From law to policy and practice – collaborative research amidst a pandemic : the creation of the Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation

How can mass graves be protected to safeguard truth and justice for survivors? This was the question motivating the research project to produce international protection and investigative standards for mass graves, which resulted in the creation of the Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation. The research was premised upon broad and inclusive stakeholder consultation to ensure suitability, completeness and sustainability of project outcomes as well as to generate acceptance, endorsement and implementation. To realise the project we used a combination of desk-based research, round-table discussion with expert-participants from a variety of disciplines and cultural backgrounds and anonymous external consultation. In this paper, we reflect on the methods and processes used for the purpose of international standard setting based on legal norms. We discuss the choices made along the way in facilitating this cross-disciplinary, international, inclusive and collaborative project. In doing so, we explore the function of the research process in light of the need to ensure that the Protocol reflects the different and possibly conflicting needs and sensitivities of survivors vis-à-vis the demands of criminal justice, capacity, resources and scientifically robust practices. We outline the challenges experienced and anticipated in evaluating approaches, agreeing definitions, identifying commonalities, negotiating differences and adapting to Covid-19 as part of the process of translating legal norms into policy and practice for achieving effective impact.


Desk-based, doctrinal research
With the realisation of the needs of families to truth and justice as the starting point of the project, it was essential that the legal underpinnings for both protection and investigative practice be drawn out in order to underscore the duty to act, and to do so effectively and lawfully. To this end, my particular focus was on the rights of victims and their families, the responsibilities of States and individual criminal accountability. In light of the potential application of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law to a mass grave scenario, my intention was to clarify existing legal rights and responsibilities in the mass grave context across all three legal fields. I hoped to do this by mapping provisions to each specific stage of mass grave investigation, identifying areas of commonality, and hence providing, to the extent possible, a unification of legal provisions for the purpose of the investigation. This attempt at unification was important to the project and its victim focus: for victims and their families, the question of whether loss of life or serious harm arose in the context of human rights, humanitarian or international criminal law does not change the nature of the harm they have suffered or their need for remediation. As Bassiouni writes, as far as governing legal regimes are concerned, '[s]uch distinctions are of little significance to victims in their quest for redress '. 5 In order to achieve this, I chose a traditional legal research method 6 as a means of ensuring the detailed analytical rigour necessary for distilling relevant state duties as international norms derived from the corpus of the various branches of international law. 7 Whilst doctrinal research provides the researcher with the foundational basis upon which to analyse the law in its context, the method does not offer practical tools for finding solutions for the protection and guaranteeing of legal rights and duties. To answer the research question posed, it was therefore important to go beyond this doctrinal research approach, with a view towards policy and practice. Whilst there are methodological approaches such 5 Cherif Bassiouni, 'International Recognition of Victims' Rights', (2006) 6 HRLR 203,205. 6 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008) as the New Haven School method 8 (both a problem-revealing and problem-solving approach that is attractive for its interdisciplinary focus and the scrutiny it allows of state policies, methods, approaches and procedures by examining their application to societal problems 9 ) the question posed here, I felt, required an element of empirical research through engagement with expert practitioners, including leading judges, prosecutors, investigators, forensic scientists and victim specialists. This, I felt, would enable the Protocol to be both academically sound as well as practically operational and cognisant of varying real world contexts, without replicating what was already in existence.

