Socrates. 2021, 1 (19)

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/4237

Browse

Browsing Socrates. 2021, 1 (19) by Subject "automatizētā datu apstrādes sistēma"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Automatizētās datu apstrādes sistēmā esošo datu kontrole (Kriminālprocesa likuma 219. pants): nacionālie un starptautiskie piemērošanas aspekti
    (Rīga Stradiņš University, 2021) Ķinis, Uldis; Sinkevičs, Ņikita; Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, Latvija
    The article “Control of Data Located in Automated Data Processing Systems: National and International Application Aspects” is the result of the idea initiated by the proposal submitted by the Latvian State Police, to the Permanent Working Group of Criminal Procedure Experts of the Ministry of Justice regarding the amendment of Section 219, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Law “Control of Data in an Automated Data Processing System” is essentially analogous to Article 19 of the Cybercrime Convention, which obliges Member States to adopt such legislation as to facilitate the search of data in systems located within their territory. The essence of the proposal is to renounce the national territorial application clause in the Article, as it restricts the police operability to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings in situations where data stored in another computer systems are located outside of the territory of Latvia but are legally accessible from searchable system via Internet. In other words, to change the scope of jurisdiction of search and seizure to transborder search and seizure. The debate on whether one Member State is entitled to search and capture data in a system located in the territory of another Member State, is not new. It has been running since the adoption of the Convention and it is believed it will continue at least until the adoption of the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention, which should address issues related to cybercrime investigations. In the article, the authors will analyse what and how the situation has fundamentally changed since the adoption of the Cybercrime Convention and the Criminal Procedure Law, especially regarding the understanding of jurisdiction in the application of criminal procedural instruments. The authors also aim to provide their solutions for solving problems in relation with the proposal submitted by the State Police.