Inter­pel­la­ti­on Maz­zo­ne (17.4230): Sear­ching for rela­ti­ves using DNA in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings. Will the Fede­ral Coun­cil refrain from doing so?

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Maz­zo­ne (17.4230): Sear­ching for rela­ti­ves using DNA in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings. Will the Fede­ral Coun­cil refrain from doing so?

Sub­mit­ted text

1) How does the Fede­ral Coun­cil assess the use of rela­ti­ve sear­ches with the help of the DNA data­ba­se from the point of view of com­pli­ance with fun­da­men­tal rights?

2. the method is con­tro­ver­si­al and has not yet pro­ven its effec­ti­ve­ness. Will the Fede­ral Coun­cil ban the use of this method as part of the revi­si­on of the DNA pro­fi­le law?

3. if the Fede­ral Coun­cil nevert­hel­ess wants to allow the use of this method, is it pre­pared to rest­rict its use for par­ti­cu­lar­ly serious cri­mes and to defi­ne what is con­side­red a serious crime? 

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Sin­ce 2015, accor­ding to the Fede­ral Court, the use of a con­tro­ver­si­al pro­ce­du­re has been per­mit­ted: the search for rela­ti­ves by means of a DNA data­ba­se. The pro­ce­du­re makes it pos­si­ble to search for par­ti­al matches bet­ween DNA found at the crime sce­ne and pro­files stored in the natio­nal DNA pro­fi­le data­ba­se Codis. A par­ti­al match may indi­ca­te that the per­son stored in Codis is clo­se­ly rela­ted to the suspec­ted person.

The Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion and Infor­ma­ti­on Com­mis­sio­ner has poin­ted out that this method is que­stionable in terms of cri­mi­nal poli­cy and fun­da­men­tal rights. Sin­ce DNA is bio­me­tric per­so­nal data that requi­res spe­cial pro­tec­tion, its use requi­res an expli­cit legal basis. This is lack­ing for the search for rela­ti­ves. In addi­ti­on, the pro­ce­du­re repres­ents a serious vio­la­ti­on of the pri­va­cy of the per­sons stored in Codis. The per­son rela­ted to the alle­ged offen­der is invol­ved in pro­ce­e­dings sole­ly on the basis of their rela­ti­on­ship. While in a cri­mi­nal tri­al the rela­ti­ves of an accu­sed per­son have the right to refu­se to testi­fy, their con­sent is not requi­red here. Final­ly, it must be bor­ne in mind that the pro­ce­du­re does not bring the hoped-for suc­cess: In none of the fif­teen or so appli­ca­ti­ons to date has it led to the sol­ving of the crime. This is becau­se the simi­la­ri­ty of the gene­tic mate­ri­al is often due to chance.

The Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion and Infor­ma­ti­on Com­mis­sio­ner is of the opi­ni­on that the search for rela­ti­ves, if it is per­mit­ted, may only be used in the case of par­ti­cu­lar­ly serious cri­mes and only as a last resort if the search of Swiss and for­eign data­ba­ses has not led to any results. In addi­ti­on, the prin­ci­ple of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty must be obser­ved. Fed­pol, howe­ver, let it be known in the press that it does not rule out using the method in cases of burgla­ry, for example. 

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 14.2.2018

1 The Fede­ral Coun­cil is awa­re of the cur­rent prac­ti­ce in con­nec­tion with the per­for­mance of rela­ti­ve sear­ches as car­ri­ed out on the basis of the DNA Pro­fi­le Act (SR 363). The public prosecutor’s office respon­si­ble in an indi­vi­du­al case sends the order to con­duct such a spe­cial search in the DNA pro­fi­le infor­ma­ti­on system to the Fede­ral Office of Poli­ce (fed­pol), which, after a for­mal exami­na­ti­on, for­wards it to the DNA Coor­di­na­ti­on Unit at the Insti­tu­te of Foren­sic Medi­ci­ne of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Zurich for pro­ce­s­sing. In its ruling of 6 Octo­ber 2015 (decis­i­on BB.2015.17), the Fede­ral Cri­mi­nal Court deci­ded that the pur­po­se of the DNA Pro­fi­le Act – to increa­se the effi­ci­en­cy of cri­mi­nal pro­se­cu­ti­on – inclu­des this inve­sti­ga­ti­ve method. Thus, the rela­ti­ve search can be con­duc­ted based on the cur­rent wor­ding of the DNA Pro­fi­le Law. This means that the limits that this law impo­ses on stan­dard sear­ches to iden­ti­fy offen­ders in order to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights of the per­son con­cer­ned also app­ly to sear­ches to iden­ti­fy any rela­ti­ves of the alle­ged offen­der in the DNA pro­fi­le infor­ma­ti­on system.

2/3 The instru­ment of the rela­ti­ve search is available to the law enforce­ment agen­ci­es and is curr­ent­ly being used: If the search for the alle­ged per­pe­tra­tor in the DNA pro­fi­le infor­ma­ti­on system does not yield a hit and the other inve­sti­ga­ti­ve methods are also incon­clu­si­ve, this instru­ment may pro­ve to be a last resort to gain know­ledge for cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings. Sin­ce the afo­re­men­tio­ned ruling of the Fede­ral Cri­mi­nal Court of Octo­ber 2015, around fif­teen such sear­ches have been con­duc­ted in the infor­ma­ti­on system. Pre­vious prac­ti­ce shows that the rela­ti­ve search is only orde­red in important cases. As far as can be seen, this has not yet resul­ted in any per­pe­tra­tor iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons in Switz­er­land. In for­eign count­ries, howe­ver, whe­re rela­ti­ve sear­ches have been used for years, the con­cre­te bene­fits of this instru­ment have been cle­ar­ly pro­ven. The Fede­ral Coun­cil will pre­sent the con­sul­ta­ti­on draft for the par­ti­al revi­si­on of the DNA pro­fi­le law in imple­men­ta­ti­on of the Vita­li moti­on 15.4150 befo­re the end of the year. In the pro­cess, the cur­rent prac­ti­ce of sear­ching for rela­ti­ves and a pos­si­ble need for legis­la­ti­ve regu­la­ti­on will also be exami­ned. This bill is curr­ent­ly being pre­pared by fed­pol for the atten­ti­on of the hig­her aut­ho­ri­ties, based on the con­sul­ta­ti­ons of an expert group with repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the can­to­nal law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties, foren­sic medi­ci­ne, medi­cal ethics and data pro­tec­tion, as well as with experts from the Fede­ral Depart­ment of Justi­ce and Police. 

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be