Asian Human Rights Commission

(Ed. note: The following statement was released on May 20, 2005, after a consultation with a group of forensic and legal experts from eight countries in Asia.)

From May 12 to 14, 2005, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) held a consultation in Hong Kong with a group of forensic and legal professionals to discuss the interplay between forensic science and human rights. The participants examined how improved institutions and procedures for forensic investigations are essential to the rule of law and thus to give effective redress for victims of human rights violations.

The participants agreed that the extent to which forensic science is used in criminal investigations has a direct bearing on the scale of human rights violations throughout Asia, particularly torture. Torture is the most common method of criminal investigation for police in Asia. Even in those countries that have ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which also absolutely prohibits torture, it is still widespread. However, in the few territories of Asia where forensic science is a key part of criminal investigations, such as South Korea and Hong Kong, torture is now rarely used and is usually detected and punished.

To deny the use of forensic science in criminal investigations itself amounts to a serious human rights violation as it permits the continuation of flawed and violent methods of policing and the attendant abuses. If the perpetrator of a crime or a gross abuse of human rights is not detected for want of proper forensic analysis - either inadvertently or deliberately - the victim is bereft of an avenue through which to pursue a remedy. Where effective remedies are not forthcoming, crime and rights abuses are further encouraged. Thus, any state that is serious about preventing crime and protecting human rights is obliged to improve the quality of criminal investigations, which means using forensic science expertise extensively.

The participants stressed that the role of forensic experts in criminal investigations throughout Asia is usually limited because of vast powers held by the police. In most countries, the police control all areas of criminal investigation while in a few the public prosecutor shares power. In many nations, the law has not described the role of forensic professionals in detail; in most, their presence in criminal investigations is not obligatory. The result is that the police or prosecutors use forensic experts very little. Unless systemic changes are made to expand the role of forensic professionals and delimit the power of the police over criminal investigations, this situation is unlikely to change.
 
The shortage of forensic professionals in most parts of Asia is another serious concern. Even in a more developed country like Thailand, for instance, there are only five forensic pathologists. Nowhere are there enough qualified persons available to afford proper services to the public. As a consequence, many suspicious deaths are not properly investigated. Murders and extrajudicial killings may go undetected or be deliberately concealed in the absence of the necessary staff. It follows that increasing the number of forensic experts is a key challenge.

Obstacles to the wider use of forensic science in criminal investigations must be understood as obstacles to the protection of human rights and must be taken up by governments and the public in these terms. Participants in the discussion noted that in territories where forensic science has become an integral part of criminal investigations it has been due largely to the presence of people who have dared to speak out. Where for reasons of repression or otherwise people do not talk openly, bad criminal investigations and human rights abuses persist.
 
Forensic specialists should themselves play a much more active role in influencing public opinion towards change. They must talk to people more directly and make them aware of the benefits when independent forensic science facilities are available. They must use the media and other channels for far-reaching communication, both as educators and reformers. As they are in a better position than others to inform the state and the public on the manner in which criminal investigations can be improved through the use of forensic science, they should take advantage of this position to speak with authority and influence.

Human rights defenders have a responsibility to mediate and expand contact between forensic experts and the public. To play this role, they must learn more about the obstacles to forensic science becoming an integral part of criminal investigations and what this means for their own work. Where human rights groups limit talk to generalities and avoid going into the details of how to apply theories and instruments of human rights, they are unlikely to effect any significant change in the complex relations that permit continued abuses in most parts of Asia. For its part, the AHRC will pursue and deepen discussion on the relationship between forensic science and human rights and is committed to sharing it with a larger audience throughout this region.