Expert consultation
The project therefore required a multi-disciplinary inquiry akin to empirical-legal research and in particular, the gaining of knowledge by recourse to direct experience, to inform and guide the content of the Protocol to ensure it reflected best practice in relation to the investigation of mass graves and the dignified, respectful, indiscriminate and lawful handling of human remains. Since a purely law-driven methodology would only reach so far, I turned to the social sciences to facilitate the necessary engagement with practitioners as expert participants in the project in order to elicit information on the practical ramifications of the protection and investigation process. 10 Participatory research denotes a large spectrum of research practice typically designed to generate knowledge and understanding whilst maintaining a pragmatic but equitable approach. 11 With any such research project, such as the one designed here, there is interaction with practitioners at various stages of the project and in an iterative way. In that sense the participatory research could provide an umbrella classification for the project, but the engagement with expert-participants, I felt, had to be very focused and directed. 12 Furthermore, this second step of seeking the views of experts presented a clear logistical challenge of access and feasibility for me as the researcher.
After contemplating the benefits of conducting face-to-face interviews 13 and following the review of other standard setting projects (such as the Belfast Guidelines on Amnesty, and the Nuremberg Principles on Cooperation between Civil Society Actors and Judicial Mechanisms in the Prosecution of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence) I was persuaded that the more suitable method for this project was collaboration and exchange through a combination of expert participant round-tables, together with a broader round of expert consultation during the drafting process. 14 This combination, I hoped, coupled with rigorous analysis 15 , would facilitate the multi-disciplinary, international and inclusive approach necessary to ensure the Protocol took into account the different and possibly conflicting needs and sensitivities of survivors vis-à-vis the demands of criminal justice, capacity, resources and scientifically robust practices.
In opting to conduct round tables with expert participants, I was conscious that I would likely be engaging with very busy professionals, who had competing workloads and priorities. Round tables presented an opportunity for me to bring experts together, away from their places of work (and hence with less competing distractions) to focus in depth, for a determined period of time, on a single issue with a group of other experts. I also hoped that in opting for a highly collaborative approach to the development of the Protocol, I would generate a sense of ownership, which would assist with content, impact, and subsequent application of the Protocol in real-world contexts. 12 And thus not necessarily compatible with a 'bottom-up' approach typically associated with participatory research. 13 As a researcher, I am familiar with interviewing which formed part of my PhD and a funded project. For an introduction to interviewing see Steinar Kvale, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Sage 1996). 14 These round-tables arguably have some commonality with what is known as focus group research but here it was embedded in an iterative process which included also consultation. An appraisal of focus group research is beyond the scope of this paper; for an introduction to focus group research see, for example, Catherine  With the specific aims of the Protocol in mind, I was conscious of both the advantages and limitations of the Protocol being produced from within an Academic institution, and developed the project, including the anticipated practical delivery of the methodology, accordingly.
Most notably, the independence of the project lay in its academic anchorage, and I felt this was crucial to the perceived legitimacy of the resulting Protocol. In particular, the document does not endorse an activist or particular institutional stance, whether that be human rights activism, advocacy or 'forensic humanitarianism'. 16 Such an academic anchorage is not trivial, for academic mandates are empowering and liberating, as well as limiting. Academia has an advantage of public acceptance, since, as Hannah Arendt put it 'nowhere do we hear 16 See, for example, Claire Moon, 'Human rights, human remains: forensic humanitarianism and the human rights of the dead' (2014) 65 International Social Science Journal 215-6. But the Protocol could not be achieved without practitioners, and the project methodology was predicated on my great confidence in the theoretical contribution which practitioners would make. In order to better enable access to expert practitioners and to enhance the prospect of real-world application, I sought a project partner from beyond academia with international reach, professional expertise and global respect.
I reached out to the International Commission on Missing Persons, an intergovernmental organisation that has extensively supported States to investigate mass graves. The ICMP is a key policy maker, state advisor and capacity builder in the field, and so constituted an ideal project partner for the creation of a new protection and investigation tool.
Finally, I felt that the project, and I, would benefit from the input and support of a Steering Group during the production of the Protocol. The composition of this steering group was also influenced by methodological input, with one steering group member having prior expertise in producing guidelines and brokering consensus.

Practical Application of the Methods
Following the award of funding and through the recruitment of Author 2 the reflections from now are that of a duo (we/us i.e. Author 1 and Author 2).
In the previous section, we indicate how and why the methodology for the production of the Protocol was chosen. In this section, we describe how the methodology operated in practice. We include, where relevant, our reflections on what we felt went well, what less so, and what we might do differently next time around. We have also incorporated any lessons learned from previous projects which influenced our decisions and actions during the course of producing the Protocol in so far as they relate to the practical application of the methodology. Finally, we reflect on the need to switch to virtual methods during the course of the project and the impact that this had on the project itself, as the Covid pandemic made the prospect of face-to-face meetings impossible.

