Last month the Home Office revealed that 2,324,879 recorded criminals (40 percent) in England and Wales did not actually have a DNA sample held on the NDNAD. At the same time, the Home Office reported that 857,366 innocent individuals’ profiles are currently held on the NDNAD.

Liberty’s Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This is one of the most strongly worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. That Court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British Government has shamefully failed to deliver.”

The Home Office is expected to hold a consultation about the retention of DNA following today’s judgment. The judgment would not have affected the outcome of any of the recent, high profile, convictions where DNA evidence has been a significant factor.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough said:

“Forty percent of Britain’s criminals are not on this database, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. Sweeping up the innocent with the guilty does not help fight crime. The Court of Human Rights has protected the privacy of British people so poorly let down by our own government.”

Key passages of Grand Chamber Judgment of S and Marper v the United Kingdom include:

● The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed.

● The Court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmatization, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who had not been convicted of any offense and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons. It was true that the retention of the applicants’ private data could not be equated with the voicing of suspicions. Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data were retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offense were required to be destroyed.

● It observed that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private life interests. Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.

●In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8.1 of the Convention.

Notes to Editors

Background on S and Marper v United Kingdom

1. Liberty agrees that a DNA database can be a valuable crime detection tool. However, repeated legislative changes have rolled out retention policy by stealth so that anyone arrested for even very minor offences can have their DNA held for the rest of their life, even if they have been mistakenly arrested. DNA is relevant only to a small number of serious offenses, mainly involving sexual assault or violence. Liberty believes that the correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned of these types of serious offense. This approach is the one adopted by nearly every EU and other comparable state.

2. S & Marper v United Kingdom, heard in the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2008, establishes if the automatic retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints from those who are not convicted of any offense is a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government has repeatedly said it has no plans to create a universal database because it does not think the population is ready for the civil liberties implications of that. Liberty believes that the present arbitrary basis on which the database is built is both unsustainable and unjustifiable.

3. S & Marper concerns the legality of amendments to s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enable the police to retain bodily samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a recordable offense, whether or not they are charged, prosecuted or convicted. Virtually all offenses (except the most trivial) are recordable. Current Government policy is to retain this information, including DNA on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), until the individual dies or reaches 100 years old. Samples, profiles and fingerprints can be destroyed on request in exceptional circumstances.

Facts

S was arrested in January 2001 when he was an 11 year old boy. He has no previous convictions, cautions or warnings. He was charged with the offence of attempted robbery and his fingerprints and samples were taken. Following a trial on 14.6.01 S was acquitted. He subsequently sought through his solicitors the destruction of his samples and fingerprints, but the police refused because of the legislative amendments referred to above (which came into force with retrospective effect on 11.5.01).

Marper was 38 when he was arrested in March 2001. He had no previous convictions. He was charged with harassment of his partner and his fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. By the time of a pre-trial review in May 2001 he had reconciled with his partner who no longer wished to press charges. The proceedings were discontinued. The police refused his request for the destruction of his samples and fingerprints.

European Court of Human Rights

S & Marper applied to the ECtHR to raise the following legal questions:

1.Is there any justification for keeping the original bodily samples from which DNA profiles are generated? Whilst the profiles reveal a limited amount of information about an individual, the samples contain that person’s complete genetic makeup and to retain them requires a very strong justification which the government has not supplied. The government says the samples are needed for quality control purposes and in case it might need to upgrade the database in future. Liberty does not accept this. A future upgrade of the database is a hypothetical possibility which does not justify retention of the samples now. It is likely that the database will soon be so large that an upgrade of the all the profiles is in any event an unrealistic option.

2. Is there sufficient justification for keeping DNA profiles from those not convicted of any offense? Although the profiles (a numerical representation of part of a person’s DNA) may be difficult to decipher to the untrained eye, there are a number of major privacy issues that arise from their retention on the database.

a)  Research is carried out on the database without the consent of those whose profiles are on it. This is only supposed to be for the ‘prevention or detection of crime’ but that is interpreted very broadly so that research into ethnicity for example would be acceptable provided it can be loosely associated with crime prevention or detection.

b)  The NDNAD has an electronic link to the Police National Computer to enable the police to use it for intelligence purposes. The PNC is accessible from over 120,000 terminals in the UK, including non-police bodies. Previously, records held on the PNC were ‘weeded’ so that if you were acquitted or no proceedings were brought, the PNC record would be removed after around 40 days. Now, because of the link between the NDNAD and the PNC and because DNA profiles are kept until death/age 100, the PNC records are also kept. As a solution to the legal implications of this, the police propose to mask some of the information from ‘non-police users’ of the PNC but the system is not yet fully operational. Further, the Information Commissioner (ICO) considers that for the police to keep all this information even for themselves breaches the Data Protection Act 1998.

