Que­sti­on Tre­de (15.5191): Moni­to­ring of postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic. Effec­ti­ve­ness of data retention

Que­sti­on Tre­de (15.5191): Moni­to­ring of postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic. Effec­ti­ve­ness of data retention

Sub­mit­ted text

Accor­ding to sta­tis­tics of the ser­vice ÜPF, retroac­ti­ve sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res (VDS) were orde­red 6918 times in 2012.

- How many of the 6918 VDS sur­veil­lan­ces were pre­sen­ted as evi­dence in court, admit­ted, and resul­ted in final convictions?

- In how many cases (actu­al or esti­ma­ted) would retroac­ti­ve moni­to­ring mea­su­res have been neces­sa­ry bey­ond six months and for what reasons?

- On avera­ge, how soon after the start of an inve­sti­ga­ti­on is retai­ned data accessed?

Respon­se of the Fede­ral Council

It is not pos­si­ble to say exact­ly how many of the retroac­tively orde­red sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res were used as evi­dence in court, as the pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties do not keep sta­tis­tics on this. Howe­ver, the expe­ri­ence of the pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties and their state­ments at the hea­ring befo­re the com­mis­si­ons for legal issues during the preli­mi­na­ry deli­be­ra­ti­ons on the Büpf revi­si­on show that in the case of the majo­ri­ty of retroac­ti­ve sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res, they obtain infor­ma­ti­on that is of gre­at importance in the cri­mi­nal inve­sti­ga­ti­on. In pro­ce­e­dings con­cer­ning nar­co­tics offen­ses, for exam­p­le, it is most­ly a mat­ter of iden­ti­fy­ing busi­ness part­ners as pos­si­ble accom­pli­ces. Here, the suc­cess rate is very high accor­ding to the pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties. The same applies to homic­i­de and rob­be­ry. Here, the que­sti­on is whe­ther the suspect was at the sce­ne of the crime at the time of the crime. If this is not the case, howe­ver, this is a “suc­cess” for the inve­sti­ga­ting aut­ho­ri­ties inso­far as the suspect can be exclu­ded as the per­pe­tra­tor. The cur­rent time limit of six months is too short, espe­ci­al­ly when deal­ing with indi­vi­du­al offen­ses that requi­re long-term inve­sti­ga­ti­ons. This is typi­cal­ly the case in the fight against orga­ni­zed crime, drug traf­ficking or ter­ro­rism, as well as in the pro­se­cu­ti­on of serious vio­lent and sexu­al offen­ses such as human traf­ficking and child por­no­gra­phy. The same applies to pro­ce­e­dings that are ope­ned on the basis of for­eign leads. Such infor­ma­ti­on usual­ly arri­ves with a con­sidera­ble time delay. It is not pos­si­ble to say in gene­ral how soon after the start of an inve­sti­ga­ti­on retroac­ti­ve sur­veil­lan­ce will be orde­red. This depends lar­ge­ly on the offen­se and the sta­tus of the proceedings.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be