Desk-based research: unifying legal provisions and selecting a focus and format
In preparation for our first attempt to create a document akin to legally-based guidelines (we called it a briefing document at this stage) we consulted, reviewed and critically analysed a wealth of materials with a view to ensuring the legal cohesion and underpinnings of the Protocol, to avoid duplication of existing materials and to identify with greater precision the appropriate focus for our work. 18 The desk-based research brought together, and enabled us to compare and contrast the wider issues relating to mass grave protection based on a systematic, critical review of: • legal provisions including applicable treaties in the fields of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, customary international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as domestic protection efforts (such as contained in Bosnian and Iraqi legislation) to identify and compare existing legal standards and requirements; • academic literature relevant to mass grave protection, investigations and the effect on survivors from the disciplines of forensic science, law, securitisation studies, transitional justice and psycho-social research, in order to capture current debate and discussion; • procedures and best practices relating to mass graves, their protection and investigation, missing persons and disaster victim identification, as employed by the international criminal tribunals, fact-finding missions across the world, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol and various expert forensic organisations. This included reaching out to a number of forensic organisations to access their standards and practice manuals, and we had multiple conversations with practitioners across the world, in order to fully 18 A sample of the materials reviewed now feature in Appendix A of the Protocol. The project has explicit recourse to the 2016 Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, which served as a benchmark for us in the conduct of our project. appreciate operational efforts to date regarding mass grave investigations, including their successes and shortfalls in meeting stakeholder needs or legal requirements.

The development of a Briefing Document
Having collated and analysed a plethora of materials, in the summer of 2019 we began drafting the briefing document for the first round-table event, scheduled for October of that year. Our first consideration was how best to present that material for our target audience: a multidisciplinary, mostly practitioner, expert-readership.
Structurally, through our careful review of existing materials, a chronological approach emerged whereby the Protocol would reflect the various stages or phases that mass grave protection and investigation would require in order to fulfil family truth-seeking and the pursuit of justice (which we understood in a broad sense to encompass reparative and retributive elements).
The intended multidisciplinary audience for the Protocol presented a challenge in terms of the content of the Protocol and how material should be presented. While we needed the Protocol to have a firm legal basis, we were mindful that our intended audience were not all lawyers, and it was essential to us and the future practical application of the Protocol that the document should be accessible for all engaged disciplines. We decided that each of the chronological sections would start with as clear a statement of the law as possible in order to outline the rights of victims and societies and to map them against corresponding state duties. Once the legal basis was set out for each section the practical aspects of how to implement those norms was spelled out in a manner that was readable for all, using nonlegalistic language. We then ended each stage with a 'Reference and further Reading' section.
Chronology of processes, as will be discussed below in relation to analysis, ended up serving us well as our thematic analytical structure. Furthermore, through this choice of structure and content we began the development of a novel and unique way of creating standards by frontloading the legal norms for each chronological step in the process, allowing the relevant practice-related elements to follow on from that legal basis. This approach was a departure from the other standard setting examples we had reviewed, and we were keen to see how it would be received by experts at the first round table event.
Finally, we were mindful that the Protocol was intended for use by busy practitioners who were likely to be working in difficult and potentially chaotic situations, and so accessibility, readability and easy navigation were key considerations for the adopted format and design.
Our mantra was simply to convey maximum content in minimum space and time using footnotes sparingly. 19 Naturally the various materials which we had reviewed offered us an insight into how best to present the material. In the end, the briefing document was modelled on research briefings regularly prepared by the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (known as Parliamentary POST notes) 20 and also echoed the layout of the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, 21 a set of scientifically and internationally accepted investigative minimum standards. Importantly, the Protocol neither duplicates nor replaces this or other such existing documents on principles and good practice.

Selecting participants
To produce a document with both multidisciplinary and global applicability, our choice of expert participants for the round tables was important: not only in order to inform the content of the Protocol, but also to ensure credibility of the resulting document, and so improve its chances of impact. From the outset, therefore, we established clear criteria for the expert-participants in terms of affiliation, field of expertise and representation. 22 The following selection criteria were employed: 23 19 In the final Protocol, the use of footnotes is more extensive that we had hoped for, this is however due to the fact that we omitted the further reading sections in the final output, instead limiting our cross-referencing in Appendix 1 to hyperlinked relevant guidelines, principles, handbooks, good practice manuals and protocols. 20 The process of developing POST notes is described here: How to write a policy briefing -POST In addition, based upon experience with a previous project, it was clear that continuity of participants between the two round tables was important, in order to ensure a consistency of approach. Invitations to engage with the project were therefore addressed to individuals rather than organisations, and involvement at the outset was premised on a commitment to the project for its duration. If, for example, (as happened during the course of this project) an expert left one organisation and began working for another then (subject to the agreement of their new employer) they would stay involved with the project, rather than being replaced by an individual from within their previous employer organisation. 24 We sought to keep the group of expert participants to a workable size of 20. Through purposive sampling in line with selection criteria, a list of potential participants was drawn up, based in part on an existing network, known actors in the field, research and recommendations from them. The list evolved in line with the criteria above with each acceptance or rejection, as new permutations arose and the need for aspects of disciplinary and geographical representation changed. On reflection, we had not anticipated how timeconsuming the process would be. 25

