Development and future perspectives of a humanitarian forensic programme: the committee on missing persons in Cyprus example

A decade of humanitarian forensics in Cyprus

The inter-communal fighting in 1963–64 and the events of 1974 left Cyprus in disarray and mourning for the missing. The numerous missing persons were an important issue from 1974 onwards. The two communities conducted a series of talks during 1975–77 and negotiated further during 1977–81. The result was the establishment of the CMP in 1981 (United Nations 1981), which became the first committee in Cyprus, jointly run by Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots under United Nations auspices.

The CMP consists of three members: the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities are each represented by a Member appointed by their respective leaders, while the Third Member is nominated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The Committee Members make decisions on the basis of consensus, and the mandate clearly states the CMP’s humanitarian mission (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2015a). One should note that the Committee will never seek or attribute responsibility for the death of a missing person or the circumstances of their death. It will, however, as stated in Article 13, make every effort to compile a comprehensive list regarding each community’s missing persons, specifying, as appropriate, whether they are alive or dead and, in the latter case, the approximate time of death.

After its establishment in 1981, the two communities focused on the investigative part regarding the missing, aiming to compile a common official list of the disappeared. The CMP list was agreed upon in the late 1990s and includes 2001 missing persons (493 Turkish Cypriots and 1508 Greek Cypriots). The leaders of the two communities reached an agreement in 1997 to provide each other immediately and simultaneously all information already at their disposal on the location of graves of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot missing persons (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2015b). This was a significant step forward, enabling the CMP to process the information and prepare accordingly for its operational phase.

In 2004, the Members decided to align with the proposals formulated by the Secretary-General and consider ways to expand the Committee’s scope of activity and responsibility. The first steps taken towards this were decisive; the CMP established a timetable aiming to conclude the remaining investigative work on both sides, while relatives were called to give blood samples for the identification process. These efforts were enhanced by inter-communal meetings with the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), facilitated by the Secretary-General. The aim was to finalise the investigation process and proceed to the exhumation and identification operations. In 2006, the leaders of the two communities met with the UN Secretary-General and the CMP Third Member and reaffirmed their commitment to and support of the work of the Committee (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2006). To that end, the CMP issued an international call for experts and initially partnered with the UK-based forensic organisation INFORCE.

Shortly after, the ICRC proposed that the CMP collaborate with an international organisation that would organize, build and direct the archaeological and anthropological phases of the Project on the Exhumation, Identification, and Return of Remains of Missing Persons. The CMP chose to collaborate with the EAAF, and international forensic experts trained and supervised the scientists until the end of 2007 (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2015c). The team of scientists was officially named “Bi-Communal Forensic Team – BCFT”, and has been known so ever since.

The field operations ran simultaneously with the training and the work carried out at the CMP Anthropological Laboratory (CAL). The excavations and exhumations were conducted all over Cyprus under the supervision of the EAAF experts (Fig. 1) (EAAF 2009). Since 2008, the EAAF has remained a close collaborator with the CMP, serving as a consultant to the project, and the field and lab teams have operated independently since (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2015c).

The antemortem data collection took place after the two conflicts and resulted in a significant amount of information which became a building block of this project, as in other cases of forensic identification programmes (Moyssi et al. 2016). The antemortem data are being enriched further with archival research both locally and abroad.

The very first investigators employed by CMP had first-hand experience of the tragic events, enabling then to empathise more easily with the experiences of the witnesses and the families of the missing. The current, much younger investigators have contributed equally and have been directly facing the problem of the witnesses dying out. In all cases, teams of investigators process the information and visit possible burial sites with the archaeologists and, when possible, the witnesses. This gives the archaeologists the chance to contextualise and clarify everything prior to an excavation.

