154. The forensic doctor should be responsible and accountable for the autopsy. In other words, he or she should be in charge of this part of the overall investigation into the potentially unlawful death, and accountable for it in accordance with applicable law and ethics, including the need to respect the dignity of the dead. (See also Paragraph 45). 155. The body should be made available to the forensic doctor for a reasonable minimum period (e.g. 12 hours) that is sufficient to ensure an adequate and unhurried examination. Unrealistic limits or conditions are occasionally placed upon the forensic doctor with respect to the length of time permitted for the examination or the circumstances under which an examination is allowed. If unacceptable conditions are imposed, the forensic doctor should be able to refuse to perform a compromised examination and should prepare a report explaining this position. Such a refusal should not be interpreted as indicating that an examination was unnecessary or inappropriate. If the forensic doctor decides to proceed with the examination notwithstanding difficult conditions or circumstances, he or she should include in the autopsy report an explanation of the limitations or impediments. 156. Resources such as autopsy rooms, X-ray equipment or adequately trained personnel are not available everywhere, and their provision and upkeep are usually not the responsibility of the forensic doctor. Forensic doctors operate under divergent political and legal systems. In addition, social and religious customs vary widely throughout the world.108 The forensic doctor, therefore, may not always be able to follow all of the steps in this Protocol when performing autopsies. Minor deviations from the Detailed Guidelines on Autopsy may be inevitable, or even preferable in some cases. When there are major deviations from the Guidelines, however, this should be explicitly noted and the reasons for them given in the autopsy report. 157. In the investigation of potentially unlawful death, the body of the deceased is taken out of family control and placed in the control of the investigative mechanism. The forensic doctor should be aware of the potential emotional and other disruption this may cause, and should minimize it, and the inconvenience to the family, as much as possible consistent with his/her obligation to discharge properly the responsibilities set out in this document. 108 28 2. The role of radiological imaging in investigating potentially unlawful death 158. Plain X-rays have always been used, and continue to play an important part, in the investigation of the cause and circumstances of potentially unlawful death. In recent years, the advent of new forms of radiological imaging known as cross-sectional and three-dimensional imaging or scanning (computerized tomography – CT scanning; magnetic resonance imaging – MRI scanning), have captured the public imagination to the point where the term “virtual autopsy” has entered the language. The concept embedded in this term has led to expectations that scanning can reliably replace the traditional autopsy. Such expectations are some way from being realized. 159. Whole-body scanning has, however, strengthened the ability of medical science to investigate a death, for the following reasons: (a) Parts of the body not easily inspected by traditional means are now seen (b) In some cases the reconstruction of threedimensional images from scanning data may assist in interpreting injury or disease, and the acceptability of the images may help courts to understand this interpretation (c) Victims of multi-fatality disasters can be triaged, improving prospects for identification (d) Long-term digital storage of the images improves the reviewability of the examination of the dead body (e) Medico-legal systems where autopsies are rare can obtain information about the body that would otherwise be unavailable. 160. The expense of this new imaging is such that it is not, and is unlikely to become, widely available on a global scale. In addition, although much work has been done, the relative sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of findings made using scanning techniques, compared to those from autopsy, have yet to be comprehensively studied. See, e.g., Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Abedelfattah Amor, on his mission to the United States of America, UN doc. E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1, para. 15(b). The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016)