A Dutch court has ordered the destruction of DNA material collected from a man convicted of cybercrime.
The court’s decision was based on the fact that the collection of DNA material was unnecessary and disproportionate, and thus violated the man’s physical integrity and personal privacy.
The Case: Defendant’s Objections to DNA Collection
The defendant in the case argued that his DNA did not play a role in the detection and prosecution of the offense for which he was convicted. He pointed out that the offense involved only digital communication and traces, and that there were no physical items involved.
The defendant also argued that the collection of his DNA violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He claimed that the DNA collection was not necessary and proportionate, as he had no prior criminal record and had not reoffended since.
Prosecutor’s Argument for DNA Collection
The prosecutor argued that DNA research cannot be excluded in cybercrime cases, as devices used to commit cybercrimes can be used for DNA research.
Physical items, including a phone and computer, were also seized and examined in this case.
Exception in the DNA Act
The DNA Act contains exceptions that state that it is not necessary to collect DNA when the processing of the DNA profile has no meaning for the prevention, detection, prosecution, and adjudication of the offenses for which the person concerned has been convicted.
Court’s Ruling: Destruction of DNA Material
The court found that DNA research did not play a significant role in clarifying the criminal offenses of the convicted person.
As a result, the court upheld the defendant’s objection and ordered the prosecutor to immediately destroy the collected DNA material.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling raises questions about the necessity and proportionality of DNA collection in cybercrime cases.
The Dutch government has previously indicated that it wants DNA material to be collected from suspects in the future, not just from those convicted of a crime.
However, this ruling suggests that such collection must be subject to careful consideration and should be limited to cases where it is genuinely necessary and proportionate.