3. Britain’s DNA database is proportionately the largest in the world. Approximately 4.5 million people have their DNA permanently retained on the NDNAD.

Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are currently retained

The men’s information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offense. The judgment could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK’s national database. The judges said keeping the information “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was “disappointed” by the European Court of Human Rights’ decision. The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgment by 17 senior judges from across Europe.

Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recorded offense in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

Discriminatory

The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.

Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid. The court found that the police’s actions were in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life – of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also said it was “struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales”.

The judges ruled the retention of the men’s DNA “failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests,” and that the UK government “had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard”. The court also ruled “the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

‘Privacy protection’

The home secretary said: “DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month. “The government mounted a robust defense before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice. “The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment.”

Solicitor Peter Mahy, who represented the men, said that the decision will have far-reaching implications. “It will be very interesting to see how the UK government respond. “The government should now start destroying the DNA records of those people who are currently on the DNA database and who are innocent of any crime.”

Human rights group Liberty said it welcomed the court’s decision. Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. “That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver.”

‘Invasion of privacy’

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, which campaigns against identity cards, said: “‘This is a victory for liberty and privacy. “Though these judgments are always complicated and slow in coming, it is a vindication of what privacy campaigners have said all along. “The principle that we need to follow is simple – when charges are dropped suspect samples are destroyed. No charge, no DNA.”

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports on the ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research. Its director, Hugh Whittall, said: “We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police. “People feel it is an invasion of their privacy, and there is no evidence that removing from the DNA database people who have not been charged or convicted will lead to serious crimes going undetected.
“The government now has an obligation to bring its own policies into line.”

Rights breach claim

One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions. The other man – a teenager identified as “S” – was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.

In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody. The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.

They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life. The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offenses, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.

Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offenses.

The Home Office has already set up a “contingency planning group” to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favor of the men.

By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2511536/Police-chief-calls-for-universal-DNA-database.html

Stephen House, Chief Constable of Strathclyde, said that storing the genetic profiles of every man, woman and child would help catch more criminals.

He also called for Scotland to adopt the English DNA system that allows the profiles of suspects to be kept even if they are not charged with any wrongdoing.

Police in Scotland have to destroy the DNA records of innocent people but can keep samples of those accused of sexual or violent crimes for three years.

There are around 4.2 million DNA profiles stored in England, which has the biggest genetic database in the world.

However, a government inquiry recommended last week that one million of these should be destroyed because they came from people who had never been convicted.

Increasing DNA databases north or south of the border would also be strongly opposed by human rights groups and by many politicians. In Scotland, the database currently holds the genetic profiles of around 200,000 Scots.

Mr House said he was pressing minister adopt the English system, and used the case of the murdered teenager Sally Anne Bowman to support his case.

Her killer was caught by the Metropolitan Police largely through a DNA sample collected after an unrelated incident that was already in the system.

He added: “In Scotland the chances are that the DNA would be destroyed but in England it wasn’t, it was put on the database and matched. There are numerous examples of where that has happened.

“An even more complete system is to say we will go the whole hog. Forget criminality, we’ll take DNA from everyone in the country.

“If the public and the government decide they want to do it, you would do it gradually.

“One of the ways to do it is that you would say all newborn children would have DNA recorded and when you apply for a driver’s license your DNA would be taken and gradually over the years would start to develop a 100 per cent database. Would it deter people? That’s less certain, but we would detect more crime.”

Last year, a senior judge called for the entire UK population, and every visitor to Britain to be put on the DNA database.

Lord Justice Sedley, one of England’s most experienced appeal court judges, described the country’s current system as “indefensible”.

However, any move towards a national database would meet with fierce opposition. Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems, has described the British public as the most “spied upon on the planet”.

The organization Liberty said a database of every man, woman and child in the country was a “chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse”.

And the human rights lawyer John Scott said yesterday that the plan would “disturb the balance between the state and the individual”.

He added: “At a time when people are calling for the English system to be closer to our own, we shouldn’t be going in the opposite direction.

“We could get a situation where outside bodies like insurance firms manage to get hold of DNA from innocent people and use it for their own purposes.”

