ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE ABROAD AND THE QUESTION OF
ITS ADMISSIBILITY
M. Sc. Boštjan Lamešič＊

I. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ACQUIRED ABROAD IN SLOVENE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND THEIR EXCLUSIONThe Slovene courts and state bodies that participate in a criminal procedure are entitled on the basis of
the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Slovene Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter: ZKP)1 to decide whethera certain fact has been established or not, whereby they are not bound by or restricted by any special formal
evidentiary rules2. Discretionary consideration of evidence applies both to evidence that was obtained in the
territory of the home state as well as to the evidence that was obtained in the territory of a foreign state3.
The Slovene legislation does not differentiate between evidence obtained domestically and the evidence thatwas obtained abroad. In both instances the issue revolves around evidence, which, however, may have beenobtained in different ways.
It is nonetheless up to the court alone to decide which evidence it shall consider at all and how it shallconsider its credibility. A Slovene court may also decide to include in evidence materials that were notobtained in accordance with the ZKP, as it must, given the principle of material truth, truthfully andcompletely establish the facts relevant for the issuance of a lawful decision and thus ensure that the matter at
hand is investigated wholly and that the whole truth of the matter is brought to light4.
A Slovene court is indeed not bound to any formal rules on the basis of discretionary consideration ofevidence, however, the court may not establish a court decision on the basis of evidence that was obtained inviolation of constitutionally determined human rights and fundamental freedoms, nor on the basis of evidence
that was obtained in violation of the provisions of criminal procedure whereby this Act stipulates with regard
thereto that a court decision may not be established thereon, or which were acquired on the basis of suchinadmissible evidence5. Undoubtedly, foreign evidence is, in principle, admissible as per Slovene legislation;
however, the provision of the second paragraph of Article 18 of the ZKP is applicable to it as well, whichmeans that if it was obtained contrary to this provision, it must be excluded from the brief6.
There are no legally binding rules on the consideration of evidence admissibility in the European Union,
and the regulation of the field dedicated to the issue of evidence admissibility is left up to the Member States,
which is why I believe that when considering evidence obtained abroad, a Slovene court must firstly
determine whether this evidence was obtained abroad:i.

independently for the purpose of a procedure in the foreign country in accordance with its regulations,

Assistant to the National Member for Slovenia at Eurojust, Vice Chair of Economic Crime Team at Eurojust; The Office of theState Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia, District State Prosecutor.
1
Official Gazette of the RS, no. 63/1994 of 13 October 1994, with amendments.
2
The principle of discretionary consideration of evidence.
3
In relation to the stated, it should be noted that the ʻterritory of a foreign stateʼ may relate to a Member State of the European
Union, or to another country that is not a member of the European Union, or ʻthird countryʼ.
4
Article 17 of the ZKP.
5
The second paragraph of Article 18 of the ZKP states: ʻThe court may not base its decision on evidence obtained in violation of
the human rights and basic freedoms provided by the Constitution, nor on evidence which was obtained in violation of theprovisions of criminal procedure and which under this Act may not serve as the basis for a court decision, or which wereobtained on the basis of such inadmissible evidenceʼ.
6
Evidence that was obtained in another country cannot be admissible if it was obtained using torture contrary to Article 3 ofthe European Convention on Human Rights or if the right to defence was violated contrary to Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
＊

