Introduction

Mass disasters with a large number of unknown victims are among the biggest challenges for the police and forensic disciplines. Historical events illustrate the development of different methods which can be used in such circumstances. The fire in the Ring-Theater of Vienna (Austria) in 1881 with 449 victims of which 284 were subsequently identified [1], or the fire in the Bazar de la Charité in Paris (France) with 126 victims in 1897 [2] are examples of the usefulness of identification procedures such as forensic autopsy, odontology, and finger printing. These two disasters from the nineteenth century were the beginning of modern identification processes in legal medicine [2]. In the following years several major accidents, especially after the introduction of regular civil air transportation services, demanded an effective diaster victim identification (DVI) system. Even today the identification of victims of mass disasters is still one of the most important tasks. Forensic experts are involved in different ways depending on the country of residence, and include forensic pathologists, forensic dentists, forensic anthropologists, forensic molecular biologists and other specialists. The organization of the identification process differs from country to country, and within the countries, depending on the historical and political structures and on the kind of disaster. The success of the identification essentially relies on the organization, the experience, and the documentation of findings. The communication between countries or states can be difficult, particularly in cases where victims have different nationalities. Therefore, the solution to such problems should be a standardized process.

The recent natural disaster in Japan, triggered by a massive earth quake, also illustrates the need for standards in cases of radioactive contamination. Nobody has experiences in cases of simultaneous chemical, biological, or radioactive/nuclear (CBRNE) situations and assaults with a large number of contaminated bodies.

Standards

The events following the 2004 tsunami in South East Asia shall serve as an example for the necessity of standards in the Disaster Victim Identification process. During this mass disaster, forensic scientists and police organizations started to develop standards for the identification process based on their practical experiences. The workflow in the Thai Tsunami Victim Identification Centre (TTVIC) was the first example of a multinational body where experts from more than 30 international teams collaborated not only in the post mortem investigations, but also in all subsequent identification processes.

The documentation of the workflow, responsibilities, and other important issues influencing the decision making process have been published in the Tsunami Evaluation Report of Interpol [3]. This report highlights all positive and negative aspects influencing the efficiency of the entire identification process. Interpol, as the largest international police organization with 188 member countries (May 2011), is a good platform to draw appropriate conclusions from these experiences.

The Interpol Standing Committee on DVI developed guidelines for all aspects of the identification process [4]. This committee includes three working groups: forensic odontology, forensic pathology, and police working groups. These working groups have several subgroups as described in Table 1.

Table 1 Subgroups of the working groups
Full size table

Following the current Interpol DVI guidelines [5, 6] the methods for the identification process are classified into two groups: primary and the secondary identification (ID) methods. Forensic odontology, fingerprints and the forensic molecular biology constitute primary ID methods. All other procedures represent secondary ID methods.

The methodological standards reported here were developed particularly over the last few years. For example taking fingerprints, palmprints and footprints from infants is one of the standards [7].

An overview of the standards in forensic pathology, odontology and molecular biology is given in Table 2. The role of the forensic pathologist is multicentric due to the need for pathologists to participate in different parts of the identification process [8]. In addition, the DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) published specific recommendations [9] for DNA laboratories that can also be used as a basis for international cooperation. Subsequently, Lee et al. [10] reported on the adoption of these recommendations in Australia and New Zealand. As shown by Lee et al. [10], there is clearly a need for certain local structures to adopt international recommendations and to be provided with a more detailed guidance to the appropriate DVI responders. This was illustrated by the mortuary operations in the aftermath of the 2009 Victorian bushfires [11]. The recently agreed upon standards of the German DVI Team for forensic molecular genetics [12, 13] are described in Table 2. These standards can be adapted to the circumstances in international cooperation after a final decision of the commission.

Table 2 Overview of recommended standards
Full size table

Conclusion for identification

The collection of ante and post mortem data can lead to a successful result only if these data have been obtained following international standards. The generally agreed upon international [5] and national [12] procedures require an expert report in one of the primary identification methods (DNA, forensic odontology, finger printing) in order to establish identity. This has to be consistent with all of the other information available.

Summary

The identification of victims in cases of mass disasters is one of the most important tasks for forensic pathologists. A number of disaster victim identification (DVI) teams in many countries have been set up over the past several years. This often follows local standards in the process which can cause problems in international cooperation; i.e. it is essential for different national teams to have international standards for a successful identification process. Many steps have been recently carried out regarding these issues. Currently, the Interpol Standing Committee on DVI is working on uniform international standards. The established national standards are reported, many of these originating from the experiences after the 2004 Tsunami.