Unidentified Bodies, the Right to Identity and the Duty of the State: What Nepal Must Learn from the Chitwan Case

Lucky Chand

The management of unidentified bodies that reached Chitwan through the Trishuli and Narayani rivers after the devastating Bhotekoshi disaster has raised a fundamental question about Nepal’s disaster-response system. The issue is not simply whether bodies may be buried. It is whether the state exhausted every available scientific, legal and humanitarian method of identification before burial, or shortened that process because morgues and other facilities were overwhelmed.

Modern science can recover genetic material from human remains thousands of years old. Ancient remains from Mustang and other Himalayan areas have yielded genetic information, and ancient Egyptian remains have also produced usable DNA. In Spain, genetic material recovered from human remains more than 400,000 years old contributed to important findings about human evolution. So the question is not whether DNA can later be obtained from bodies only days or weeks old.

But that fact cannot justify hurried burial.

DNA is valuable, but it does not replace evidence available today. Faces, fingerprints, teeth, surgical history, skeletal features, scars, tattoos, clothing, jewellery, watches, mobile phones, identity documents and personal belongings may all contribute to identification. As decomposition advances, many of these opportunities weaken or disappear.

International practice is clear. INTERPOL’s Disaster Victim Identification system treats the deceased not as anonymous bodies, but as individuals whose identities must be restored. The three principal scientific identifiers are fingerprints, dental records and DNA. Medical history, implanted devices, skeletal characteristics, clothing, jewellery, photographs and other personal details provide supporting evidence.

After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Thailand used a systematic multi-layered process to identify thousands of domestic and foreign victims. Each body received a unique number. Photographs, fingerprints, dental examinations and DNA samples were collected and compared with information provided by families and authorities. Some victims were identified months or years later.

Japan followed a similar approach after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Unidentified bodies were linked to refrigerated storage, detailed records, dental information, fingerprints and family DNA. Identification was treated not merely as a technical matter, but as part of the state’s duty to protect dignity, family rights and legal identity.

By contrast, disasters in which bodies were buried without adequate records have created long-term problems involving identity, inheritance, insurance, legal status and families’ ability to complete the grieving process. Modern international practice therefore treats burial of unidentified bodies, when unavoidable, as a temporary and traceable measure that must allow later exhumation.

The belief that disaster victims automatically cause epidemics also requires scientific correction. The World Health Organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian bodies have repeatedly stated that people who die from floods, landslides, earthquakes, drowning or traumatic injuries generally do not create a major epidemic risk for the public.

Exceptions exist when death results from certain highly infectious diseases, when bodies contaminate drinking water, or when workers handling bodies face occupational exposure. This does not mean bodies should be left exposed. Heat, humidity and water accelerate decomposition, create odour, make identification harder and increase occupational risks.

But rapid management and rapid burial are not the same thing.

International practice places refrigeration first. When normal morgues are overwhelmed, refrigerated cargo containers, temporary refrigerated mortuaries or other temperature-controlled systems can be used. Only when such capacity is unavailable or exhausted should properly documented temporary burial become necessary.

What should the government have done?

As soon as large numbers of bodies began reaching Chitwan, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority should have activated a dedicated national mechanism for mass-fatality management and disaster victim identification, involving forensic doctors, Nepal Police, health authorities and local administration.

The first priority should have been to expand preservation capacity, not immediately search for burial land. If public hospital morgues were insufficient, authorities could have mobilised private hospitals, refrigerated containers used by food and pharmaceutical companies, private cold-storage facilities and other temperature-controlled systems. If necessary, Nepal could have requested mobile mortuaries, refrigerated containers, forensic equipment and specialist teams from India, China, Japan or other friendly countries.

International disaster assistance should not be understood only as rice, tents and medicines. Technology for preserving the dead and restoring their identities is also humanitarian assistance.

Every body or human remain should receive a unique identification number from the moment of recovery. The place, date and time of recovery, the people who recovered it and, where possible, the geographical coordinates should be recorded. Photographs should be taken from multiple angles. Every object found with the body should remain linked to the same number.

This chain of identification must remain intact from the disaster site or riverbank to the morgue, laboratory, storage facility, burial site and ultimately the family.

Fingerprints should be taken wherever possible before decomposition makes recovery difficult. Nepal now has expanding biometric infrastructure through the National Identity Card system and other official databases. Subject to proper legal safeguards, a special mechanism could compare fingerprints from unidentified bodies with relevant government records.

