigations and forensic anthropology teams have filled an important societal safety
function in the transitional phase of emerging democracy. In addition – and in lack of a
judicial system trusted to function impartially – numerous human rights cases have been filed
with the Inter-American Human Rights Court based on evidence from mass grave
excavations. Furthermore, these two predominant uses of forensic excavation results may
explain also the Latin American equal emphasis on producing a historical record and at the
same time on identification of victims.
Individual criminal cases have been brought to court, but due to the amnesty laws issued in
most Latin American countries shortly after initial transition into democracy, excavation
results have not been used large scale for prosecutorial purposes. However, such use has
always been among the explicitly stated purposes of the Latin American investigation
concept. This may become significant now that one country after the other is abolishing the
amnesty laws, and thus in my opinion, are on the move from transitional democracy into
stable democracy. I believe that the extensive forensic mass grave excavations in the region,
rendering results difficult to overlook, have contributed greatly to this end. In this respect, I
think it is important to remember that an excavation can only be made once. The evidence
that is not collected during the excavation is lost199. The youngest truth commission in Latin
America – that of Peru – has combined truth and justice in a so far unprecedented way, as it
was mandated to collect evidence for the prosecution of crimes against humanity as well as
establish a historical truth. The mass grave excavations have been carried out by the EPAF
which includes also archaeologists.
The investigation concept of “humanitarian exhumation sites” introduced in relation to the
present situation in Iraq, does not seem equivalent to any of the investigation concepts
previously mentioned. It has a distinct health promotion aspect that takes primacy over

196
Stover & Shigekane 2002
197
The Experts Commission’s investigation of graves in Pakracka Poljana County, Croatia – see chapter 5.3
198
Ball 1999:123
199
See chapter 3.6.2

51
medico-legal investigation aspects. Even if health promotion is also clearly an aspect of the
Latin American mass grave investigations, there is a vast difference between investigations
conducted by forensic professionals, letting community members in on the excavation and/or
offering simultaneous mental health programs to survivors and families of the victims (Latin
America), and community-led investigations supervised by professionals (Iraq). This is not
to say that community members cannot be trained to become professionals – after all that is
what happened with the Latin American forensic anthropology teams.
However, the investigation concept in Iraq seems to be some sort of adaptation of the WHO
“Safe Community” model – a strategy based on social mobilisation of community resources
and competence – to problems that has so far been approached only with forensic
investigative strategies200. Also, the gap between the strategies involved with humanitarian
exhumation sites and full criminal investigation sites seems much bigger than between
forensic mass grave exhumations forensic and mass grave excavations (I). Thus, it might be
important to find means to couple the two investigation concepts into one holistic strategy.
There may be many societal safety arguments for such a strategy, and also it may be the only
practically and economically feasible solution to a task that Haglund stipulates could easily
be a 50-year job201. However, I believe one would gain by being more explicit about
objectives, as I suppose one will not gain the same with this strategy as with a forensic
strategy.
What happened in Iraq when people started to overrun mass gravesites is an example, in
addition to the Srebrenica case, of emergent norms. These examples may relate to the
distance to the norms of the authority response system, but also depend on a profound
distrust that such a system will at all be put in place, and that it will work efficiently and to
the best of their interests. Because of this a priori lack of trust, I believe the aftermath
response system should automatically expect such occurrences in the aftermath of massive
human rights abuses by states. To design the right response system in the given situation is a
challenge common to all crisis management, also the management of crises after the crisis.
Because of this general lack of trust, I also believe that dissipation of state authority (shared
concern and crisis management co-production between private and public actors) is
extremely important.
With regard to forensic mass grave investigations, idealistic, non-profit human rights NGOs
have played a role that cannot be overestimated. On the other hand, it is also important that
the international community engage with its authoritative entities such as the various bodies
of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The importance of
the contribution made by archaeologists (and physical anthropologists) is demonstrated by
the United Nations increasing use of forensic teams – especially “after” ICTY.
Truth commissions are generally considered an important mediating tool for the transition
into democracy in countries that have experienced massive human rights abuses by the state.
If democratic institutions do at all exist, they are often compromised by their association with
the abusive regime. Truth commissions are somehow officially sanctioned and generally
their strengths are in exactly those areas that fall outside that of a judicial body. However,
they are also temporary entities and their long-term effect depends on the political will and
strength to follow up on conclusions.
One cornerstone of democracy is the existence of a law enforcement system and an
independent and impartial judicial system. Society regulates our lives according to our legal

