EIRP Proceedings, Vol 7 (2012)

Abstract

In any event, the prosecutor and the judiciary should pay particular attention to the risk of their falsification, which can be achieved by taking only parts of conversations or communications that took place in the past and are declared to be registered recently, or by removing parts of conversations or communications, or even by the translation or removal of images. This is why the legislature provided an express provision for their verification. Provisions of Art. 91⁶ Paragraph 1 Criminal Procedure Code offers the possibility of a technical expertise regarding the originality and  continuity of the records, at the prosecutor's request, the parties or ex officio, where there are doubts about the correctness of the registration in whole or in part, especially if not supported by all the evidence. Therefore, audio or video recordings serve themselves as evidence in criminal proceedings, if not appealed or confirmed by technical expertise, if there were doubts about their conformity with reality. In the event that there is lack of expertise from the authenticity of records, they will not be accepted as evidence in solving a criminal case, thus eliminating any probative value of the intercepted conversations and communications in that case, by applying Art. 64 Par. 2 Criminal Procedure Code.