The issue is being reviewed for the Scottish Executive by Prof James Fraser of Strathclyde University’s center for forensic science.

Simon Davies, of the human rights watchdog organization Privacy International, said the Strathclyde force had a history of “obsession with DNA collection” and it was time it was “reined in”.

He added: “It was Strathclyde that proposed many years ago mandatory DNA collection for even minor offences. What it is proposing is a step too far.”

President Bush on April 24, 2008, signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”

The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here.

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of population wide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.

• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.

• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

“Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research,” Brase writes. “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research.”

“The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.”

In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens’ Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called “DNA Warehouse” from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.

DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns’ DNA is already being collected.

In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.

Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:

“I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.”

Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, “S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”

“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Paul continued.

“In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency,” he concluded.

Senators Clinton has been very vocal and supportive of the passing of this bill. Senators John McCain and Obama also voted in favor.

Source: Infowars.net
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/? p=1896
Published: May 2, 2008
Author: Steve Watson

Chertoff was in Canada discussing the Bush administration’s push for stricter identity systems including the so-called “Server in the Sky” program to share fingerprint databases among the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia.

When asked about concerns some critics are raising over the privacy aspects of sharing that kind of data, among four countries, Chertoff replied, “Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.”

But then Chertoff praises the idea of taking DNA samples from US citizens prior to a conviction, and from foreign citizens detained at the border for further scrutiny. They can’t be used for categorizing or for genetic profiling of people it is said.

Jennifer Stoddart, the Canadian official in charge of privacy issues letter:

Letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

April 11, 2008

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, sent the following letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, regarding her concern about remarks made by the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security suggesting fingerprints are not “personal data”.

The Honourable Stockwell Day, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
Public Safety Canada
Room: 19A-7400
269 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1A 0P8

Dear Minister,

I am writing to express my concern about remarks U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff made yesterday while in Ottawa, suggesting fingerprints are not “personal data”.

As you know, Canadian privacy legislation defines fingerprints as personal information. In Canada, we have traditionally taken a more restrained approach to the collection of fingerprints, largely restricted to cases where individuals are charged with or convicted of certain criminal behaviour.

In contrast, the U.S. has increasingly relied upon the collection of biometric data, including fingerprints, from a broad range of individuals for border control purposes and in order to identify and track suspected terrorists. Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy. Canadian courts have held that, absent lawful authority, compelling persons to provide fingerprints may violate their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

No one doubts the need to strengthen information-sharing among nations. We all share a common goal of ensuring our national security. However, as Privacy Commissioner, I strongly urge the Government of Canada to ensure that the privacy rights of individuals are respected and protected at all times.

Canadians rightly expect their government to respect their civil liberties and safeguard their personal information from abuse. The challenge lies in finding the balance between the protection of civil liberties and the need for national security.

As Privacy Commissioner, I certainly expect to be consulted if the Government of Canada is considering new programs to share biometric information – or any personal information – with foreign governments.

I expect your assurance that adequate oversight and control mechanisms are built into the collection, use and safeguarding of personal information that may be shared with other governments, and I expect the opportunity to review these mechanisms.

I know that our respective staffs have built a solid working relationship in matters of security and privacy, and expect that the concerns identified above will be addressed as programs are expanded or new programs are considered.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Jennifer Stoddart
Privacy Commissioner of Canada

original link:
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2008/let_080411_e.asp

Top Stories


My StumbleUpon Page

Supporters of the new measures say the expanded database will help prevent crime, but civil rights groups have expressed privacy concerns. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.

It is being erroneously reported that thirteen states have implemented similar laws and that these laws have been upheld in court. Thirteen states have implemented laws, and in November 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did rule that all convicted federal felons must provide DNA samples to a federal database available to police departments throughout the country. In 2005, the Third Circuit ruled that a convicted bank robber had to submit DNA samples to CODIS. Also a New Jersey state appeals court upheld a comparable state law in 2005. Notice the term “convicted”

Justice Department

About 1.2 million additional people could be added to the FBI’s Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) every year under the expansion. Erik Ablin, Justice Department spokesman, said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders. People who are not convicted can request the destruction of their DNA samples.

American Civil Liberties Union

The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Now innocent people’s DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime,” McCurdy said.

Thirteen States

The thirteen states which have enacted DNA laws are Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Homeland Security?

The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with policing immigration — supports the new rule. “DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.
The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.