200
Svanström 1993, 1994
201
Powers 2004

52
identity with which follows specific legal rights. In a democracy, we expect society to secure
and safeguard these rights, just as we expect them to be broadly based on human rights.
Otherwise legality will have no legitimacy. In case other legal subjects – including state
agents – offend these rights, we expect an impartial judicial system independent of the
governing system to settle the matter. Thus, in a democracy one would never accept even a
single disappearance or homicide to go un-investigated or un-prosecuted. That one can trust
this to be done is a part of the societal security that in democracy one take it for granted that
the state will provide.
I believe ICTY has extended this democratic expectation to the international scene. Before
ICTY there was no law enforcement of international criminal laws202. Without ICTY we
would probably not have got a permanent International Criminal Court – after all such a
permanent law enforcement entity has been discussed without result for the past 50 years.
And without the International Criminal Court, enforced disappearance would not have been
defined as a crime against humanity. To me, mass grave excavations for prosecutorial
purposes are not about the dead, it is about security for the living. To the relatives of the
missing, justice may come second to identification and repatriation, but as soon as these
purposes are fulfilled they will also want justice (after all, international criminal law goes by
the name of humanitarian law). Furthermore, justice is not just about the needs of the
relatives of the missing. It is also about those victims who barely escaped ending up in a
mass grave – like the six that crawled out from the pile of bodies after the execution of their
fellow villagers in Koreme. And it is about those associated with the perpetrators by group
affiliation that did not commit any crime – the innocent German or Serb or Hutu, etc.
Although the legal principle may be that you are innocent until proved guilty, in group
conflicts you are guilty by group affiliation until proved innocent. To avoid collective guilt in
these groups, it is in their interest to have mass graves excavated, the story told, and the
perpetrators prosecuted.
Although there may be many problems involved, I believe that the pursuit of justice is
paramount to societal security. In situations where there is no other indisputable evidence,
the physical evidence produced by forensic mass grave excavations, and the contribution to
this evidence production by archaeologists, have been – and probably will be in the future –
important building blocks for more secure societies.

8 CONCLUSIONS
Human rights mass grave investigations have contributed significantly to the success of
national as well as international truth commissions, human rights courts, criminal courts and
tribunals throughout the world. Some institutions pursue either truth or justice, others pursue
both truth and justice – and this accounts even for recent truth commissions. Consequently,
human rights mass grave investigations contribute to both purposes.
In the aftermath of violent conflicts related to massive human right abuses by state agents,
the success of such institutions is paramount to the societal rebuilding process. At the
societal level they promote the establishment of democratic institutions to provide the
societal safety and security basis needed for reconciliation processes. Societal rebuilding and
reconciliation processes are long-term projects, and so are mass grave investigations. Thus,
the contribution by forensic mass grave investigation teams have been most notable in cases
where a systematic, long-term and large-scale strategy has been applied – notably in Latin

202
The Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention

53
America and former Yugoslavia. However, the field is rapidly growing, and forensic
anthropology and archaeology are to an increasing degree incorporated into international
crisis and conflict management strategies – notably by the United Nations.
Human rights mass grave investigation teams have in general pursued three major purposes:
humanitarian, legal and historical purposes. Establishing a historical record – the factual
truth of what happened and in which sequence, at a specific location and at a specific point in
time – is paramount to pursuing the legal and historical purposes and important also to
reaching the humanitarian purpose of identifying victims. The archaeologist’s unique
contribution lies in the panoply of methods archaeologists apply to establish the historical
record from features in the ground and earth found objects. Guiding these methods is the
paradigm that human behaviour is patterned and leaves behind a physical record that is also
patterned in a way that is consistent with the behaviour that produced it. Thus, the work of
archaeologists must be characterised as a valuable contribution to any forensic mass grave
investigation team.

54
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://shr.aaas.org/
AAAS 2002: AAAS Human Rights Action Network release 21 March and 16 May, 2002.
http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=213 and
http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=219
AAAS 2003: AAAS Human Rights Action Network release 9 May, 2003.
http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=253
Abrahams, F., Peress, G. & Stover, E. 2002: A Village Destroyed: May 14, 1999, War
Crimes in Kosovo, University of California Press, Berkeley.
http://www.hrcberkeley.org/specialprojects/avillagedestroyed/avdhome.html
AFHR (Archaeologists for Human Rigths/Archäologen für Menschenrechte),
http://www.afhr.org/
ALAF (Asociacion Latinoamericana de Antropologia Forense) http://www.alaforense.org/
Amnesty International Library 2001: Argentina: Putting a full stop to 25 years of impunity.
AI INDEX: AMR 13/010/2001,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR130102001?open&of=ENG-ARG
Arnold, B. 2002: Justifying Genocide. Archaeology and the Construction of Difference. In
Hinton, Alexander Laban (ed.): Annihilating difference: The anthropology of
genocide, California series in public anthropology 3, Berkeley: University of
California Press, p. 95–116.
Ball, H. 1999: Prosecuting War Crimes and Genocide: The Twentieth-century Experience.
University Press of Kansas, USA.
CAFCA (Centro de Analisis Forenses y Cienceas Aplicadas/ Center for Forensic Analysis
and Applied Sciences – Guatemala)
CEH (Comisión para el Esclareciemiento Histórico)
CEH 1999: Guatemala Memory of Silence. Official report of CEH (The Commission for
Historical Clarification), http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/report/english/toc.html
CONADEP (Comision Nacional para la Desaparacion de Personal)
CONADEP 1984: Nunca Mas. Official report of CONADEP (National Commission on the
Disappearance of people),
http://www.nuncamas.org/english/library/nevagain/nevagain_001.htm
Conner, M. A. 1996: The Archaeology of Contemporary Mass Graves, Society for
American Archaeology, SAA Bulletin 14(4):6 and 31,
www.saa.org/publications/saabulletin/14-4/SAA6.html
Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. (eds.) 2001a: Archaeologists as Forensic Investigators:
Defining the Role. Historical Archaeology 35 (1). The Society for Historical
Archaeology, Pennsylvania, 104 pp. Abstract:
http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. 2001b: Paradigms and Perpetrators. In Connor, M. A. &
Scott, D. D. (eds.): Archaeologists as Forensic Investigators: Defining the Role.
Historical Archaeology 35 (1):1-6. Abstract:
http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm

55
Crist, T. A. J. 2001: Bad to the Bone?: Historical Archaeologists in the Practice of Forensic
Science. In Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. (eds.): Archaeologists as Forensic
Investigators: Defining the Role. Historical Archaeology 35 (1):39-56. Abstract:
http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
CVR (Comision de la verdad y reconciliacion)
CVR 2003: Official report of CVR (The Truth and Reconliation Commission, Peru),
http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/pagina01.php)
Des Forges, A. L. 1999: Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. Human Rights
Watch, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/
Doretti, M. & Fondebrider, L. 2001: Science and human rights. Truth, justice, reparation
and reconciliation, a long way in Third World countries. In Buchli, V. & Lucas, G.
(eds.): Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. Routledge, London, p. 138-144.
Doretti, M. & Snow, C. C. 2003: Forensic anthropology and human rights: The Argentine
Experience. In Steadman, D. W. (ed.): Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic
Anthropology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 290-310.
EAAF (Equipo Argentine de Antropologia Forense) http://www.eaaf.org
Annual reports on individual countries are found under Reports by Country and Year:
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/index.php
EAAF 1992: Iraqi Kurdistan. EAAF 1998 Annual Report.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/iraqikurdistan.php
EAAF 1996–97: Democratic Republic of Congo (former Zaire). EAAF 1996– 97 Biannual
Report: 56–73. http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR9697/06DRC96_97.pdf
EAAF 1998a: Democratic Republic of Congo. EAAF 1998 Annual Report: 24–29.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR1998/05DRC1998.pdf
EAAF 1998b: Guatemala. EAAF 1998 Annual Report: 31–35.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR1998/07Guatemala1998.pdf
EAAF 1999a: Bosnia. EAAF 1999 Annual Report: 22–30.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR1999/04Bosnia1999.pdf
EAAF 1999b: El Salvador. EAAF 1999 Annual Report: 38–43
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR1999/06ElSalvador1999.pdf
EAAF 1999c: Guatemala. EAAF 1999 Annual Report: 44 – 49.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR1999/07Guatemala1999.pdf
EAAF 2000a: Human rights prosecutions in Europe and Argentina. EAAF 2000 Annual
Report: 18–31. http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2000/05Argentina22000.pdf
EAAF 2000b: El Salvador. EAAF 2000 Annual Report: 32–49.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2000/06ElSalvador2000.pdf
EAAF 2000c: Kosovo. EAAF 2000 Annual Report: 56–65.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2000/08Kosovo2000.pdf
EAAF 2001a: East Timor. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 40–47.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/08ETIMOR.PDF
EAAF 2001b: El Salvador. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 48–69.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/09SALVADOR.PDF

