Blau S, Roberts J, Cunha E, Delabarde T, Mundorff A Z, de Boer H H
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Alecto Forensics, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.
Forensic Sci Int. 2023 Apr;345:111615. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111615. Epub 2023 Feb 28.
Disaster victim identification (DVI) refers to the identification of multiple deceased persons following an event that has a catastrophic effect on human lives and living conditions. Identification methods in DVI are typically described as either being primary, which include nuclear genetic markers (DNA), dental radiograph comparisons, and fingerprint comparisons, or secondary, which are all other identifiers and are ordinarily considered insufficient as a sole means of identification. The aim of this paper is to review the concept and definition of so-called 'secondary identifiers" and draw on personal experiences to provide practical recommendations for improved consideration and use. Initially, the concept of secondary identifiers is defined and examples of publications where such identifiers have been used in human rights violation cases and humanitarian emergencies are reviewed. While typically not investigated under a strict DVI framework, the review highlights the idea that non-primary identifiers have proven useful on their own for identifying individuals killed as a result of political, religious, and/or ethnic violence. The use of non-primary identifiers in DVI operations in the published literature is then reviewed. Because there is a plethora of different ways in which secondary identifiers are referenced it was not possible to identify useful search terms. Consequently, a broad literature search (rather than a systematic review) was undertaken. The reviews highlight the potential value of so-called secondary identifiers but more importantly show the need to scrutinise the implied inferior value of non-primary methods which is suggested by the terms "primary" and "secondary". The investigative and evaluative phases of the identification process are examined, and the concept of "uniqueness" is critiqued. The authors suggest that non-primary identifiers may play an important role in providing leads to formulating an identification hypothesis and, using the Bayesian approach of evidence interpretation, may assist in establishing the value of the evidence in guiding the identification effort. A summary of contributions non-primary identifiers may make to DVI efforts is provided. In conclusion, the authors argue that all lines of evidence should be considered because the value of an identifier will depend on the context and the victim population. A series of recommendations are provided for consideration for the use of non-primary identifiers in DVI scenarios.
灾害遇难者身份识别（DVI）是指在对人类生命和生活条件产生灾难性影响的事件发生后，对多名死者进行身份识别。DVI中的识别方法通常分为两类：一类是主要方法，包括核基因标记（DNA）、牙科X光片比对和指纹比对；另一类是次要方法，即所有其他识别标识，通常认为仅靠这些标识不足以作为身份识别的唯一手段。本文旨在回顾所谓“次要识别标识”的概念和定义，并结合个人经验提供切实可行的建议，以促进对其更好的考量和应用。首先，定义次要识别标识的概念，并回顾在侵犯人权案件和人道主义紧急情况中使用此类识别标识的出版物实例。虽然通常不在严格的DVI框架下进行调查，但该回顾强调了这样一个观点：非主要识别标识本身已被证明在识别因政治、宗教和/或种族暴力而死亡的个人方面很有用。接着回顾已发表文献中在DVI行动中使用非主要识别标识的情况。由于提及次要识别标识的方式繁多，无法确定有用的搜索词。因此，进行了广泛的文献检索（而非系统综述）。这些综述突出了所谓次要识别标识的潜在价值，但更重要的是表明有必要审视由“主要”和“次要”这些术语所暗示的非主要方法的隐含较低价值。对身份识别过程的调查和评估阶段进行了审视，并对“唯一性”概念进行了批判。作者们认为，非主要识别标识在提供线索以形成身份识别假设方面可能发挥重要作用，并且采用贝叶斯证据解释方法，可能有助于确定证据在指导身份识别工作中的价值。提供了非主要识别标识对DVI工作可能做出的贡献的总结。总之，作者们认为应考虑所有证据线索，因为识别标识的价值将取决于具体情况和受害者群体。针对在DVI场景中使用非主要识别标识，提供了一系列建议供参考。