On-site discussions amongst investigators, scientists and witnesses have proven to be valuable from early on because the archaeologists must assess and draw on the information as to plan the excavation. In 2006, the first archaeological field team began its operations and established that the possible burial sites were more complex than initially thought to be. Each site was different in terms of terrain, location, accessibility, and many more variables which affected the overall operations and the time needed to complete them (Fig. 2). Early excavations demonstrated a discrepancy between the expected exhumation rates and the accuracy of the provided information, which was resolved by hiring more staff and creating more field teams (Fig 3). Each team was composed of two Turkish Cypriot and two Greek Cypriot archaeologists, with one archaeologist acting as Team Leader, along with a heavy equipment operator. The teams were initially coordinated by an EAAF expert; since 2009, they have been coordinated by a Field Coordinator from each community and a Turkish Cypriot Deputy Coordinator since 2016. Currently, there are nine teams, seven operating in the north and two in the south.

The variables previously mentioned persist in all cases, since forensic archaeological excavations are conducted in unconventional environments. These environments became a standard in the CMP archaeological operations, and consequentlytraditional archaeological methods were applied and creatively employed to tackle problems and to address complex excavations, such as those of deep wells (Çeker and Stevens 2015), exhumations of commingled remains and so forth.

The systematization employed by the field teams reduced the contamination across an excavation (Crist 2001) and allowed the collection of contextual information (Dirkmaat and Adovasio 1997), as it is a critical aspect during exhumations (Moyssi et al. 2016). After a comparison between the early and recent field operations, it was evident that the archaeologists were able to overcome any difficulties and complexities during an excavation. The island-wide operations have always been regulated by strict guidelines that adhere to international practices, as reflected in the Field Standard Operating Protocols (SOP). From the initial training under the guidance of the EAAF, the archaeologists have developed consistently and have now reached the desired level of internal capacity which is also reflected in their professional development (Figs. 1, 3).

From this decade of field operations, the archaeologists have excavated and recorded a large number of sites that have produced an equally large amount of data. The exhumations themselves have provided the CMP with crucial data on burial patterns, which have been uploaded on a GIS database and are combined with archival and witness information in order to locate more possible burial sites. Furthermore, the CMP intends to integrate the inspection of possible burial sites during excavations with geophysical methods (e.g. ground-penetrating radar, metal detectors) to provide the archaeologists with a more accurate image of each site and increase the success rate (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2017a, 2017b).

The great variability and complexity of forensic archaeological sites remains a key factor in adapting and developing the field SOP further. The standard archaeological stages in a CMP forensic excavation have now been consolidated into the following six: a) site risk assessment and preparation of a health and safety plan by the Health & Safety Coordinator, b) initial documentation of the site, c) intensive pedestrian survey (when the terrain permits it), d) controlled mechanical-aided excavation, e) exhumation (when human remains are encountered), and f) restoration of the area to its prior state. It has previously stressed how landscape alterations affect both the investigation and the archaeological phases (Ktori et al. 2016), as well as the methodical work followed to establish the biogeographical context (Haglund and Sorg 2002). The overall discipline that characterises the field teams is demonstrated through their work in cases of mass graves, complex well excavations (Çeker and Stevens 2015),⁴⁶ and the establishment of new excavation methods (Ktori et al. 2016 (Fig. 2).

In 2006, a small number of anthropologists were employed by the CMP to form its forensic anthropological team. They had participated in the early field operations and began analysing skeletal remains as soon as the CAL was established. Between 2006 and 2008, the anthropological team was coordinated by an EAAF expert, and in 2008–2011 by a CMP anthropologist. In 2011 and 2012, more staff was hired and divided into two anthropological teams that perform simultaneous analyses, resulting in an immediate increase in analytical capacity. Since 2012, there have been two coordinators at the CAL, one from each respective community (Fig. 3).

The CAL has four main functions: a) to receive the remains exhumed during the field operations, b) to conduct forensic anthropological analyses on the human remains and the material evidence, c) to recommend the identification of an individual via the Identification Coordinator in conjunction with the CAL Genetics Unit to the CMP Members, and d) to return the identified remains to the family of the missing person via the respective CMP Member’s office.

Between 2006 and 2008, the anthropologists were trained by the EAAF coordinator in a variety of cases, ranging from remains recovered in an anatomical position to the reconstruction of commingled remains and remains from mass burials (Fig. 4). Skeletal remains are analysed to establish the physical characteristics, and, along with dental remains, they are used to determine an individual’s biological profile. The anthropologists are always working in blind analysis to maximize impartiality and reduce confirmation bias in the tests conducted.

