Methodology and process

The research process to develop the Protocol was motivated by the overarching research question: How can mass graves be protected to safeguard truth and justice for survivors? Both notions of protection and safeguarding point to core practice involving a variety of stakeholders, thus warranting a methodological approach that was multi-disciplinary, inclusive, international and collaborative to facilitate the process of inquiry conducted by and for those working in the field for the benefit of the victims’ families. To facilitate the development and content of the Protocol, the research design ensured that the experience and input of invited expert-participants would be instrumental in shaping internationally relevant and applicable standards. Collaboration with experts included forensic experts, investigators, judges, prosecutors, security personnel/ police, civil society representatives and academics, reflecting both domestic and international experiences of mass grave protection and investigation, expertise in human rights, humanitarian and/or criminal law, as well as geographic diversity. The selection criteria were therefore as follows: • Geographical Representation: to reflect different world regions and cultures in which mass graves following gross human rights violations have occurred. • Disciplinary Expertise: to bring together leading experts from the fields of forensic sciences, criminal investigations, international law, transitional justice and securitisation studies. • Practice/Professional Expertise: to solicit diverse views from those affected, notably survivor groups, as well as NGOs and IOs mandated to work with human rights violations resulting in mass graves and representing victims’ interests. Expert input was sought through the conduct of two consultative roundtable meetings1, and drafts of the Protocol were shared at various stages of their development for further comment. After the first roundtable event and refining of the draft in light of the expert-input, additional feedback and advice was sought via an external consultation process.2 The basis for the collaborative exchange consisted of a briefing document, which canvassed legally-reasoned guidelines following the review of a great number of legal provisions and handbooks, best practices, guidelines, guiding principles and legal principles to ensure nonrepetition of existing materials and appropriate focus.3 Through this careful review of existing materials, a chronological approach emerged whereby the Protocol would reflect the various stages or phases that mass grave protection and investigation would require to fulfil truth seeking and the pursuit of justice (in a broad sense). Further, each of the sections created started with as clear a statement of the law as possible to outline the rights of victims and societies in order to to map them against corresponding State duties. Once the normative basis was set out for each section the practical aspects of how to implement those norms are spelled out. A note on the independence of the project: Funded by the United Kingdom’s Arts & Humanities Research Council and with project partner the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) on board, the independence of the project lies in its academic anchorage. The central purpose of this project was to examine, from an interdisciplinary perspective, theory and practice relating to mass grave protection to produce coherent guidelines and an accompanying academic commentary. It enquires how to progress a real-live, global problem based on careful examination of existing theories, practices and disciplinary paradigms. It does not endorse an activist stance, whether that be human rights activism, advocacy or ‘forensic humanitarianism’, nor does it develop a solely academic inquiry which could lack effective impact. That said, the project was predicated on great confidence in the theoretical contribution practitioners would make and emphatically have made.

1 The first roundtable was held in-person on 23-24 October 2019 in Bournemouth; the second one, due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, was held virtually on 9-10 September 2020. 2 A total of 45 experts were invited to provide comments on a confidential basis. 3 A sample of the materials reviewed now feature in Appendix A of the Protocol. Importantly, the Protocol neither duplicates nor replaces such existing documents on principles and good practice. Additional information on the Protocol and its translations can be found here: www.bournemouth.ac.uk/ research/projects/mass-grave-protection-truth-justice. 4 A guideline (or set of guidelines) is understood to offer principles and criteria to guide and direct practice based on evidence from the literature and experts.

Why a ‘Protocol’?

For much of the project’s lifespan, reference was made to ‘Guidelines’4 as a descriptor for the project endeavour. Other options commonly used to describe documents of a similar nature (though with differing degrees of prescriptiveness for its users) are: • principles; • guiding principles; • protocols; • guidelines; • handbooks; • standards; • good governance. Some such descriptors are suggestive of ‘best practice’, an approach which a number of expert participants cautioned against, for fear of creating inflexible rules that could hamper the admissibility of evidence or weaken aspects of a legal case when it came to court. Others are grounded in or derived from law, make reference to scientific standards or speak to general quality requirements, including on compassion, respect, dignity and honesty. For the purpose of this project and to ensure significance at a policy level whilst avoiding rigidity in stipulations and processes that could be used against reasonable deviation, the descriptor of ‘considerations for good practice’ attracted some approval; though in the end, and with reference to the inspirational Minnesota Protocol and clear affiliation of the project to Bournemouth as a locality, ‘The Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Investigation and Protection’ was agreed. Protocols are akin to a written plan outlining specific procedure to be followed, suggesting more detail than contained in a guideline. To ensure the relevant flexibility and context specificities of every mass grave, the Protocol includes an important proviso:

‘the Protocol provides specific considerations that are intended to support and inform practitioners as they engage with an investigative process in their various capacities, and at all stages. To this end, it should be noted that the considerations contained in this Protocol may not apply in their totality to each investigation. Whilst the Protocol is designed to assist on a universal basis, determination of the applicability of specific aspects of the Protocol should be made by the practitioner on a case-bycase basis. That said, at a minimum level, and subject to means, the investigative and protection standards applied to any situation should be sufficient to fulfil both truth and justice goals, i.e. they should be able to stand up to authoritative scrutiny.’5