Micheal Chertoff needs to stay home
Homeland Security Secretary is headed by Michael Chertoff, who was recently in Canada discussing the Bush administration’s push to create stricter identity systems including the so-called “Server in the Sky” program to share fingerprint databases among the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia.
When asked about concerns some critics are raising over the privacy aspects of sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing. Secretary Chertoff replied, “Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.”
Chertoff’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from Jennifer Stoddart, the Canadian official in charge of privacy issues. “Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy”.

Home of the FREE

There have been numerous questions raised about how this Administration is treating our personal information. Secretary Chertoff’s comments show a new reason to worry — they don’t think it’s “personal” at all. I wonder if they see DNA the same.

DO SOMETHING OR DO NOTHING
The law will soon be published in the Federal Register and will then be subject to a 30-day comment period.

On the Net:
State Laws on DNA Data Banks:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/dnadatabanks.htm

http://www.dnaresource.com/documents/2008DNAExpansionLegislation.pdf

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — The 600 skeletons are packed into fruit cartons and stacked on shelves in the walk-in closet of a forensic lab, in the dim glow of a single bare light bulb. They are “Skeleton No. 4″ or “Skeleton No. 21,” and nothing more.

But a quarter-century after Argentina’s dictatorship and “dirty war” against its own citizens ended, DNA technology raises the possibility of finally learning the identities of these skeletons in the closet, collected from mostly unmarked graves across Argentina.

Funded by U.S. taxpayers, anthropologists have launched an ambitious campaign, drawing on techniques pioneered in Bosnia and at New York’s World Trade Center after 9/11.

On television and radio, celebrities exhort relatives of “the disappeared” to provide blood samples for a nationwide DNA database. A weekday call center advertises its toll-free number on banners at soccer games.

“If you have a family member who was a victim of a forced disappearance … a simple blood sample can help identify them,” says a popular Argentine soccer sportscaster in a TV ad.

The campaign began in November and is already paying off.

“We’ve received some 2,000 telephone calls,” said Luis Fondebrider of the independent Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, which was founded in 1984 to document the missing and has since applied its know-how in more than 40 countries, from El Salvador to Iraq to East Timor. It also led the identification through dental records of Cuban revolutionary Ernest “Che” Guevara’s remains, exhumed in the 1990s.

The nonprofit group hopes soon to recruit a U.S. lab to cross-match the samples with DNA from all 600 skeletons in the closet, many of which have bullet holes in their skulls or signs of torture.

Large-scale DNA sampling has become quicker and cheaper since it was pioneered in Bosnia, according to Mercedes Doretti, a founder of the group and a recipient of a 2007 MacArthur Foundation “genius grant.”

After Bosnia’s war in the early 1990s, the International Commission for Missing Persons developed a system to conduct sophisticated DNA tests on thousands of exhumed bodies. After 9/11, U.S. experts expanded the technology, building software to compare thousands of DNA samples simultaneously from the fragments from the Twin Towers.

But Doretti’s group didn’t have money to use these new technologies until the U.S. Congress gave it a grant last year of nearly $1.5 million.

The Argentine government provides logistical support, arranges free air time for the advertisements, puts public blood banks at the group’s disposal and speeds the importation of equipment through customs.

Adding to the urgency of identifying the dead, Argentina’s new president, Cristina Fernandez, has pushed to speed up trials in hundreds of human rights cases that were blocked by an amnesty for alleged perpetrators. The amnesty was repealed in 2005.

The campaign could also lead to a more accurate death toll from the “dirty war” against leftist opponents by Argentina’s 1976-83 dictatorship, and bridge the gap between the more than 12,000 officially listed as dead or missing and the 30,000 estimated by human rights groups.

“We hope there might be more people coming forward, especially in the provinces,” to report missing relatives for the first time, said Luis Alen, a government undersecretary for human rights.

In most cases, victims’ remains have never been found, and of those recovered by Doretti’s group, fewer than 300 have been identified.

The last identification was in 2005, when DNA testing gave a name to remains that years earlier had washed ashore, apparently tossed from a “death flight” in which drugged prisoners were thrown alive into the sea. French nun Leonie Duquet was given an emotional funeral at the Buenos Aires church where she had been abducted in 1977.

Such matches were made by steadily improving DNA technology, which helped identify Hugo Omar Argente’s brother Jorge, a youth activist whose body was among 30 dynamited after a 1976 massacre.

“They wanted to make the bodies disappear,” said Argente, 55. “I found out on March 17, 2000, when they called me on the phone and said the test results had identified him. I just cried and cried.”