The anthropologists follows international standards for the analysis of skeletal remains (Byer 2005), which are communicated in the SOPs. Everything is checked, chain of custody forms are signed, and the CMP photographer takes the laboratory entry photographs. Then, the remains and artefacts are packed, labelled, and identified with a location on a printed plan of the storage facility until analysis.

Once the anthropological and genetic analyses are concluded, the CMP enters the reconciliation stage. In this sixth stage of the identification process, a team of scientists representing all involved disciplines (the archaeologist responsible for the archaeological report, the anthropologist who analysed the case, the geneticist, and the laboratory coordinator) convene to discuss the findings. The team reviews all the data related to the case: the antemortem data, the witness and archival information, the archaeological report, and the anthropological and DNA analysis results. Since 2012, the reconciliation meetings have been supervised by the Identification Coordinator, who examines and ensures that all protocols were followed in every identification stage and that the evidence on the missing person’s identity is conclusive (Fig. 5).

1. g)

   Return and burial of the remains

    

Once the reconciliation stage concludes successfully, only then does the CMP proceed to the final stage, where a psychologist informs the family of the missing regarding the outcome. The family is invited to the CAL, where a team of scientists present the findings to the relatives and explain each stage of the process that led to the identification. The affected relatives are always supported by a psychologist throughout the identification process, especially during the viewings, as it affects them considerably (Moyssi et al. 2016). The psychological support provided to the relatives and the active participation of the CMP scientists until the release of the remains can be considered an integrated system that meets the needs of a humanitarian investigation and the affected families, a critical element that exists in other international examples (Keough et al. 2004).

The CMP’s public outreach efforts

In 2010, the CMP produced a short film entitled Digging for a Future, in which the scientists speak about their work and are filmed during its various phases (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2010). This was the first act of public outreach since the beginning of the programme. Considering its humanitarian nature and the questions which had been raised on various aspects, the CMP proceeded with the necessary sensitivity to address the matter. In April 2014, the CMP held an all-day event entitled “Searching for our Missing”. This was the first time the scientists had the opportunity to interact with the public and the relatives of the missing. The event allowed the public to familiarise themselves with the CMP itself and the identification process. Most importantly, they were introduced to the group of Cypriot scientists who had been working tirelessly to provide them with the answers they had been seeking since the 1960s and 1970s.

The CMP has also participated in the Europe Day Festival since 2014, where the scientists have successfully presented the CMP project and actively engaged with the public. Furthermore, the CMP Members have increased their efforts to raise awareness in the European Parliament and the European Commission. The culmination of these efforts was the hosting of the CMP exhibition “Beneath the Carob Trees: The Lost Lives of Cyprus” in 2016 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York with the Secretary-General, at the European Parliament in Brussels with the Presidents of the European Parliament and Commission, and at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva with the Director-General of the United Nations Office in Geneva and the President of the ICRC. On all three occasions, the photo exhibition was combined with the launch of a book of the same name as a means of reaching a greater number of diplomats, parliamentarians, humanitarians and other people who can support this humanitarian cause.

The recognition of the CMP as a model organisation led to the formation of a successful partnership with the ICRC. In 2013, the CMP became a training and study centre for scientists and stakeholders, providing specialised practical training to more than 30 scientists from the Middle East. The strong bonds between the CMP and the ICRC, as well as the EAAF, led to the formal memoranda of understanding amongst these organisations in early 2017 (Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus 2017a, 2017b). The CMP has also provided internship opportunities since 2012. The interns have the opportunity to train at the lab or field, or a combination of both, as a means of gaining practical experience in applied Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology. Of course, nothing would have been realised without the continuous support of our donors, particularly the European Union, which has funded the programme generously from its inception until today (Fig. 6). Without their financial support, the CMP would be unable to alleviate the pain of many Cypriot families who have spent decades enduring uncertainty over the fate of their loved ones or to assist the reconciliation process between the two communities.