Dental examination is equally important. Fillings, crowns, dentures, missing teeth, orthodontic work and distinctive jaw structures can sometimes identify victims faster and more cheaply than DNA.

DNA samples must also be collected under strict forensic procedures and permanently linked to the body’s identification number. But DNA should be treated as a powerful safeguard, not as a reason to postpone other identification work.

Families must be placed at the centre of the process. Modern disaster victim identification collects not only post-mortem evidence from the dead, but also ante-mortem information about missing persons. Families should be asked for recent photographs, age, height, dental history, injuries, surgeries, distinctive marks, clothing, mobile numbers, identity documents and other details. DNA from close relatives can then be collected for comparison where necessary.

Dedicated family assistance centres should have been established in Chitwan, Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Kathmandu. Families should not have to run from hospitals to police stations and morgues searching for information. One integrated system should register the missing person, issue a case number, collect family DNA where needed and provide updates on identification.

Where foreign nationals are missing, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should coordinate directly with the relevant embassies. Passport photographs, fingerprints where legally available, dental and medical records and family DNA can be requested. Nepal can also seek support from INTERPOL and international disaster victim identification mechanisms.

If burial becomes unavoidable because morgues and temporary refrigerated facilities are exhausted and bodies are deteriorating rapidly, temporary burial can still be legitimate and humane. But strict procedures must apply.

Every body must retain a unique identification number. Photographs, fingerprints, dental information, DNA samples, clothing and personal belongings must be documented. The exact burial location should be recorded through maps and geographical coordinates. Bodies should, as far as possible, remain individually distinguishable, and future exhumation must remain practical. Burial sites must also be selected with attention to drinking-water sources, flood risk and geological conditions.

A scientifically documented and traceable temporary burial can therefore conform to international humanitarian practice. An anonymous mass burial that destroys future identification possibilities does not.

The deeper failure is not burial alone. Nepal is a country exposed to earthquakes, floods, landslides, aviation accidents and other mass-casualty events. Yet the country still lacks sufficient surge capacity to manage hundreds of bodies with dignity and scientific precision.

Every province should have access to mobile mortuary facilities, refrigerated containers, body bags, fingerprint recovery equipment, portable dental imaging systems, DNA sampling kits and trained disaster victim identification teams. A hospital’s ordinary morgue capacity cannot be treated as a national mass-fatality system. Disaster planning must assume that five, ten or twenty times the normal number of bodies may arrive within a short period.

Nepal Police, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority and local governments should maintain a joint mass-fatality management system and conduct regular exercises. The legal framework should also clarify when and how national identity, passport, police and health records may be used for disaster identification while protecting privacy.

Even after burial, the state’s responsibility continues. Authorities should ensure that every unidentified person already buried has a preserved identification number, DNA sample, photographs, personal belongings, post-mortem information and precise burial location in a secure national record. That record should be independently audited.

Every missing person should be entered into one national database. Family DNA collection should be organised systematically. Fingerprint comparison with government biometric records should begin where legally and technically possible. For foreign nationals, joint identification mechanisms should be established with relevant embassies.

Nepal should then revise its national policy on mass-fatality management and disaster victim identification in line with international standards, covering the entire process from recovery to identification and return to the family.

Most importantly, management of the dead should no longer be treated merely as a hospital-morgue issue or a local burial problem. It is a matter of human rights, justice, national records, family rights, public trust and state dignity.

In an age when science can recover DNA from human remains thousands, and in exceptional cases hundreds of thousands, of years old, saying that fresh bodies can simply be buried because “DNA can be tested later” is inadequate.

DNA is a future safeguard. It is not permission to abandon identification opportunities available today.

The correct sequence should be clear: maximum possible identification first, complete scientific documentation second, refrigerated preservation third, and only when those options are exhausted, traceable temporary burial.

The state should also avoid unnecessary public fear by suggesting that bodies from natural disasters automatically cause epidemics. The public deserves a scientifically accurate explanation: bodies are decomposing rapidly, storage capacity is limited, occupational precautions are necessary, and every possible form of evidence is being preserved so that each deceased person can still be identified and returned to the family.

Restoring a name to the dead is not merely a forensic task. It affects inheritance, insurance, marital status, property, legal death certification and the right to perform final religious and cultural rites. It is also a measure of how a civilised state treats its citizens after death.

Saving the living is the state’s first duty in a disaster.

Identifying those who could not be saved, preserving their dignity and returning them to their families is its final duty.

Bodies may remain unidentified for a time. The state’s system must never become abandoned with them.