132

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

or on the basis ofii. international legal assistance or a European investigation order, oriii. international cooperation in joint investigation teams.
In this consideration the court must further consider the following:i. whether the evidence obtained abroad was obtained legally, andii. whether it was obtained in violation of a constitutionally7 or internationally legally determined humanright and fundamental freedom.
A. ʻIndependentʼ Acquisition of Evidence
If Slovene bodies obtain evidence in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, they are bound by national
constitutional and statutory regulations. In the same manner, foreign bodies are bound by their constitutionaland statutory regulations when detecting and investigating criminal acts in their territory. It cannot be
expected from foreign bodies to comply with foreign law when detecting and investigating criminal acts intheir own territory. Foreign bodies must comply with their own legislation and it cannot be requested fromthem to comply with foreign constitutional and statutory provisions, especially those that may only be
addressed to state bodies in the territory where a state exercises its sovereignty. We cannot expect that
foreign security or judicial bodies question themselves whether they are complying with foreign legislation
when investigating criminal acts in their own territory. When foreign bodies investigate a criminal act thatwas committed in their territory and that is punishable in accordance with their legislation, they must comply
only with their own regulations, and foreign bodies cannot and must not have an influence in this respect.
It cannot be expected in the field of international cooperation in criminal matters that all states will havetheir legislation harmonized with the legislation of the Republic of Slovenia. Insisting on complete complianceof evidentiary rules would disable international assistance in criminal matters and therewith international
cooperation in criminal matters as well. When Member States of the European Union act independently in theinvestigation of criminal acts in their territories for the purposes of their own procedure, then the principle oftrust applies for such obtained evidence, as concluded from the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters between the Member States of the European Union that the Council prepared on the basis of Article
34 of the Treaty on European Union8. The Convention further implies trust in the structure and operation of
the legal systems as well as the competence of all Member States to ensure a fair trial. Given the fact thatsometimes criminal procedures take place parallelly in states, it would be practically and theoretically
impossible to expect that all foreign bodies would act simultaneously on the basis of at least two different setsof legislation when investigating criminal acts. The thought that this could or even should be done is also
contrary to the preamble of the Convention that alerts to the fact that it is in the common interest of theMember States to ensure mutual legal assistance among Member States in a speedy and efficient manner.
In Slovene case law, several decisions argue that from the standpoint that individual procedural acts
performed by a foreign body are valid despite the fact that they were not carried out in the mannerprescribed by the ZKP (e.g. judgement Kp 16/2007 of 30 May 20059 and judgement XI Ips 44415/2010 of 22
June 2010)10 or that evidentiary materials obtained and submitted to Slovene bodies by a foreign security
body have equal evidentiary value as the materials obtained by the Slovene police in accordance with theprovisions of the ZKP (judgement I Ips 290/2006 of 31 August 2006)11. The latest case law has also taken theview that acts performed by the foreign competent bodies are to be firstly assessed in the light of theirdomestic constitution and legislation, and only then it is to be assessed whether such acts are materiallycompliant with the standards prescribed by our Constitution12 (judgement I Ips 199969/2010-279 of 14
February 2012)13.
And not also a statutory determined human right and fundamental freedom, as it has already been considered.
The Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (Official Journal of the European
Communities C 197/1 of 12 July 2000).
9
Summarized from the webpage: http://www.sodisce.si/vsrs/odlocitve/22347/, accessible on 20 August 2018.
10
Summarized from the webpage: http://sodisce.si/vsrs/odlocitve/2010040815245481/ accessible on 20 August 2018.
11
Summarized from the webpage: http://sodisce.si/vsrs/odlocitve/26125/, accessible on 20 August 2018.
12
Official Gazette of the RS, no. 33-1409/1991 of 28 December 1991 with amendments.
7
8

