Lorin de la Grandmaison G, Durigon M, Moutel G, Herve C
Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Garches, France.
Med Sci Law. 2006 Jul;46(3):208-12. doi: 10.1258/rsmmsl.46.3.208.
Since 1991, war crimes in the former Yugoslavia have been the subject of several international medico-legal investigations of mass graves within the framework of inquiries led by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Forensic pathologists involved in the ICTY missions could be subjected to ethical tensions due to the difficulties of the missions, the emergent conflicts between forensic scientists of the investigating teams and the original nature of the ICTY proceedings. In order to study the nature of such ethical tensions, we sent a questionnaire to 65 forensic pathologists who have been involved in the ICTY missions. The rate of response was 38%. The majority of forensic pathologists questioned (n=18) did not know how the medico-legal data was exploited by the ICTY. Three of them have been subjected to pressures. Three of them were aware of mass grave sites knowingly not investigated by the ICTY. Fifteen considered that the ICTY respected the elementary rules of the law and four of them questioned the impartiality of the justice led by the ICTY. Two conflicting types of ethics can be drawn from these results: conviction ethics, which are shared by most of the forensic pathologists questioned, and responsibility ethics. In the former, the forensic pathologist completely agrees with the need for an international war crimes tribunal, even if such justice can be challenged regarding the respect of human rights and impartiality. In the latter, he or she needs to conduct him or herself in ways that do not infringe impartiality. As medical deontology duty requires impartiality ethics, discursive ethics are needed to ease ethical tensions and to suggest ethical guidelines. Alternatives to international justice, through a truth and reconciliation commission and by way of humanitarian missions combining victims' identification with forensic investigations for historical purposes, could be considered.
自1991年以来，前南斯拉夫境内的战争罪行一直是在前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭（前南问题国际法庭）主导的调查框架内，对多个乱葬岗进行的几次国际法医学调查的主题。参与前南问题国际法庭任务的法医病理学家可能会因任务的困难、调查团队的法医科学家之间出现的冲突以及前南问题国际法庭程序的原始性质而面临伦理困境。为了研究此类伦理困境的性质，我们向前南问题国际法庭任务中涉及的65位法医病理学家发送了一份问卷。回复率为38%。大多数接受询问的法医病理学家（n = 18）不知道前南问题国际法庭如何利用法医学数据。其中三人受到了压力。他们中的三人知道有乱葬岗未被前南问题国际法庭调查。15人认为前南问题国际法庭尊重基本法律规则，其中四人质疑前南问题国际法庭主持的司法的公正性。从这些结果中可以得出两种相互冲突的伦理类型：信念伦理，大多数接受询问的法医病理学家都认同这种伦理，以及责任伦理。在信念伦理中，法医病理学家完全赞同设立一个国际战争罪行法庭的必要性，即使这种司法在尊重人权和公正性方面可能受到质疑。在责任伦理中，他或她需要以不侵犯公正性的方式行事。由于医学道义责任要求公正伦理，因此需要话语伦理来缓解伦理困境并提出伦理准则。可以考虑通过真相与和解委员会以及将受害者身份确认与人道主义任务相结合以用于历史目的的法医调查等方式来替代国际司法。
