Wartime identification of repatriated military remains in Ukraine: a bureau-level local audit from Western Ukraine

Abstract Background Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, identifying repatriated military remains has become a sustained forensic and legal challenge. While standard Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) protocols rely on DNA, fingerprints, and forensic odontology as parallel identifiers, operational realities often make their use impractical. This report highlights bureau-level implementation gaps under wartime workload in Ukraine, examining how legal-procedural frameworks and infrastructural bottlenecks prevent these three lines from functioning as an integrated identification system. Findings A retrospective descriptive service audit of 305 repatriated military decedents processed at Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Forensic Bureau was undertaken. Cases included complete and fragmented human remains processed over 19 months (August 2024–February 2026). DNA profiling was the dominant operational pathway, identifying 211/305 cases (69%), while 94 (31%) remained unidentified. A dermatoglyphic comparison workflow was initiated in 12 cases in which friction ridge material could be recovered; of these, 8 yielded sufficient ridge detail for comparison, yielding 2 matches. Early implementation of the forensic dental line included PM documentation in 10 cases, but no odontological reconciliations were achieved. These results indicate that, although medical identification is not formally confined to DNA alone under Ukrainian law, DNA currently remains the only line with a dedicated centralized legal-operational infrastructure. Conversely, fingerprint and odontology pathways lack comparably integrated ante-mortem reconciliation infrastructures and often depend on fragmented data sources and ad hoc investigative actions. Conclusions Based on the results of an audit of cases admited over a 19 month period at one regional bureau, wartime Ukraine demonstrates a functioning but highly imbalanced identification architecture in which DNA, dermatoglyphic comparison, and forensic dental documentation do not operate as an integrated system. DNA is the only line with a sufficiently formalized infrastructural pathway for large-scale operational use, whereas the practical contribution of the other two lines is constrained by weak procedural integration, fragmented ante-mortem data availability, limited interoperability, and specimen-related limitations.