Noor Jawad Al-Dulaimi (Iraqi lawyer) In 2024, an adult man stood before the Personal Status Court in one of the districts of Diyala Governorate, Iraq, holding an unfamiliar lawsuit—unusual in both its timing and its subject matter. He was requesting the court to prove his lineage to a man who died in 2006, and to rule that the woman present in the courtroom was his mother who bore him within the marital bond. However, he had never been registered as a son of that husband prior to the latter’s death—the deteriorating security situation at that time may have been a reason for this non-registration. In the absence of traditional documents proving paternity, the Personal Status Court in Hibhib found it difficult to accept the claim and ruled to dismiss it, considering that proof was not possible within the available means. According to old evidentiary tools, the matter seemed closed from the start.

However, the case changed completely when it reached the Federal Court of Cassation. This court—a higher appellate body for judgments issued by lower courts like the Personal Status Court—viewed the action of the Personal Status Court as incorrect. The forensic medical report attached to the case file explicitly indicated the possibility of performing a DNA profile test using a sample taken from the remains of the deceased himself—specifically, a 15-cm piece of the femur bone and four upper posterior teeth. These are sufficient samples to conduct a genetic examination that can settle the lineage connection with decisive scientific certainty. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Cassation decided to quash the ruling and remand the case to the court to follow what was stated in its decision: sending the son and the samples for genetic testing. Thus, the Federal Court of Cassation reopened a door that many thought had been closed forever.[1]

This case is not merely a legal incident; it is a living example of how genetic information is asserting its presence inside courtrooms, and how science can reshape the truth years after the death of the individuals around whom the lawsuits revolve.

To understand how courtrooms reached this level of reliance on biology, we must go back to 1984, when British scientist Alec Jeffreys developed DNA profiling technology, a technique that revolutionized forensic genetics. Jeffreys observed that certain parts of DNA differ significantly between humans, especially in the non-coding regions of the chromosomes. He noted that these differences could be used to distinguish individuals with accuracy approaching absolute certainty, even among family members, and even using a single hair follicle or a small fragment of bone tissue. Since then, DNA profiling has turned into one of the most powerful scientific evidences in proving or denying lineage, identifying corpses, solving crimes, and resolving long-awaited disputes.[2]

But the most complex question facing people and courts today is: How can lineage be proven between a living person and a person who has been dead for many years? And how can reliable genetic information be extracted from buried bone or teeth exposed to years of humidity and heat? The answer lies in understanding the two types of DNA found in the body. The DNA in the cell nucleus, or what is known as Autosomal DNA, is the most important source for identification because it carries the genetic material coming from both the father and the mother. If a sample of bone, tooth, or tissue from the deceased is available, extracting this acid is possible, and comparing it with a sample from the living person yields a highly accurate result. It may also happen that the deceased’s family possesses personal effects left behind, such as a toothbrush, a razor, or clothes containing skin cells; these can serve as a direct genetic reference. If the DNA profile matches between the sample extracted from the deceased and that found on his tools, proving lineage or identity becomes a scientifically settled matter.

In the event that personal samples of the deceased are unavailable, the other route is indirect comparison. This method resembles traditional paternity tests, where the living person’s sample is compared with samples of people biologically related to the deceased, such as the mother, brothers, or sisters. Through this, the probability of lineage can be calculated according to genetic principles. Although this type of analysis relies on probabilities, when the result is sufficiently high, it is considered legally decisive.

In circumstances where bodies are very old or have been exposed to harsh environmental factors, the DNA taken from the cell nucleus becomes unfit for use. Here comes the role of Mitochondrial DNA, which is the DNA whose genetic material is transmitted solely through the maternal line. The existence of this continuous chain of transmission makes it possible to trace kinship through the mother, even in severely damaged samples. Although this test does not offer absolute certainty like the nuclear DNA test, it becomes of great value when integrated with other methods.

Because the inheritance pattern in males is characterized by the presence of the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son without significant changes across generations, the Y-chromosome test represents an additional tool to confirm kinship when both parties are male. However, since the Y chromosome is part of the other chromosomes, it does not have a special privilege in cases of DNA degradation, but it is important in paternity tests. Thus, these methods combine to form a cohesive network of biological evidence that courts may rely upon in the most difficult cases.

What makes DNA profiling most decisive today is that it does not require a complete body or tissue from a living organism; a small part of a sound bone, a single undamaged tooth, or even a hair follicle preserved within the humidity of clothing is sufficient. When DNA quality deteriorates due to time or environment, modern laboratories combine more than one test at the same time to reach a single reliable result. In many cases, using Autosomal DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, and Y-chromosome tests together is the solution that restores the truth to its place.[3]

Hence comes the importance of the decision issued by the Federal Court of Cassation in the lawsuit we mentioned at the beginning. It was not merely a correction of an erroneous ruling, but an acknowledgement that justice today cannot be dispensed in isolation from science, and that modern genetic tools have become part of the tools of the judiciary itself. A man may be without legal lineage for all the years of his life, only for a single bone—preserved from the body of a man who died 18 years ago—to reveal the full truth and finally bring him justice.

Thus, we confirm that science and law are no longer separate fields, but have become partners in establishing the truth. In a world where genetic evidence intersects with legal presumptions, the conclusion becomes clear: as long as a analyzable sample exists, DNA is capable of revealing the truth, no matter how much time has passed, and no matter how the narratives change.

References [1] Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 9105/Personal Status and Personal Materials Body/2025. [2] Dr. Salem Khamis Ali Al-Dhanhani – The Authority of DNA Profiling in Criminal Proof, 1st Edition, National Center for Legal Publications, Cairo, 2014, p. 141. [3] Robert C. Shaler – Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, CRC Press, USA, 2012, p. 420.