Round-table 1 26
Having formed our expert participant group, we were confident that we would have the necessary knowledge and breadth of experience in the room to inform the development of the Protocol. Our next challenge was to consider how we could ensure that the full ambit of knowledge that we would need was teased out during the round table. We were conscious that in any group of individuals, some will naturally be more forthcoming than others, and in the case of our expert participants, a number of practitioners knew each other well from working on mass graves together in the past. It was essential to the success of the project that each and every participant's voice and experiences were clearly heard and considered, since these would guide the development of the Protocol and ensure practical usability.
Spread over two days, we chose to structure the round table into thematic sessions, mapped against the Briefing Document, which would enable us to focus on specific areas of individual expertise. Each expert was invited to share their experience with the group in a short presentation on the given theme, and this would then be followed by a group discussion. This ensured that all participants were heard during the round table event, and their thoughts discussed openly by the group.
To further facilitate engagement and input from all our participants, we paid particular attention to the role of the academic moderator, and her role to privilege all. Finally, we and planning aspects were communicated ahead of the event, but until the experts actually arrived and engaged with us, the round table environment, other participants and the topic, they too were taking a gamble with their time. It was important to us as the project team to repay and strengthen that initial willingness to participate and the commit to the project, and the reason why we planned the event in great detail and with care.

Definitions and Scope
In light of the need for the group of experts to work together towards a singular goal, it was important for us to determine a common basis of understanding at the outset, including the intended scope of the project. 29 In order to delineate the scope of the Protocol, a set of definitions had to be agreed; definitions that were flexible and yet clear enough for comprehensive standard setting in light of the applicable law, that reflected socio-political, cultural and religious variety and were scientifically robust. Our aim was to keep the amount of definitions to a minimum, concentrating solely on core terms as a basis for the content of the output.
The following definition of mass grave is used in the Protocol: 'a site or defined area containing a multitude (more than one) of buried, submerged or surface scattered human remains (including skeletonised, commingled and fragmented remains), where the circumstances surrounding the death and/or the body-disposal method warrant an investigation as to their lawfulness'.
This definition is the product of detailed and lengthy debate and discussion between experts from multiple disciplines. The definition was finally found to have meaning for all participants, irrespective of discipline, and it has since been recognised by the UN Special Rapporteur in her report on the subject. 30 In addition to the need for definitions in the document, we needed to establish clear limits for the Protocol itself. Mass graves can arise for a number of reasons, including through conflict, human rights abuses, migration, natural and man-made disaster. There was strong feeling amongst participants that the Protocol should encompass a broad array of contexts, although support for which contexts should be covered varied between participants.
In order that it did not become overly broad or unwieldy, we opted (reluctantly) to confine the contextual remit of the Protocol to mass graves arising in the context of gross human rights abuses and conflict, both internal and international. This means that, sensu stricto, mass graves that arise as a result of migration are not included, unless they occur as an aspect of enforced disappearance. Their governance is often complicated by the use of the sea as a migratory route. Although, of course, deserving of dignified treatment and protection through a comprehensive, non-discriminatory human rights framework, are not afforded the full legal attention of the Protocol. Nor are mass graves that occur as a result of disasters, unless the burial method is legally dubious. The decision to exclude these potential sites from the ambit of the Protocol was not an easy one, but it felt necessary for us to contain the project within boundaries that were practically workable for us, as well as to avoid the production of a document which, by seeking to apply to all possible contexts simply became abstract and unusable for practitioners. That said, whilst the contexts and legal spheres may be different to that addressed in the Protocol, the protection and investigative standards are still relevant to the extent that there is clear consensus among the practitioners: 'The quality of investigation and due process guarantees remain the same.' 31

