EIRP Proceedings, Vol 15, No 1 (2020)

Abstract

In order for the data that results from the technical surveillance to form a veritable means of proof, it is mandatory that such informations are not to be altered in any way and that the original support in which the data was printed to be kept secure. In the context of a society in which technological advancements are increasing at a rapid rate, there exists a real risk of altering such evidence. As such, it is in the prosecution's duty to secure the data resulting from technical surveillance. If there is doubt regarding the authenticity of such recordings, the only method to verify the reality of the data resulting from technical surveillances is a criminalistic expertise. Such an expertise can be performed in the course of a judicial inquiry so that the court can verify if the technical surveillance data has not been altered or manipulated in such a way that the actions of the defendants may gain criminal connotations. The jurisprudence is not unanimous in this regard, but if an opposite hypothesis is to be acknowledged, it would lead to absurd situations. Rejecting an expertise proposed in order to demonstrate the authenticity or the forgery of the data obtained through technical surveillance means convicting a person on the basis of unverified proof, while the European Court of Human Rights claims an express a posteriori verification regarding all evidence materials.