56
EAAF 2001c: Guatemala. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 70–75.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/10GUATEMALA.PDF
EAAF 2001d: Mexico. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 76–79.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/11MEXICO.PDF
EAAF 2001e: Peru. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 88–93.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/13PERU.PDF
EAAF 2001f: Côte D’Ivore. EAAF 2001 Annual Report: 108.
http://www.eaaf.org/reports/AR2001/17CIVOIRE.PDF
EAAF 2002a: Democratic Republic of Congo. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 54–59.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/06Congo.pdf
EAAF 2002b: El Salvador. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 60–65.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/07ElSalvador.pdf
EAAF 2002c: Guatemala. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 74–79.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/09Guatemala.pdf
EAAF 2002d: Côte D’Ivore. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 86–89.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/11IvoryCoast.pdf
EAAF 2002e: Mexico. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 90–93.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/12Mexico.pdf
EAAF 2002f: Peru. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 94–105.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/13Peru.pdf
EAAF 2002g: Sierra Leone. EAAF 2002 Annual Report: 106–115.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/14SierraLeone.pdf
EAAF 2002h: The Latin American Forensic Anthropology Association (ALAF). EAAF
2002 Annual Report: 126–129.
http://www.eaaf.org/docs/annualreport/2002/16ALAF.pdf
EPAF (Equipo Peruano de Antropologia Forense)
EPAF 2003: Peru: esumazioni di massa. Press release, 3 of April 2003, Nello Margiotta:
http://www.mail-archive.com/latina@peacelink.it/msg01410.html
FAFG (Fundacion de Antropología Forense de Guatemala) http://www.fafg.org
FAFG/ ODHAG/ CAFCA 2003: Manual de Procedimientos para las Investigationes
Antropologico Forenses en Guatemala. El Ministerio Publico de Guatemala.
Fondebrider, L. 2002: Reflections on the scientific documentation of human rights
violations. IRRC December 2002 Vol. 84 No 848:885-891.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5HVJ7E/$File/irrc_848_Fondebrid
er.pdf
Haglund, W. D. 2002: Recent Mass Graves, An Introduction. In Haglund, W. D. & Sorg,
M. H. (eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological
Perspectives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London New York, Washington, D.C, p. 244–
261.
Haglund, W. D., Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. 2001: The Archaeology of Contemporary
Mass Graves. In Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. (eds.): Archaeologists as Forensic

57
 Investigators: Defining the Role. Historical Archaeology 35 (1):57-69. Abstract:
http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
Halchin, L. E. 2004: The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA): Origin, Characteristics,
and Institutional Authorities. CRS Report for Congress, April 29, 2004, USA,
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32370.pdf
Hayner P. B. 1994: Fifteen Truth Commissions — 1974 to 1994: a Comparative Study’,
Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 16:597—655.
Hayner P. B. 1996: Commissioning the Truth: Further Research Questions. Third World
Quarterly, 1:19-27.
Hess, P. 2004: Evidence to be unearthed from mass graves. The Washington Times, January
7, 2004 http://armedservices.house.gov/issues/Hussein/04-01-07washtimes.htm
Honig, J. W. 2001: Avoiding War, Inviting Defeat: The Srebrenica Crisis, July 1995. In
Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A. & Comfort, L. K. (eds.), Managing Crisis. Threats,
Dilemmas, Opportunities. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, USA, p. 61–73.
Honig, J. W. & Both, N. 1997: Srebrenica: Record of a War Crime. Penguin, New York.
Hoshower, L. M. 1998: Forensic Archaeology and the Need for Flexible Excavation
Strategies: A Case Study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(l):53-56. Abstract:
http://journalsip.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/2715.htm
HRW (Human Rights Watch)
HRW 1993a: Genocide In Iraq. The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds. A Middle East
Watch Report, USA http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal
HRW 1993b: Iraqi Kurdistan. The Destruction of Koreme During The Anfal Campaign. A
Middle East Watch and Physician for Human Rights Report, USA
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/
HRW 2001: World Report. Guatemala. Human rights developments,
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/guatemala.html
HRW 2002: Peru Confronts a Violent Past: The Truth Commission Hearings in Ayacucho
http://www.hrw.org/americas/peru/
HRW 2003a: The Mass Graves of Al-Mahawil: The Truth Uncovered, Human Rights
Watch, Vol. 15, No. 5 (E) – May 2003:1– 15,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/iraq0503.pdf
HRW 2003b: Argentina: Senate Votes to Annul Amnesty Laws
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/08/argentina082103.htm
Hunter, J. 1997: Background to Forensic Archaeology. In Hunter, J., Roberts, C. & Martin,
A. (eds.), Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. B. T. Batsford.
London, England, p. 7-23.
IAHRC (Inter-American Human Rights Court)
ICMP (International Commission on Missing Persons) http://www.ic-mp.org
ICRC (The International Committee of the Red Cross) http://www.icrc.org
ICRC 1949a: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView

58
ICRC 1949b: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
ICRC 1949c: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12
August 1949. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
ICRC 1949d: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
ICRC 1977a: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protecol I), 8
June 1977. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
ICRC 1977b: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protecol
II), 8 June 1977. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
ICRC 2002: ICRC/TheMissing/10.2002/EN/3. Human remains & forensic sciences.
Electronic Workshop 02.2002–03.2002. Human remains: Law, politics & ethics
23.05.2002–24.05.2002. Human remains: management of remains and of information
on the dead 10.07.2002–12.07.2002. Workshops Ecogia ICRC Training Center -
Geneva – Switzerland. Final report and outcome.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5CALR3/$File/ICRC_TheMissing
_102002_EN_3.pdf
ICRC 2003a: ICRC/TheMissing//Conf/03.2003/EN/90.The Missing: Action to resolve the
problem of people unaccounted for as a result of armed conflict or internal violence
and to assist their families. International Conference of Governmental and Non-
Governmental Experts (Geneva, 19-21 February 2003). Conference Acts.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/D2610FCE200D1006C1256D1D0
0558BA4/$File/TheMissing_Conf_03.2003_EN_90.pdf?OpenElement
ICRC 2003b: The Missing and their families: interactive map. Examples of persons
unaccounted for as a result of armed conflicts and internal violence since World War
II (according to available sources).
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList509/7667E0EEF05FEDE1C1256C
B1004FEB49
ICTR (The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) http://www.ictr.org
ICTR Statute: http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/basicdocs/statute.html
ICTR 1995: Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95-
1), See ICTR home page, cases/completed cases/judgement and sentence.
ICTR 1996: Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-
3), See ICTR home page, cases/completed cases/judgement and sentence.
ICTY (The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia) http://www.un.org/icty
ICTY Statute: http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc/index.htm
ICTY 1995a: Prosecutor against Radovan Karadzic and Radko Mladic (Case No. IT-95-5)
Initial indictment 24 July 1995 (IT-95-5 "Bosnia and Herzegovina")
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm, and Initial indictment

59
 16 November 1995 (IT-95-18 "Srebrenica")
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm
ICTY 1995b: Dokomanovic (Case No. IT-95-13a), Second Amended Indictment 2
December 1997
ICTY 1995c: Prosecutor against Mile Mrksic, Mile Radic, and Veselin Sljivancanin (Case
No. IT-95-13/1) Third Consolidated Amended Indictment: 15 November 2004
ICTY 1996a: Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22), Trial Chamber I
Judgement 29 November 1996, Appeals Chamber Judgement 7 October 1997, Trial
Chamber II Judgement 5 March 1998 http://www.un.org/icty/erdemovic/jug22-e.htm
ICTY 1996b: Special: Exhumations, ICTY-Bulletin No 8,
http://www.un.org/icty/BL/08art1e.htm
ICTY 1998: Prosecutur v. Radislav Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33 “Srebrenica-Drina Corps”),
Trial Chamber I Judgement, of 2 August 2001,
http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf
ICTY 1999: Prosecutor against Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic,
(Case No. IT-99-37-PT) Third Amended Indictment, 5 September 2002
ICTY 2002: Prosecutor against Slobodan Milosevic (Case No. IT-02-54) Kosovo: Second
Amended Indictment 29 October 2001, Croatia: Second Amended Indictment 28 July
2004, Annex I, Annex II, Bosnia: Amended Indictment, 21 April 2004***
ICTY 2004: View from The Hague. Justice for the Victims of "Ovcara". ICTY Outreach
Programme, March 10, 2004,
http://www.un.org/icty/bhs/outreach/articles/eng/article-040310e.htm
INFORCE (International Forensic Center of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide),
http://www.inforce.org.uk
Jessee, E. 2003: Exhuming Conflict: Some Recommendations for the Creation of a Series
of Experimental Mass Grave and Mass Grave-Related Test Sites. Master of Art
Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Canada, 141 pp.
Kimmerle, E. H. 2004: Cause of Death: The Role of Anthropology in the Enforcement of
Human Rights. Paper submitted to the Human Rights Committee of the American
Anthropological Association April, 2004, 35 pp.
http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/rpt_kimmerle.htm
Koff, C. 2004: The Bone Woman. Among The Dead in Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia and
Kosovo. Atlantic Books, London, 321 pp.
Kreisler, H. 1999: Human Rights Work. Conversation with Eric Stover, Human Rights
Activist and Writer, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Stover/stover-con99-
1.html
Lemkin, R. 1944: Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Laws of Occupation, Analysis of
Government, Proposals for Redress. Chapter IX: Genocide. Washington: Carnegie
Endowment for World Peace, p. 79–95.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-1.htm
Mant, A. K. 1950: A Study in Exhumation Data. Doctorate of Medicine Thesis, London
University, London, England.

