Dr Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison is professor at the University Versailles Saint Quentinen-Yvelines, France. He is a court licenced forensic specialist in France and has authored several books on topics related to his profession, including “Le guide des enquêtes décès,” Editeur : Eska, 2011.
His analysis of the ethical tensions faced by pathologists and anthropologists taking part in mass grave exhumations organized by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is noteworthy for its strict professionalism and absence of any political or other bias. Concerning Srebrenica exhumations, its results, and uses, Dr de la Grandmaison makes the following salient points:
The analysis of forensic data from trial transcripts … show[s] discrepancies between forensic findings and facts established by ICTY judgements, relative respectively to death figures and the manner of death of the victims. Concerning the death figures, there was a huge difference concerning the Pilica site between the Erdemović judgement for which 1,200 were killed and the total number of bodies found in the mass graves, 327 cases. Concerning the complete mass grave investigation linked to the Srebrenica massacre, more than 7,000 individuals were killed in July 1995 according to ICTY judgments. But total estimated number of individuals found in the mass graves was 2,553 (2317 male individuals, one female individual and 235 whose gender remained undetermined).
[…]
We must be aware in the same time that forensic contribution shows some limits in spite of its great development in the last years. First, you have legal limits, as forensic data are strongly dependent on the selection of the exhumation sites, selection carried out by the Prosecutor. Second, you have natural limits, including the state of advanced putrefaction. Methodological limits for the collection of evidence may also interfere during mass grave investigation. Lastly, you find technical limits, with the possibility of wrong or improper interpretation of the forensic findings. Mass grave investigation, even perfectly conducted, cannot give an answer to all raised questions in court.
[…]
The trial chamber’s [conclusions] regarding Srebrenica events stretched the meaning of several components of the genocide definition and enabled a wider application of the term “genocide” (Southwick, 2005:188-227). A broad standard of intent was applied: For the court, selective destruction of “a part of a part of a group” constituted genocide. Group was defined as the Muslims of Srebrenica. A figurative interpretation of the term “destroy” was used (Southwick, 2005:188-227). ICTY considered that murder of all military-aged men would have a lasting impact upon the entire group. ICTY asserts that the Bosnian Serbs forces eliminated all likelihood that the community of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica could ever re-establish itself on that territory.
[…]
The qualification of genocide for the Srebrenica events can be challenged at two levels. Regarding truth of adequacy, there are discrepancies between forensic findings and facts established by ICTY judgements, relative respectively to death figures and the manner of death of the victims. The discrepancy relative to death figures can be explained by the fact that there are 43 known Srebrenica related mass graves; only 23 of them had been exhumed by ICTY for the period 1996 to 2001. The others were handed over to the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons working with the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP). ICMP recently claimed it has closed 6,481 cases of Srebrenica victims, but DNA evidence gives no information about the manner and time of death. Such data are only provided by autopsy findings. 3,568 autopsy reports were available for the Srebrenica related trials (Karganović et al., 2011:73-108), but there is an important fact to consider: one report does not equal one body. In 44.4% of the cases, only a body part is involved (Karganović et al., 2011:73-108). Trial transcripts analysis also showed discrepancies concerning the manner of death. According to the review of all these reports by Dr Simić (Karganović et al., 2011:73-108), execution was questionable in a significant number of cases:
-
In about 150 cases, burst-out bone injuries suggesting injuries secondary to Praga anti-aircraft weapon were found. The dimensions of bone damage and the pronounced bone fragmentation were more consistent with the impact of a projectile launched from “Praga” or a similar weapon with the impact of an ordinary bullet. During the Bosnian conflict, such antiaircraft weapon was widely used against ground targets. Shrapnel fragments were found in 477 victims.
-
All these data strongly suggest that all Srebrenica victims were not executed, if we consider legitimate combat casualties suffered by the retreating 28th Division column of the Bosnian Moslem army.
[…]
Even careful post mortem investigations by independent forensic experts are not able to determine with certainty the manner of death of the victims. It was the case for Račak victims in Kosovo, whose autopsies did not clarify the manner of death, between execution and combat, although cause of death was evident for all victims (gunshot wounds) (Rainio, Lalu, Pentillä, 2001:171-85). The forensic experts have to exercise extreme caution and must not hesitate to acknowledge their limitations concerning manner of death, ethnic origin of the victims or the assertion of their civilian status (Lorin de la Grandmaison, 2001:301-4).
Dr de la Grandmaison’s analysis of ICTY’s forensic work and the professional dilemmas faced by its experts is posted below.