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

Slovene case law shows that when considering the admissibility of evidence obtained from abroad, theobject of consideration must be whether the evidence was collected in accordance with the national laws of
the state where such evidence was collected, and whether such acts are materially compliant with thestandards of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. We must contemplate certain institutes of theConstitution only in the sense that they are binding upon Slovene bodies and not upon foreign ones. The
object of consideration must not be foreign legislation and its compliance with the Slovene ZKP or Slovene
Constitution, as it is impossible to expect that the content of foreign regulations and the performance ofindividual procedural acts would be identical to those in Slovenia. The mere different regulation of anindividual procedural act does not automatically imply its illegality and the exclusion related thereto.
Procedural acts performed by foreign bodies must not be considered on the basis of the Slovene ZKP, but
only in light of the foreign legislation.
In a Slovene criminal procedure, the defence may propose to the court that individual evidence be
excluded from the brief, whereby the legality of the collected evidence must also be monitored by theprosecutor and the judge14. The defence may therefore object that a piece of evidence obtained abroad isillegal and that it must be excluded, as it was not obtained in an admissible manner, under the conditions andprocedure as per domestic law, namely, due to the fact that: the house search abroad was ordered by a police officer and not a judge;15
 two witnesses were not present during the performance of the house search abroad;16
 the foreign criminal procedural act does not include a legal instruction on the privilege against selfincrimination or the right to remain silent, and that foreign bodies did not explicitly state the right toremain silent17 in the record on the interrogation of the suspects18.
The response by the prosecution or the court to the defenceʼs objection could be that if the foreign
evidence was obtained independently of the request or cooperation of another state, i.e. by foreign bodies forthe purposes of their own procedure, then the procedural acts performed by the foreign body are also valid ina criminal procedure that takes place in Slovenia, despite the fact that they were not carried out in themanner prescribed by the ZKP, and that other requirements laid down either by the Constitution or the ZKP,
such as the presence of two witnesses during a house search, and the necessity of an issued court order for ahouse search, are merely procedural requirements prescribed by the Constitution and only bind Slovenebodies, and that we cannot request that a foreign state has to comply with the Slovene procedural
constitutional and statutory provisions, and that Slovenia protects human rights in its territory in accordancewith Article 5 of the Constitution19.
Summarized from the webpage: http://www.sodisce.si/vsrs/odlocitve/2012032113042029/, accessible on 20 August 2018.
The second paragraph of Article 83 of the ZKP states that a court decision may not be based on a deposition by the suspect oraccused, witness or expert, or on the records, objects, recordings, reports or pieces of evidence, the investigating judge or thejudge who carries out individual acts of investigation shall issue ex officio, or on the motion of a party, a decision excluding the
aforesaid evidence from the files as soon as he establishes that the statements or evidence of such a nature are involved. He
shall act in the same manner in respect of the information referred to in the preceding paragraph unless the public prosecutor
has already excluded it, as well as in respect of the information disclosed to the police by persons who may not be examined as
witnesses (Article 235) or who under this Act have renounced testimony (Article 236) or may not under this Act be appointed
as experts (Article 251). The parties may request the exclusion of records and other evidence only until the opening of the main
hearing and may request it in the main hearing only if they were not able do it before.
15
Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a search shall be ordered by the court in the form of a reasoned
warrant.
16
The fourth paragraph of Article 36 of the Constitution states that a search of a dwelling or other premises may only be
conducted in the presence of two witnesses.
17
Article 4 of Criminal Procedure Code/Act states that any arrested person must be advised immediately, in his mother tongue
or in a language he understands, of the reasons for his arrest. An arrested person shall immediately be instructed that he is notbound to make any statements, that he is entitled to the legal assistance of a counsel of his own choice and that the competentbody is bound to inform upon his request his immediate family of his apprehension.
18
The tenth paragraph of Article 227 of Criminal Procedure Code states that if the accused was not instructed about his rights
under the second paragraph of this Article, or the instruction and the statement of the accused concerning the right to a
defence counsel are not entered in the record, or the interrogation was conducted in violation of the provisions of the eighth or
ninth paragraph of this Article, the court may not base its decision on the statement of the accused.
19
Article 5 of the Slovenian Constitution states that in its own territory, the state shall protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
13
14