Progressing the Protocol: Analysing the data and the Consultation processes
In the months following roundtable 1, in light of the presentations and discussions that had taken place, we reviewed and revised the briefing document, which now took the form of the draft Protocol. Where specific thematic areas required development or potential gaps had been identified, we engaged directly with individual expert participants, based upon their expertise, in order to develop aspects of the Protocol in line with the suggestions made.
The chronological structure of the briefing document ended up serving as our template for the analysis of the data generated both through the engagement with experts at the roundtable and the consultation process. And in a sense, structuring into themes and aspects of the entire mass grave process from discovery to commemoration facilitated thematic analysis. 32 Thematic analysis aims to identify, analyse and report recurring themes from within the data set 33 without necessarily being tied to a theoretical framework. 34 Whilst being a 31 Hugh Tuller and Mercedes Salado Puerto 'Forensic Science International' (2017) 279 Forensic Science International 219, 225. An alternative would have been to limit the context from the outset but the limitation coming from within the project also confirms this as a further area for research and thus a research agenda for the authors. 32 See, for example, Richard Boyatzis, Transforming Qualitative Information. Thematic Analysis and Code Development (Sage 1998) and Nigel King, 'Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text' in: Catherine Cassell and Gillian Symon (eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (Sage 2004b). 33 Thematic analysis in this sense is very close to grounded theory, but without the theoretical commitments grounded theory demands: namely the generation of one theory at the end of the process (Virginia Braun and 'foundational method for qualitative analysis', 35 it is also a method in its own right, offering great flexibility: its findings are usually easily accessible to readers as it summarises a large body of data into a manageable size without losing the richness of the data, 36 something that suited a multi-disciplinary project such as ours, and hopefully appeals to a multidisciplinary audience. Thematic analysis is also considered a useful tool in generating unanticipated themes and knowledge which can inform policy changes. 37 Themes can be generated inductively from the data or deductively from a theory or previously-designed theoretical framework. 38 Moreover, themes can be discovered at a semantic and explicit level or at a more latent and interpretive level depending on the research questions and epistemological stance.
So what did that mean for us and the development of the Protocol? We repeatedly examined the notes from the round-tables to see where points raised by the experts added to the development of clear guidelines, and how they related to the legal provisions, practice and existing literature. Through this process, a high-level synthesis was achieved.
We organised and categorised our data in light of our themes and revisited the themes themselves (for example we merged two different themes into a section on Justice, but separated out a section on Commemoration). This analysis allowed us to collaboratively fine-tune the precise structure and content of the Protocol.
Such analysis inevitably required us to make a number of judgment calls: much discussion and care went into the final presentation of the Protocol, ensuring that individual contributions, from all experts, whether during the round-tables or the consultation phase, were weighed according to the individual's expertise as well as relevance for the research question. In practical terms this meant, for example, the comments of a judge on admissibility rules would be deemed more valuable and could potentially take precedent over statements on the same topic made by a forensic practitioner. Technology enabled us to work on the text through screensharing function, google docs share, and, as and when the internet was in too high-a-demand by other household users, the phone.
The delays did, however, mean that we sought a no-cost extension from our funder, which was granted within a few days of requesting it, thus safeguarding our ability to adapt the second round table.

Round-table 2 41
By the beginning of June it became apparent that running a physical event amidst a pandemic was not going to be feasible. Drawing on teaching and learning expertise of conducting lectures and seminars for students online that had been gained in the preceding months, our plans for round-table 2 converged on a virtual event, housed on the Microsoft Teams platform (as the IT-supported platform of the institution). The virtual meeting was held over two days, and we proceeded on the basis that experts could 'join' by topic of interest, rather than attending the whole event, in order to ease additional pressures on their time commitments imposed by the pandemic, as well as any strain or fatigue that very lengthy virtual meetings might threaten.
By that time in the pandemic, all participants were very familiar with meetings held virtually, and so the proposal for a virtual round-table was readily accepted, and presented no significant technological difficulties. We limited each session to 45 minutes, building in sufficient breaks to enable participants to step away from their screens. Whilst virtual platforms have the advantage of not requiring the arrangement of catering and room bookings, a reliable team of support was nonetheless important to the event: we had a designated team member to liaise between the expert and the institutional IT support, and a notetaker (we did not record proceedings to allow open discussion).
For those unable to attend, and to ensure expert engagement was not curtailed or limited by time zones, internet connectivity, caring duties and other commitment, we offered 41 Held on 9-10 September 2020. follow-up in the weeks immediately after the virtual event resulting in a number of repeatemail exchanges with a handful of individuals.
In practice, holding the first round-table in person, and the establishment of trust and goodwill that the event had given us, proved to be crucial to the success of the second round-table event. Expert participants willingly engaged with the event, and although there was an option to attend on a theme-by-theme basis, a number of participants joined us for the full period. In one case, due to time zone differentials, a participant attended both days in what was, for them, the early hours of the morning.
The point of the second round-table was to examine, discuss and agree the various sections of the revised draft Protocol, which incorporated the thoughts of our 45 external expert reviewers (as far as they were relevant and fell within the remit of the project). We also aimed to discuss next steps for the Protocol, including impact and dissemination. In order to guide discussion, we had specific questions prepared for each section, and we opened the event with a clear exposition of broad points we hoped to address:

I.
Have we covered all major points in the Protocol?

II.
Have we portrayed them accurately from the perspective of your discipline?

III.
And above all: is the Protocol a practicable and helpful tool?
The technology facilitated working with text on screen remarkably well and we were able to progress and finalise a number of points, including the exact wording of parts of the document and the flow-diagrams contained in the appendices. To be clear, we would have rather engaged with our experts in-persons but felt that, to progress and conclude the project, the use of an online platform such as Teams was a meaningful substitute. As always, professional and personal circumstances dictate what works best for individuals. While for some the technology made participation easier (due to reduced travelling and ease of scheduling) for others technology remains a poor substitute for face-to-face discussion.

Reporting results
In addition to producing an instrument that was multidisciplinary, anchored in legal norms and accurate in terms of content, our aim was to ensure that the Protocol was also practicable for a diverse audience. Accessibility of the Protocol was a key concern for us in its design, so that we could create a visually clear tool that would help stakeholders navigate the law, scientific and societal aspects of mass grave investigation and protection efforts.
Engagement with expert practitioners for the purpose of developing the Protocol effectively enabled us to test our written approach, including the presentation of materials.
Our initial decision to adopt a chronological style for the Protocol was endorsed by our Mindful of the need to produce a document that did not appear overly lengthy or unwieldy, we chose to incorporate into the document a list of 'Overarching Operating Principles'; standards of practice that should inform the conduct of the mass grave operation in its totality, applying at all stages and to all engaged actors. These were front-loaded in the document, avoiding the need for their repetition at each written stage of the Protocol. The overarching principles that we chose to incorporate comprise the following: (1) Do no harm; (2) the need to ensure the Physical and Emotional Safety of all actors; (3) Independence and Impartiality of approach; (4) Confidentiality and respect of personal details and identifying materials; (5) Transparency of process; (6) Communication with families, communities and the media; and (7)  with the expert participants in order to ensure that they were realistic, as opposed to aspirational, in practical terms.
A further addition to the final version of Protocol, on the recommendation of expertparticipants, was a number of Appendices comprising the most relevant Guidelines, Principles, Handbooks, Good Practice Manuals and Protocols for further reading, with easyto-access URLs; definitions of core mass grave investigative staff; flowcharts on mass graverelated processes and a checklist for office planning.
Finally, our inability to hold an in-person second round-table event meant that we had budgetary savings, and we were able to utilise these to further enhance the potential reach and usability of the Protocol. Eleven translated versions of the instrument have been prepared, to reach as many areas of the world as possible. Our expert participants guided us once again -this time on the choice of languages for translations. In addition, an English audio version has been produced to further aid accessibility and to serve as a model for future translation into spoken languages only.

Concluding thoughts: Influencing future practice and policy
The Protocol is geared towards practical operationalisation, to assist those acting on behalf of civil society, international organisations, state authorities and victims groups to effectively deal with mass graves resulting from widespread human rights violations and conflict. Central to the project is the need to ensure that survivors' rights are respected and commended for the standards it sets to help strengthen mass grave protection and preservation as part of a human rights framework for a respectful and lawful practice. 45 The research process to develop the Protocol was motivated by the overarching research question: How can mass graves be protected to safeguard truth and justice for survivors?
The notions of protection and safeguarding point to core practices involving a variety of stakeholders, thus warranting the multidisciplinary, inclusive, international and collaborative methodological approach adopted. While we had obviously not originally envisaged a migration to a virtual approach for the second round-table event, in practice this proceeded relatively smoothly, and was helped considerable, we feel, by the fact that we had been able to hold build a good rapport with participants with an in-person event for the first round-table event.
In the above we have traced our journey of how we approached the research question methodologically, seeking to find answers both in the law and in practice; answers that, due to the research process, have integrity, legitimacy and validity. This, we believe, is safeguarded by good research design, choice and application of method as well as rigorous analysis. At all times, however, we were convinced of the project's anchorage in law as its primary disciplinary home.
Through our approach and the decisions made along the way, we have also made a contribution to how Protocols or Guidelines can be presented and meaningfully tailored to the requirements of stakeholders, thus developing a unique style in marrying disparate laws, policy and practice. The outcome is a set of standards designed to safeguard the respectful and lawful investigation and protection of mass graves.