Dr. Oliver Stojkovic’s expert evidence in the Popovic et. al. trial on the reliability of prosecution Srebrenica forensic data is significant even though the Chamber chose to ignore it. Significant segments of Stojkovic’s testimony reproduced below are shaded yellow, with side comments. The main issues will easily be sorted out by intelligent readers. One of the principal topics undoubtedly is ICMP’s lack of certification until very late in the game in 2007, after thousands of “DNA identifications of genocide victims” had allegedly been made. The other is the Chamber’s refusal to intervene with an order to hand biological samples over to the defense in order to make proper independent verification of identification results possible.
With respect to certification, applicable professional standards are unambiguously clear. They are reflected, for instance, in FBI’s “DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories” directive (Exhibit 1). It holds as follows: “DNA Advisory Board recognized the need for a mechanism to ensure compliance with the standards. An underlying premise for these discussions was that accreditation would be required to demonstrate compliance with the standards and therefore assure quality control and a quality program. Accordingly, the Board recommends that forensic laboratories performing DNA analysis seek such accreditation with all deliberate speed.” Not only did ICMP perform the bulk of its DNA work without bothering to seek certification, but when it finally did take steps to acquire it that was done grudgingly and incompletely:
“In 2006, when ICMP took the step toward accreditation, only around 30 percent of forensic DNA laboratories in Europe were accredited. Intense efforts led ICMP’s DNA laboratory and matching departments to be accredited in 2007 to ISO-17025 requirements, an international gold standard, with accreditation maintained to the present day. This is just one element of the quality assurance that has resulted in ICMP DNA results being accepted in major international war crimes trials.”
ICMP’s announcement was cleverly formulated to mislead the public. No source is cited for the claim that only 30% of DNA laboratories in Europe are accredited, but even if that were correct the fact that some practitioners in a profession are quacks does not mean that everyone should be allowed to practice without a licence.
The Chamber’s indifference to the quality of key evidence presented for its consideration is evident from the specious grounds it cited for rejecting the defense motion to order independent testing of prosecution’s DNA data (Exhibit 2). The Chamber’s claim that it was powerless to assist the defense because the requested data “is not in the Prosecution’s custody or control” since it is “held by a third party independent from the Prosecution”, meaning ICMP, and therefore “cannot be said to be within the ‘custody or control’ of the Prosecution” is preposterous. The Chamber is fully empowered to order all parties and their agents to produce relevant evidence. In this case it simply chose not to do exercise that power.
Dr Stojkovic evidence 27 June 2008 in Popovic – annotated
Dr Stojkovic evidence 30 June 2008 in Popovic – annotated
Exhibit 1 – DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
Exhibit 2 – Popovic et al Decision on Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 66 B, 2008-10-06
One thought on “Dr. Oliver Stojkovic’s forensic evidence, 27 and 30 June, 2008”