Introduction

Roberto C. Parra1 and Allan G. Alvarez-Godoy2

1The Specialized Forensic Team of the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

2International Forensic Consultant, The Hague, Netherlands

Quality Management, a crucial component of contemporary forensic science, has gained a lot more attention since the last few decades of the 20th century, which has resulted in the development of globally accepted, internationally standardized practices (Pereira, 1985, Willis, 2010; Neuteboom et al., 2023; Wilson-Wilde, 2018; Doyle, 2019; Berger, 2025). However, demands for accountability, transparency, reproducibility, replicability, and overall quality assurance of findings have increased alongside this increased visibility and need for forensic science. Despite this, the global forensic science community is currently facing a broader scientific crisis, marked by issues of trust, reproducibility, and credibility. Serious concerns have been raised by high-profile cases of forensic failures, as well as the lack of consistent scientific validation across numerous procedures (Saks and Faiman, 2008; Koehler et al., 2023; Crispino et al., 2021; and many others). Crispino et al. (2021) have eloquently highlighted a explicit paradox in forensic science: on the one hand, the reports of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2009) and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2016) emphasize a structural crisis in forensic science. They highlight a lack of methodological rigor, the fragmentation of the disciplines that comprise it, and the absence of clear and uniform standards. Furthermore, they underscore the weight of experts'1 cognitive biases, insufficient impartiality, and weaknesses in quality control. All of this has led to flawed and even erroneous reports, with serious consequences such as judicial errors and wrongful convictions (Saks and Faiman, 2008; Koheler et al., 2023). This delicate situation raises the need for profound reform and an epistemological framework that provides greater coherence and legitimacy to forensic practice (Koheler et al., 2023; Crispino et al., 2021).

On the other hand, social, media, and commercial perceptions offer a completely different picture. Forensic science appears to be an effective and almost infallible field, equipped with cutting-edge technologies and capable of solving complex crimes, including cold cases. It is attributed a central role in the fight against crime, and great expectations are placed on its future thanks to artificial intelligence. The paradox lies in the fact that, while its scientific soundness is questioned in the courts, in the public sphere it is exalted as an almost magical and effective science (Crispino et al., 2021).

To ensure the validity, reliability, and relevance of forensic science in the modern world, a profound reform has been demanded (Koehler et al., 2023). A reinvention that prioritizes methodical research, exhaustive method validation, and transparency of the process is suggested as a way to reverse this situation. Establishing unequivocal standards, fostering a culture of critical evaluation, and supporting continuous development are necessary for this change. Furthermore, the importance of reproducible results and an interdisciplinary approach that combines scientific knowledge with judicial needs is emphasized. Adopting these measures would allow forensic science to respond more successfully to new methodological and technological challenges while improving its real reputation with the public and the legal system (Koheler et al., 2023; Roux et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2025). In parallel with this context of innovation and transformative development, forensic science is also moving toward technical standardization (Ballentyne and Wilson-Wilde, 2020; Wilson-Wilde, 2018; Berger, 2025). Increasing capacity ("more"), improving quality ("better"), shortening execution times ("faster"), reducing costs ("cheaper"), and strengthening the integration of all stages of the workflow ("easier and safer") seem to be the path to modern globalizing forensic science. A true machine, ideally automated, to produce results at low cost, in mass, and with technically standardized precision and constant validation between internationally constructed networks.

An international regulatory framework has been established in the field of forensic science to ensure traceability, quality, and transparency in all procedures. Under such a framework, every step, from the identification and collection of evidence to the presentation of findings in court, would be based on internationally accepted technical standards (Berger, 2025; Wilson-Wilde, 2018; Doyle, 2019). It is argued that these efforts would reduce arbitrary practices, while strengthening the reliability of findings, improving institutional credibility, and facilitating the acceptance of evidence in judicial contexts. In this situation, international standards would be considered necessary to integrate best practices in forensic management, promote continuous improvement, and harmonize procedures. These objectives would be supported by a comprehensive set of ISO standards (ISO 21043-1, ISO 21043-2, ISO 21043-3, ISO 21043-4, ISO 21043-5, ISO/IEC 14001:2015, ISO/IEC 15189:2012, ISO/IEC 17020:2012, ISO/IEC 17025:2017, ISO/IEC 9001:2015) governing terminology, evidence collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting. Guidelines could also be implemented for quality control, environmental sustainability, inspection agency operations, and laboratory competency. Together, this regulatory framework would provide a crucial system that would strengthen confidence in forensic science as a vital field for the efficient functioning of the legal system. All of this is developed and designed from a Global North perspective, which also involves rigorous accreditation and audit procedures (Neuteboom et al., 2023; Neuteboom and Ross, 2024; Ross and Neuteboom, 2020).

The benefits of this advancement include promoting international comparability of results and strengthening institutional confidence in administrative management. However, a fundamental challenge with its rapid growth and the growing anxiety about the global standardization and automation of processes and procedures is how to ensure that these standards also consider the diversity of environments and needs, especially in situations where conditions are far from ideal, as is clearly the case in the Global South?

This is where the idea of challenging environments comes into play. These settings, which are usually found in the Global South, are distinguished by institutional instability, resource scarcity, structural limitations, enduring inequality, and frequently violent or humanitarian crisis situations. The transfer of models created for forensic environments in the Global North may not work in these challenging environments and may often even ignore the operational and social realities that impact the effectiveness of forensic science. Forensic science that pursues an industrial model, with an emphasis on technical advancement, improvement, and automation as ends in themselves, does not always capture the complexity of these heterogeneous and challenging environments nor does it ensure that forensic science achieves its primary objective: contributing to justice, and the fight against impunity.

The goal of this volume is not to fully address every facet of this discussion. Instead, it aims to create an environment that supports critical but constructive evaluation of how standardization can advance forensic science while maintaining awareness of the variety of contexts in which it works. The chapters collected here caution that accreditation alone does not provide a 100% guarantee of quality, far from casting doubt on its value. In fact, it can lead to false impressions or "mirages" that create a false sense of security among justice officials, the general public, and even the forensic community if institutional strengthening is not continued.

The authors, who have extensive experience working in demanding environments, illustrate this tension throughout the work with case studies, comparative analyses, and theoretical reflections. Examples of how quality is attained by not only meeting standards but also incorporating them into an ethical, adaptable, and contextually relevant operating framework are provided, ranging from the investigation of new tools like artificial intelligence to the contextualized adaptation of international instruments like the Minnesota Protocol. Forensic quality necessitates both technical and scientific rigor, but more importantly, ethical and social sensitivity, as evidenced by cases like deaths in custody in the African region of Burkina Faso, the forensic humanitarian efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross worldwide, or the forensic documentation of sexual violence in armed conflicts.

Similar to this, the national experiences of Guatemala, Peru, and Panama show that accreditation procedures can spur development if they are supported by plans to bolster administrative, technical, and human resources, as well as political, logistical, and most importantly, financial will. In the absence of this assistance, there is still a chance that accreditation will turn into a stand-alone goal that is more closely related to getting official recognition than to actually improving practices. The "accreditation mirage" concept, which is used in the final chapter to summarize these lessons, serves as a reminder that genuine quality necessitates...