Considerations Regarding the Expertise of Optical Media that Contain the Results of technical Surveillance in Criminal Cases
Keywords:expertise; technical surveillance; interceptions; altering of proof
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
Treatise, races, monographs
Al?moreanu, Sorin (2004). Forensics-Course notes. Babe?-Bolyai University. Law School. Cluj-Napoca.
Udroiu, M.; Sl?voiu, R. & Predescu, O. (2009). Special investigative techniques in criminal justice. Bucharest: Ed. C.H. Beck.
Tudoran, M. V. (2012). Theory and practice of judicial audio and video interceptions and recordings. Bucharest: Universul
Juridic Publishing House.
Gr?dinaru, S. (2017). The use of audio or video interceptions as evidence in criminal proceedings and the compatibility of the
regulation with European and international requirements. Cluj-Napoca: Babes-Bolyai University Press.
Gr?dinaru, S. (2014). Technical Surveillance in the new Romanian criminal procedure code. Bucharest: Ed. C. H. Beck.
Articles, notes, comments
Dâmbu, D. (2007). Interception and recording of conversations or communications. Journal of Criminal Law, no. 3/2007.
Mateu?, Gh. (2004). The Code of Criminal Procedure, the general part, in a European perspective. R. D. P. no. 1.
Gârbule?, I. & Gr?dinaru, S. (2012). The Evidential Value of Audio Recordings or Video Recordings. Juridical Current, vol
Gârbule?, I. & Gr?dinaru, S. (2012). Some remarks on the procedure for certifying interceptions in audio or video recordings
that precede their forensic expertise. Journal of Criminology, Forensics and Penology no. 1-2.
Gr?dinaru, S. (2013). Considerations regarding the interception and recording of conversations or communications performed
under Law no. 535/2004 on preventing and combating terrorism. 8th Edition EIRP Proceedings, European Integration Realities
Gr?dinaru, S. (2018). Conditions Derived from the ECHR Jurisprudence for the Effectuation of Interceptions in European
Union Member States. Acta Universitatis Danubius Juridica, vol 14, nr. 3.
Gr?dinaru, S. (2010). Considerations on the Interceptions and Audio-Video Recordings Related to the Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica, Vol. 6.
Gr?dinaru, S. (2019). Observations regarding the expertise of the supports containing the results of the technical supervision
activity, R. Penalmente Relevant, no. 1.
ECHR (2008). Case Prepelita vs Moldova. Decision from 23rd September.
ECHR (2000). Case Rotaru vs. Romania. Decision from 29th March.
Romanian High Court of Justice (2010). Criminal Division. Decision from 16th February 2011, case no. 4489/1.
Criminalistic expert report no. 194 / 18.11.2011. Conducted by the Inter-county Criminal Expertise from Iasi from case no.
/45/2007 of the Ia?i Court of appeal.
Copyright (c) 2021 Gabriela Adina Margarit; Andrei Apostol
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.