60
Mant, A. K. 1987: Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations. In Boddington, A.,
Garland, A. N. & Janaway, R. C. (eds.), Death, Decay and Reconstruction:
Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester University Press, UK,
p. 65-78.
Melbye, J. & Jimenez, S. B. 1997: Chain of Custody from the Field to the Courtroom. In
Haglund, W. D. & Sorg, M. H. (eds.): Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of
Human Remains. CRC Press, USA, p. 65-75.
NOU 2000 no. 24: Et sårbart samfunn. Utfordringer for sikkerhets- og beredskapsarbeidet
i samfunnet. Report of the Commission on the Vulnerability of Society presented to
the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police 4th July 2000.
http://www.odin.no/jd/norsk/dok/andre_dok/nou/012001-020005/dok-bn.html
ODHAG (Proyecto de Exhumaniciones de la Oficina de Derechos Humanos del
Arzobispado Guatemala/The Exhumation Project of the Office of the Archbishop of
Guatemala)
OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) http://www.ohchr.org
OHCHR 1996–2004: Fact Sheet No.6 (Rev.2), Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/fs6.htm
PHR (Physicians for Human Rights) http://www.phrusa.org
International Forensic Program Projects: http://phrusa.org/research/forensics/projects.html
PHR 1993: Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds. Medical Group proves use of
chemical weapons through forensic analysis.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
PHR 1995: Nerve Agent Sarin Identified in 1993 as Chemical Weapon Used Earlier by Iraq
Against Kurdish Population.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemsaringas.html
PHR 1996a: International Forensic Program, Rwanda:
http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/rwanda/
PHR 1996b: PHR Resumes Vukovar Exhumation, Press release, September 6, 1996
http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/croatia/forvuk3.html
PHR 2003a: Iraq Bulletin # 2, April 11, 2003,
http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/bulletin_041103.html
PHR 2003b: Op-Ed Published in the Detroit Free Press, May 14, 2003,
http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/release_051403_oped.html
Powers, J. M. 2004: Mass Graves testify to Saddam’s Evil. Insight on the News – World
Issue: March 11, 2004, http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/World/Mass-
Graves.Testify.To.Saddams.Evil-621193.shtml
Reyntjens, F. 2001: From Ethnicity to Genocide in Rwanda. In Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A.
& Comfort, L. K. (eds.), Managing Crisis. Threats, Dilemmas, Opportunities.
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, USA, p. 89–100.
Rinehart, D. 2001: Excavations of skeletal remains from an anthropological point of view.
Rinehart Forensics. “The Print”, Volume 17 (2) March / April 2001:1–5
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/excavation.html

61
Robben, A. C. G. M. 2000: The Assault on basic trust, disappearance, protest, and reburial
in Argentina. In Robben A. C. G. M, & Suarez-Orozco M. M. (eds): Cultures under
Siege. Collective Violence and Trauma. Cambridge University Press, UK
Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A. & Comfort, L. K. 2001: The Changing World of Crisis and
Crisis Management. In Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A. & Comfort, L. K. (eds.), Managing
Crisis. Threats, Dilemmas, Opportunities. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, USA,
p. 5–27.
Rummel, R. J. 1994: Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1990.
Transaction Publishers. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Rummel, R. J. 1997: Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. Lit
Verlag. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
Sanchez, L. 2001: SFOR guards mass grave. SFOR Informer # 116, June 27, 2001,
http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/116/p11a/t0111a.htm
Schabas, W. A. 1999: The Genocide Convention at Fifty. United States Institute of Peace
Special Report 41:1–8. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990107.pdf
Schabas, W. A. 2000: Genocide in International Law: the Crimes of Crimes. Cambridge
University Press. 624 pp.
Schmitt, S. 1998: Statistics of a Mass Grave. The Kibuye Case.
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~sss4407/Rwanda/RWStats.htm
Schmitt, S. 2002: Mass Graves and the Collection of Forensic Evidence: Genocide, War
Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. In Haglund, W. D. & Sorg, M. H. (eds.):
Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, London New York, Washington, D.C., p. 277–292.
Schneider, S. K. 1995: Flirting with Disaster. Public management in Crisis Situations. M.E.
Sharpe, New York, London. 187 pp.
Scott, D. D. 2001: Firearms Identification in Support of Identifying a Mass Execution at El
Mozote, El Salvador. In Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. (eds.): Archaeologists as
Forensic Investigators: Defining the Role. Historical Archaeology 35 (1):101-104.
Abstract: http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
Scott, D. D. & Connor, M. A. 1997: Context Delecti: Archaeological Context in Forensic
Work. In Haglund, W. D. & Sorg, M. H. (eds.): Forensic Taphonomy: The
Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. CRC Press: 27-38.
Scott, D. D. & Connor, M. A. 2001: Role and Future of Archaeology in Forensic Science.
In Connor, M. A. & Scott, D. D. (eds.) Archaeologists as Forensic Investigators:
Defining the Role. Historical Archaeology 35 (1):101-104. Abstract:
http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
Skinner, M. F. 1987: Planning the archaeological recovery of evidence from recent mass
graves, Forensic Science International 34:267- 287.
Skinner, M. F., & Lazenby, R. A. 1983: Found! Human Remains: A Field Manual for the
Recovery of the Recent Human Skeleton. Archaeology Press. Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, B.C;
Skinner, M. F., York, H. P. & Connor, M. A. 2002: Postburial Disturbance of Graves in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Haglund, W. D. & Sorg, M. H. (eds.): Advances in Forensic