134

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

The prosecution or the court could further invoke the fact that foreign legislation does not require thepresence of two witnesses during a search, but that such a requirement is not prescribed by the European
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR)20, either. It is my opinion that the presence of two
witnesses during a search of an apartment as required by the Slovene Constitution in Article 36, is not a basic
human right. A basic human right is ʻthe inviolability of oneʼs premisesʼ that is also protected by Article 8 of
the ECtHR21. The presence of two witnesses during a search only represents a procedural provision orcondition that police officers have to consider or meet in order to render their actions legal. The presence of
two witnesses as prescribed by Article 36 of the Constitution is only binding upon the Slovene police in the
territory of the Republic of Slovenia, whereby the purpose of the presence of witnesses is only aimed at
exercising control over the work of the police. This is the so-called procedural dimension of constitutional
guarantees, as they can only be exercised in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. We must not forget that,
under strict conditions, the ZKP itself also allows for a house search to be carried out without the presence of
two witnesses22, which additionally points to the fact that the ʻpresence of two witnessesʼ is not a humanright, but merely a provision binding upon the police when performing its acts.
The prosecution and the court could respond to the defenceʼs objection with regard to the jurisdiction of
the body ordering the invasion of a human right, that in certain countries, other bodies are authorized toorder invasions in human rights and that it is not prescribed in the ECtHP anywhere, which body may orderinvasions in human rights (e.g. house searches), and that this is not a matter of importance, as long as there isa preliminary or subsequent judicial control over the ordered investigative act. This is also confirmed by theextensive case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR)23.
The ECHR stated in paragraph 44 of the Judgement in Harju v. Finland24 and paragraph 45 of theJudgement in Heino v. Finland25 that the absence of a prior judicial warrant may be counterbalanced by theavailability of an ex post factum judicial review. Judicial review plays an important part in the control or theadmission of an invasion of the right to privacy and inviolability of oneʼs premises, however, it is notnecessarily the case that judicial review is regulated in the same manner as prescribed in the Slovene
Constitution that is binding only upon Slovene bodies with regard to the performance of investigative
measures in the Slovene territory. In line with this view, countries decide themselves which body and underwhich procedure they shall carry out a certain procedural act, however, the legality thereof is also to beverified by the court before or after the procedural act is carried out.
In relation to the note of the legal instruction in the record, the prosecution and the court could argue thatthe privilege against self-incrimination26 is a constitutional category that is stipulated in item 4 of Article 29 of
the Constitution27, however, the note of the legal instruction is indeed a means for the protection of thisprivilege, which is a statutory category and is prescribed in the tenth paragraph of Article 227 of the ZKP,
Ratified in Slovenia with the Act Ratifying the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
amended by protocols Nos. 3, 5 and 8, and completed by protocol No. 2 (Official Gazette of the RS ‒ International Agreements(MP), no. 7-41/1994).
21
The first paragraph of Article 8 of the ECHR states that everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home andhis correspondence, to be respected. The second paragraph states that there shall be no interference by a public authority withthe exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law, and is necessary in a democratic society in the interestsof national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for theprotection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
22
The third paragraph of Article 218 of the ZKP states that a search may be carried out without witnesses being present if
their presence cannot be secured immediately and it would be unsafe to delay the act. The reasons for the search without theattendance of witnesses shall be cited in the record.
23
Cases Smirnov v. Russia, Varga v. Romania, Işıldak v. Turkey, Kruslin v. France, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom,
Sorvisto v. Finland, Sallinen and Others v. Finland, Heino v. Finland and Harju v. Finland.
24
Judgement was on 27 August 2018 accessible on https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-103397"]}.
25
Judgement was on 27 August 2018 accessible on https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-103394"]}.
26
The essence of this privilege is its voluntary nature.
27
Article 29 of Slovenian Constitution states that anyone charged with a criminal offence must, in addition to absolute equality,
be guaranteed the following rights:- the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence;- the right to be present at his trial and to conduct his own defence or to be defended by a legal representative;- the right to present all evidence to his benefit;- the right not to incriminate himself or his relatives or those close to him, or to admit guilt.
20

