Demonstrates strategies for applying humanitarian principles to enhance forensic investigations in Indigenous communities, indicating a need for systemic change.
Despite growing public awareness and political attention, the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit People (MMIWG2+) in Canada and the United States remains unresolved. Indigenous families continue to report that the disappearances and deaths of their loved ones are investigated inadequately and without sensitivity. While national inquiries and initiatives have acknowledged systemic failures, current medico-legal death investigation practices continue to reflect colonial frameworks that often exclude Indigenous values, needs, and collaboration. Humanitarian-forensic literature emphasizes the importance of building relationships with impacted communities and developing investigative practices and goals that reflect each context. Although well-established internationally, these humanitarian-forensic principles are often not applied in the investigation of Indigenous deaths in North America. This research used in-depth interviews and surveys to ask humanitarian-forensic professionals if their investigative principles are applicable and what strategies they recommend for Canadian and United States investigators to better assist Indigenous families. Through an inductive thematic analysis, the results reveal an agreement among professionals that humanitarian principles centered on providing dignity for the living and dead can apply. Participants provided strategies to adopt these principles which aligned with three primary themes: (1) community engagement, (2) reaffirming the living in investigative priorities, and (3) political will and existing supports. This paper provides a practical and ethical framework for adapting forensic practices to better serve culturally diverse populations. The research underscores the vital role humanitarian-forensic principles can have in advancing equitable, community-centered approaches to death investigation that uphold both scientific standards and human rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
King et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: