EIRP Proceedings, Vol 14, No 1 (2019)

Abstract

The present paper aims to analyze the judicial expertise of devices that contain the results of the technical surveillance activity from a procedural point of view.

The constant evolution of technical methods to obtain evidences in criminal trials led to the development of new types of expertise in various fields. One of these is the expertise of any device or optical support on which recordings of intercepted conversations are stored.

Statistical data from the courts shows that technical surveillance is very common in Romania, being used as proof for various crimes from white collar crimes such as abuse of office or bribery to violent crimes or drug trafficking.

Yet, being electronic the recordings can be forged, fragmented, collated aspect that can lead to unlawful trials or abuses from judicial bodies.

In order to prevent that, the doctrine and the jurisprudence stated that the court may order technical expertise of the recordings to verify their the authenticity and continuity. If it is found, after examination, the lack of authenticity of the records or interfering mixes in the text or removal of passages of conversation, they cannot be retained in the case and cannot be used as evidence.

Furthermore, judicial expertise of devices that contain the results of the technical surveillance activity can prove to be of real value in different kinds of criminal trials, from corruption cases, to murder trials, drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc

The academic and practical interest of the present study lies in the fact that it addresses both law theorists and practitioners in the field as it analyzes how judicial bodies can use the judicial expertise in the criminal trial and how to corroborate such a report with the other evidences administered by classic methods.