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

and that this procedural provision only applies in the territory of Slovenia, which is why it cannot be expectedthat a procedural standard based on a Slovene act would be stated in a procedure before the bodies ofanother state that has a different procedural regulation when it comes to notes of instructions.
It is not relevant that the right to remain silent is written; it is, however, important that the suspects were
instructed of this right and that they had a choice whether they will testify or defend themselves byremaining silent. The instruction, in which the accused is warned that he is not obligated to testify against
himself or that he may exercise his defence by remaining silent, must be such that the accusedʼs decision onwhether he will exercise the right to remain silent or not, entirely depends on his free will28.
It is my assessment that the omission of legal instruction on the right to remain silent does not constitutea violation of the ECtHR. Article 6 of the ECtHR prescribes the right to a fair trial29. The third paragraph of
Article 6 of the ECtHR prescribes the minimal rights to which a person is entitled, if accused of committing acriminal act. The right to remain silent or the privilege against self-incrimination is not listed among theserights. Despite the fact that the right to remain silent is not expressly included in the ECtHR, the ECHR has
considered several cases when individuals complained due to the violation of their right not to incriminate
themselves. The main factor that the ECHR considered in these cases was whether it is possible to consider
all of the circumstances related to the alleged self-incrimination as repressive.
The ECHR determined that such repressive circumstances exist when an employee of a company isforced to give statements or information on company activities to official bodies that investigate potential
irregularities, whereby such obtained data are stated in a subsequent criminal procedure against such an
employee (cases of Saunders v. United Kingdom (1996))30 and I.J.L. and others v. United Kingdom (2000))31.
The ECHR made the same determination when a French citizen was fined because he refused to submitbank statements and legal deeds with regard to which the customs officials presumed they existed, but were
not able to find during a legal search of premises (case of Funke v. France (1993))32.
In the case of Jalloh v. Germany (2006)33, where police officers forced the appellant to vomit a bag of
cocaine that he had swallowed before the eyes of the police, the ECHR held that forcing a person to vomit andusing the vomited bag of cocaine as the key evidence supporting the appellantʼs conviction, was a violation of
the appellantʼs right to a fair trial and his privilege against self-incrimination. This case involved a repressive,
excessive invasion to the body that represented inhumane and degrading conduct, carried out for theacquisition of the evidence that was the basis for the decision.
The ECHR established a violation of Article 6 of the ECtHR in several cases related to police
The decision by the Slovene Constitutional Court Up-134/97 of 14 March 2002, that was accessible on 24 August 2018 on theofficial link of the Slovene Constitutional Court on the webpage: http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/sl/odlocitev/US21295.
29
The right to a fair trial:
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair andpublic hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be
pronounced publicly but the press and the public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, publicorder or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of theparties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would
prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Anyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him;(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not the means to pay for legal
assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on hisbehalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
30
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58009, accessible on 21 September 2018.
31
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58800, accessible on 21 September 2018.
32
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57809, accessible on 21 September 2018.
33
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76307, accessible on 21 September 2018.
28

136

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

interrogations, namely, in instances when the self-incriminating statements were used in a trial as essential
ones, whereby the appellant gave these statements to the police while he was in solitary confinement
undergoing cruel detention and without access to an attorney (case of Magee v. United Kingdom (2000))34. Orin the case where individuals were sentenced because they refused to answer the questions asked by thepolice (case of Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland (2000))35. The ECHR also established a violation of Article 6of the ECtHR in the case of Averill v. United Kingdom (2000)36, where the police gave disputable or vague
advice on the scope of the right to remain silent while the person did not have access to legal representation.
In all these cases the suspects were, more or less, actually psychologically or physically forced toincriminate themselves in some way, and in some cases, they also did not have access to adequate legal
assistance. The acquisition of such statements is undoubtedly a violation of Article 6 of the ECtHR. In
particular, the right to remain silent presumes that it is up to the prosecution to prove the charges and that it
does not resort to methods of repression or oppression to obtain evidence, thus acting contrary to the will of
the accused (case of Saunders v. United Kingdom, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, J.B. v. Switzerland(2001)37 and Allan v. United Kingdom (2002)38. Given the case law of the ECHR, the consideration of whether
Article 6 of the ECtHR was violated, requires that the ʻdegree of forceʼ aimed at the acquisition of a statementof a suspect as well as access to legal representation is taken into account.
The prosecution and the court must determine by way of examining the interrogation records39 and byposing additional questions to the suspects40, i.e. accused41 at the main hearing as to whether there was any
degree of force present at the interrogation of the suspects, i.e. whether there was any indirect or direct force
or any physical or psychological violence, and whether the suspect voluntarily decided to submit theirdefence and whether they understood the meaning of their rights. Investigators must allow for the suspects
undergoing interrogation to be passive and that they decide by themselves, consciously, rationally and above
all, voluntarily, whether they will give statements or not.
Even if an individual procedural act is not carried out abroad in the manner prescribed by the domestic
law, it does not mean that such evidence must be excluded from the brief; on the contrary, I believe that such
evidence may be used in a domestic procedure, however, the court must first establish that such evidence
was not obtained in violation of a constitutionally or internationally legally determined human right andfundamental freedom42. If that were the case, it would have to be excluded from the court brief.
The main purpose of evidence exclusion is surely the prevention of illegal searches and seizures. Under
Slovene legislation, the decision on the exclusion of evidence is aimed at teaching the police a lesson withregard to its future conduct, which means the strict consideration of constitutional and statutory rights.
However, a Slovenian decision on the exclusion of evidence is not to be used as a lesson directed at foreign
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58837, accessible on 21 September 2018.
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59097, accessible on 21 September 2018.
36
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58836, accessible on 21 September 201837
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59449, accessible on 21 September 2018.
38
Summarized from the webpage: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60713, accessible on 21 September 2018.
39
The records must show that the suspects were instructed on their status in the pre-trial procedure (that they are suspects toa criminal act, which act, that they have a right to an attorney and other rights that are laid down by the domestic legislation);
who held jurisdiction at the interrogation (presence of an attorney); duration of the interrogation (whether there was a recess,time for lunch); whether the records was signed by the suspect (and attorney); whether the suspect (and/or attorney) made any
comments on the record; it is advisable to write records as per the question/response system, as this is the only way to checkthe manner of interrogation as well as the nature of the questions, i.e. whether they were of a suggestive or captious nature.
40
According to Article 144 of the ZKP, the suspect is a person against whom the competent government agency undertook,
before the introduction of criminal proceedings, a specific act or measure because grounds existed to suspect that he hadcommitted, or participated in the commission of, a criminal offence.
41
According to Article 144 of the ZKP the defendant is the person against whom the charge sheet has become final.
42
Equality before the law, prohibition of torture, protection of personal liberty, orders for and duration of detention, protection ofhuman personality and dignity, equal protection of rights, right to judicial protection, public nature of court proceedings, right tocompensation, presumption of innocence, principle of legality in criminal law, legal guarantees in criminal proceedings, right torehabilitation and compensation, prohibition of double jeopardy, freedom of movement, right to private property andinheritance, right to personal dignity and safety, protection of right to privacy and personality rights, inviolability of dwellings,
protection of the privacy of correspondence and other means of communication, protection of personal data, right to use oneʼs
language and script.
34
35