62
 Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, London New York, Washington, D.C., p. 293–308.
Skinner, M. F., Alempijevic, D. & Djuric-Srejic, M. 2003: Guidelines for International
Forensic Bio-archaeology Monitors of Mass Grave Exhumations. Forensic Science
International 134:81–92
Snow, C. C. 1982: Forensic Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 11:97–131
St. Meld. 17 (2001–2002): Samfunnssikkerhet. Veien til et mindre sårbart samfunn. Report
No. 17 to the Storting (2001–2002) Statement on Safety and Security of Society.
White Paper presented to the Norwegian Parliament by the Ministry of Justice and
the Police 5th April 2002. English summary:
http://odin.dep.no/jd/engelsk/publ/p10001858/012101-040002/index-dok000-b-n-
a.html
Stover, E. 1997: The grave at Vukovar. Smithsonian 27 (12):40-51.
Stover, E., & Peress, G. 1998: The Graves. Srebenica and Vukovar. Zurich/Berlin, 334 pp.
Stover, E., & Ryan, M. 2001: Braking Bread with the Dead. In Connor, M. A. & Scott, D.
D. (eds.): Archaeologists as Forensic Investigators: Defining the Role. Historical
Archaeology 35 (1):7-25. Abstract: http://www.sha.org/Publications/ha35ca.htm
Stover, E. & Shigekane, R. 2002: The missing in the aftermath of war: When do the needs
of victims’ families and international war crimes tribunals clash? IRRC December
2002 Vol. 84 No 848:845–866.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5HVHXL/$File/irrc_848_Stover.p
df
Stover, E., Haglund W. D. & Samuels M. 2003: Exhumations of Mass Graves in Iraq.
Considerations for Forensic Investigations, Humanitarian Needs, and the Demands of
Justice. JAMA, August 6, 2003 – Vol 290, No. 5:663–666. Abstract: http://jama.ama-
assn.org/cgi/content/extract/290/5/663
Svanström, L. 1993: What is a Safe Community and how can we plan a community safety
programme? Karolinska Institute, Department of Social Medicine, Stockholm, 1993.
Svanström, L 1994: Criteria for the Safe Community Network. Karolinska Institute,
Department of International Health and Social Medicine, Stockholm, 1994.
United Nations
General Assembly resolutions are found at http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm
Security Council resolutions are found at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html
Charter of the United Nations: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
UN Doc (United Nations Documents)
UN Doc A/CONF.183/9, of 17 July 1998: Rome Statute of the International Criminal court.
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
UN Doc A/RES/217(III), of 10 December 1948: The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
UN Doc A/RES/33/173, of 20 December 1978: Disappeared persons,
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/33/ares33r173.pdf

63
UN Doc A/RES/47/133, of 18 December 1992: Declaration on the Protection of all
Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r133.htm
UN Doc A/49/342 - S/1994/1007, of 29 Augusts 1994: Annual Report of the International
Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The Former
Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/1994/AR94e.pdf
UN Doc A/52/375 - S/1997/729, of 18 September 1997: Fourth Annual Report of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The
Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/1997/AR97e.pdf
UN Doc A/53/219 - S/1998/737, of 10 August 1998: Fifth Annual Report of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The
Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/1998/AR98e.pdf
UN Doc A/54/187 - S/1999/846, of 25 August 1999: Sixth Annual Report of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The
Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/1999/AR99e.pdf
UN Doc A/55/273 - S/2000/777, of 7 August 2000: Seventh Annual Report of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The
Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/2000/AR00e.pdf
UN Doc A/56/352 - S/2001/865, of 17 September 2001: Eighth Annual Report of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The
Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/2001/AR01e.pdf
UN Doc A/57/379-S/2002/985, of 4 August 2002: Ninth Annual Report of the International
Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory Of The Former
Yugoslavia Since 1991 http://www.un.org/icty/rappannu-e/2002/AR02-e.pdf
UN Doc E/447, of May 1947: First Draft of the Genocide Convention, prepared by the UN
Secretariat: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/drafts/
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.1 to 28, of May 1948: Second Draft of the Genocide Convention,
prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
meeting between April 5, 1948 and May 10, 1948:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/drafts/
UN Doc E/CN.4/1993/50, 10 February 1993: Situation of Human Rights in the Territory of
the Former Yugoslavia. Report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia submitted by Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to Commission resolution 1992/S-1/1 of 14
August 1992. Annex I: Summary of the report of the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on his mission to investigate
allegations of mass graves from 15 to 20 December 1992,
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/313049964d7549ec802567900054c
f88?OpenDocument

