Analysis of court of cassation judgments on grave desecration from forensic and legal perspectives

Abstract

Exhumation, intersecting forensic medicine and law, determines cause of death, identity, and resolves legal disputes. Requiring a court order and facing socio-cultural sensitivities, it sparks legal and ethical debates. This study examines its role in legal proceedings. A search on the Turkish Court of Cassation Decision website excluded unclear rulings per anonymization principles. In total, 196 exhumation-related rulings (June 12, 2002–September 24, 2024) were analyzed from a forensic medicine perspective. Of the 196 cases, 72% (n=142) were from Civil Chambers and 28% (n=54) from Criminal Chambers. In civil cases, 56.3% (n=80) reversed due to lack of exhumation, while 17.6% (n=25) did not consider it a deficiency. Rejections were based on witness testimonies or burial site location issues. Exhumation was mostly for paternity claims (64.86%) in civil cases, while the Court of Cassation focused on maternity (60%). In criminal cases, exhumation was primarily for determining cause of death (81.08%), identifying trauma-related deaths in 43.24% (n=16), and decomposition in 21.62% (n=8). Court of Cassation rulings highlight exhumation as a key tool for determining cause of death and verifying familial ties. In cases without autopsy and paternity/maternity disputes, it expedites legal processes. Collaboration between forensic medicine and law is vital in uncovering facts.