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

police that complied with these regulations during its work. Only their competent bodies may teach themsuch a lesson. It would be downright absurd, if Slovene bodies were to give lessons on compliance withSlovene regulations to foreign competent bodies when the latter independently act in their territory and inaccordance with their own regulations.
B. Acquisition of Evidence by Way of Requests or a European Investigation Order
If Slovene bodies acquire evidence from third countries, they must prepare a request for international
legal assistance that is usually conveyed through the Ministry of Justice to the competent bodies in thesecountries43. However, if they acquire evidence44 from another Member State of the European Union on thebasis of the Cooperation in Criminal Matters with the Member States of the European Union Act (hereinafter:ZSKDČEU-1B)45, which implemented the Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters46 in the Slovene legal
order, whereby they have been obtaining evidence as of 5 May 2018 by way of a European investigation order47.
They may submit this order directly to the competent body of a Member State and it does not have to besubmitted through the Ministry of Justice which contributes to its speedier execution.
On the basis of Article 34 of the Directive of 22 May 2017, when the implementation deadline has lapsed,the Directive shall replace the respective provisions48 of the following conventions that apply in relations
between the Member States of the EU in which the Directive is binding:i.

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of the Council of Europe of 20 April
1959 and two additional Protocols to this Convention and bilateral agreements that were concluded
based on Article 26 of the aforementioned Convention;49
ii. Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European
Union (2) and Protocols (3) to this Convention50 andiii. Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement51.
In addition to the ZSKDČEU-1B, the Slovene bodies have also been obtaining evidence until 5 May 2018
In cases of bilateral agreements or agreements between individual states, they may also be submitted directly (e. g.:
Agreement on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters of 14 April 2011 (Official Gazette of the RS - MP, no. 13/2015 and16/2015) entered into by the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Serbia).
44
Such as obtaining information or evidence which is already in the possession of the executing authority; obtaining information
contained in databases held by police or judicial authorities; hearing of a witness, expert, suspected or accused person, victim,
third party; identification of persons holding a subscription of a specified phone number or IP address; temporary transfer of aperson held in custody to the issuing State; temporary transfer of a person held in custody to the executing State; hearing byvideoconference or other audiovisual transmission of a witness, expert or suspected or accused person; hearing by telephone
conference of a witness or expert; information on bank and other financial accounts, information on banking and other financial
operations; investigative measure implying the gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a certain period oftime; monitoring of banking or other financial operations; controlled deliveries; covert investigations; interception of
telecommunications and other provisional measure(s) to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal ofan item that may be used as evidence.
45
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 48/2013, 37/2015, 22/2018.
46
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation
Order in criminal matters (Official Journal of the European Union no. L 130/1 of 1 May 2014).
47
A European investigation order is a judicial decision which has been issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member
State (ʻthe issuing Stateʼ) to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another Member State (ʻtheexecuting Stateʼ) to obtain evidence.
48
A non-binding interpretation of the term ʻrespective provisionsʼ of the Conventions replaced by the Directive was adopted in
the scope of Eurojust and the European judicial network, and therewith the types of measures that are not included in the areaof application of the European investigation order and regarding which the aforestated Conventions continue to apply. One ofsuch measures is the service of procedural documents, joint investigation teams, spontaneous exchange of information,
abandonment and assumption of law enforcement, return of items to their lawful owner, seizure and recovery of assets,exchange of information from the criminal records, measures of cooperation between the customsʼ bodies, etc. (Council doc. No
9936/17 LIMITE: on 18 September 2018 accessible on http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9936-2017-INIT/en/
pdf).
49
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 (Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 30).
50
Official Journal of the European Communities C 197/1 of 12 July 2000.
51
Official Journal of the European Union no. L 239/19 of 22 September 2000.
43