64
UN Doc E/ST/CSDHA/12 (1991): United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and
Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Annex V - Model
Protocol for disinterment and analysis of skeletal remains.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/executioninvestigation-91.html.
UN Doc GA/RES/260(III) of 9 December 1948: Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Entered into force in 1951,
www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm,
UN Doc S/25500, of March 1993: From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El
Salvaldor: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador,
http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html
including Reports of the forensic investigations: Excepts found at
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page62.html,
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/el_mozdocb.htm
UN Doc S/25274, of February 1993: First interim report of the United Nations Commission
of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780 (1992).
UN Doc S/26545, of 6 October 1993: Second interim report of the United Nations
Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780
(1992).
UN Doc S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. V) 28 December 1994. Final report of the United Nations
Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780
(1992). Annex X Mass graves http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/X.htm
Annex X.A Mass graves – Ovcara near Vukovar, UNPA sector east.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/X-A.htm. Annex X.B Mass graves -
Pakracka Poljana, UNPA sector west, Croatia.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/X-B.htm
USAID 2004: Iraq’s Legacy of Terror. Mass Graves. U.S. Agency for International
Development, Washington D.C.,
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
U.S. Department of State 2003: Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities. Fact Sheet,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Bureau of Public Affairs,
Washington D.C. December 19, 2003. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
Vollen, L. & Peress, G. 2001: All That Remains: Identifying the Victims of the Srebrenica
Massacre. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 10, July 2001:336-340.
www.hrcberkeley.org/dna/allthatremains01.html

65
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE
to
The Contribution by (Forensic) Archaeologists to Human Rights Investigations of Mass
Graves allegedly resulting from Genocide or Crimes against Humanity. (With a Specific View
to the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.)

Personal data
Profession:

Extent and type of experience with mass grave excavations:

Forensic experience prior to becoming involved with mass grave investigations:

Policy and purpose of mass grave investigations

Different entities commissioning mass grave investigations (tribunals, truth commissions,
local authorities, associations of or on behalf of relatives or other interested parties etc.) may
have different priorities regarding the prime purpose of an investigation.
The objectives of mass grave investigations are many, such as
a) Collecting evidence for the indictment and prosecution of alleged perpetrators or
the responsible in command
b) Identifying the victims and returning the remains to the families
c) Establishing factual truth counteracting historical revisionism
d) Acknowledging the legal and human rights of the offended party
e) Contributing to preventive measures.

1. What reasoning will lie behind the decision to conduct a mass grave investigation as
a) a proper archaeological excavation focusing on both the retrieval of the human
remains and the contextual evidence
b) merely an exhumation focusing entirely on the retrieval of the human remains, or
c) something in between?

2. When is the archaeologist dispensable/indispensable to the stated purpose of a mass

grave investigation and what reasons are usually given for excluding/including the
archaeologist from a mass grave investigation?
3. In what way, if any, do different priorities on the part of the commissioning entity
influence the methodology and procedure of a mass grave investigation and the
inclusion/exclusion of archaeologists from the investigation?

66
 4. To which objectives do mass grave excavations per se contribute most significantly?
Please rank the objectives mentioned above (and feel free to include others).
5. To which objectives does involving archaeologists in mass grave excavations
contribute most significantly? Please rank the objectives mentioned above (and feel
free to include others).
6. In your experience, which objectives contribute most significantly to reconciliation
processes in the aftermath of war and violent conflicts and to rebuilding a society
resilient to devastating repetitive conflicts? Please rank the objectives mentioned
above (and feel free to include others).
7. If there is a discrepancy between your rankings to question 4), 5) and 6), please try to
give a reason for this?
8. When tribunals commission mass grave investigations all evidence remains with them
and strict rules of confidentiality is applied, until the tribunal in question chooses to
release the information. How do think this affects the pursuit of other objectives, as
the ones mentioned above?

Levels of identification
Categorical identification will be of major importance to the prosecution of genocide and/or
crimes against humanity. The same applies to evidence of the mode and manner of death and
of traumas illegally inflicted upon the victim before death.
9. In general, how important is the contribution by archaeological evidence, whether
contextual or artifactual, to establishing group membership compared to biological or
anatomical evidence?
10. In general, how important is the contribution by archaeological evidence, whether
contextual or artifactual, to establishing the mode and manner of death, and traumas
illegally inflicted upon the victim before death compared to physical or anatomical
evidence?

The ultimate purpose of investigating mass graves or unburied surface remains is said to be
identifying the victims and returning the remains to the families.
11. In general, how important is the contribution by archaeological evidence, whether
contextual or artifactual, to the identification of individuals compared to physical or
anatomical evidence (apart from DNA analyses)?
12. How often do you come across “stray” finds of personal items belonging to
identifiable individuals that you cannot associate with particular human remains, how
do you treat them in the medico-legal system and how do you act towards the
relatives?
13. The relatives of the missing have the right to know the fate of their loved ones. Apart
from a positive identification and having the remains returned, to your experience
what type of knowledge that mass grave excavations can provide seems most
important to the relatives and how do you think this contribute to the reconciliation
process?

END

67