138

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

based on the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters52 and Convention on Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union53. Both Conventions were
ratified in Slovenia with a law54 and they were both in effect simultaneously.
When obtaining evidence under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance55, more emphasis is givenon the law of the requested state, while the contrary is true regarding the Convention on Mutual Assistancein Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union56, i.e. more emphasis is given on thelaw of the requesting state. The European investigation order is recognised and executed in the same manner
and under the same conditions as if the investigation measure or act was ordered by the executing state.
However, it is possible that the ordering state states which formalities must be met to ensure theadmissibility of evidence. The executing body must meet them, unless they are contrary to the fundamental
regulations of the executing state57.
In the investigation and criminal prosecution of the gravest criminal acts such as terrorism, illicit
trafficking in narcotic drugs, trafficking in human beings, counterfeiting (of products, official documents,
money), cybercrime, frauds, corruption, crime against the environment and participation in a criminalorganisation, the growingly predominant aspect is their international element, as these criminal acts are notexecuted in one state alone. Due to the more efficient detection and criminal prosecution of this type of
criminal acts, action in a single state or the submission of individual European investigation orders and/or
requests for international legal assistance is no longer enough and is not efficient. It may be inefficient mainly
due to the following reasons:i. with requests, the cooperation of foreign bodies is limited only to a specific request or procedural act;
ii. information and evidence are submitted after the request is executed (loss of time);iii. after the receipt of information, a new request must be prepared for each additional measure which
can be inefficient in terms of time and costs;
iv. participation is limited to the competent bodies of the executing state;58v. limited participation of the competent bodies of the ordering state;59vi. in principle, the investigation does not commence in the executing state.
To ensure the greatest degree of efficiency when fighting international crime, it is necessary to ensure an
unlimited and simultaneous exchange of information and evidence between the representatives of foreign
bodies that are equal and active in the investigation and criminal prosecution of the gravest criminal acts
both at home as well as abroad. This, however, can only be achieved with their close cooperation which isprovided with the formation and operation of joint investigation teams.
C. Acquisition of Evidence by Way of International Cooperation in Joint Investigation Teams
It is typical for joint investigation teams that they represent cooperation between foreign competent
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 (Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 30).
53
Official Journal of the European Communities C 197/1 of 12 July 2000.
54
Act ratifying the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 25/1999) and the Act
ratifying the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union,
established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union (Official Gazette of the Republic ofSlovenia ‒ International Agreements no. 7/2005).
55
Article 3 of European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters states: ʻThe requested Party shall execute in themanner provided for by its law any letters rogatory relating to a criminal matter and addressed to it by the judicial authoritiesof the requesting Party for procuring evidence or transmitting articles to be produced in evidence, records or documents.
56
Article 4 of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union states: ʻWhere mutual assistance isafforded, the requested Member State shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the requesting
Member State, unless otherwise provided in this Convention and provided that such formalities and procedures are notcontrary to the fundamental principles of law in the requested Member State.ʼ
57
Article 9 of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European
Investigation Order in criminal matters.
58
It is the state whose competent body executes a decision or measure for another state.
59
It is the state whose competent body issued the decision or measure to be executed in another state.
52

139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

bodies in the investigation and criminal prosecution of criminal acts containing an international element basedon a time-limited agreement. The agreement is concluded on the initiative of a competent body of thedomestic of foreign state. This means that the precondition for the conclusion of the agreement is an alreadycommenced pre-trial procedure in the state that usually initiates the conclusion of the agreement. This is so
because the investigative bodies in this state already possess certain evidence and require additional
evidence or information from other countries to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
A joint investigation team can have one or more leaders, depending on the number of participating
countries. The practice of establishing joint investigation teams is going in the direction where eachparticipating state designates its leader. In the meantime, the investigation and criminal prosecution may be
carried out in one or several or all participating states. It is also possible that some states conclude anagreement on the establishment of a joint investigation team in the investigation and criminal prosecution,
while the others participate through international legal assistance, or accede to the agreement at a laterstage.
The definition and terms for the establishment of a joint investigation team, its composition, time andgeographical aspect of operations, its purpose and manner of operations as well as organization is regulated
by several bilateral60 and international61 documents as well as Practical instructions for joint investigation
teams prepared by the Secretariat of the Network for joint investigation teams in cooperation with Eurojust,Europol and OLAF62. These Practical instructions also include a template agreement on the establishment ofa joint investigation team63.
The Member States of the European Union must notify their national representatives at Eurojust64 about
the establishment of a joint investigation team and the results of its work65. A mere notification by Member
States could not in any way contribute to the efficiency of joint investigation teams as the cooperation ofnational members in their activities and in the establishment as well66. In any case, the support of national
members and the Secretariat of the Network of joint investigation teams that are part of the Eurojust67
personnel, is of key importance when it comes to the preparation of the agreement on the establishment of a
joint investigation team, as Eurojust promotes the template agreement in which all the relevant articles are
already included that may later on be subject of discussions and negotiations among the signatories of theagreement. It should not be overlooked that regarding the latter, the Secretariat of the Network of joint
investigation teams is always available with its specific knowledge and extensive experience. When theparties agree on the agreement content, Eurojust also provides the agreement translations. However, the roleof Eurojust does not end only in the adoption of the agreement on the establishment of a joint investigationteam or in relation to changes to the agreement content; it can also continue in the very investigation andcriminal prosecution, as the competent bodies often require legal advice in the criminal prosecution of theAgreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application ofcertain provisions of the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of
the European Union and the 2001 Protocol thereto and Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Unionand the United States of America (Article 5).
61
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the EU of 12 July 2000 (Article 13);
Council Framework Decision on 13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams (2002/465/JHA); Police Cooperation Convention forSouth-East Europe ((PCC-SEE) Article 27); Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance(Article 20); United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Article 9); United
Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Article 19) and United Nations Convention against Corruption(Article 49).
62
Issued by the Council of the European Union in Brussels on 14 February 2017 (summarized from the webpage: http://www.
eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/JITs/JITs%20framework/JITs%20Practical%20Guide/JIT-GUIDE-2017-EN.pdf, accessible on 14
August 2018).
63
Official Journal of the European Union C 18, 19 January 2017, p. 1‒9.
64
On the basis of Article 2 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing
the fight against serious crime (Official Journal L 063 of 6 March 2002) and further strengthened by Council Decision
2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up
Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime ((Official Journal L 138 of 4 June 2009) hereinafter: Eurojust
Decision), this is usually the prosecutor or the judge.
65
Article 13 of the Eurojust Decision.
66
Article 9f of the Eurojust Decision.
67
Article 25a of the Eurojust Decision.
60

140

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

more grave forms of cross-border crime that pertain to a referral of a case, European arrest warrant,
European investigation order, and last but not least, also to the answers relating to the settlement of a disputeon jurisdiction. An important factor is also the financing of the operations of joint investigation teams,
whereby it is based on anticipated costs of operative activities68, which is also provided by Eurojust. Eurojust
therefore prepares everything necessary for the signature of an agreement on the establishment of a joint
investigation team and finances all the necessary logistics related to its operations which surely saves timeand costs for the investigation and law enforcement bodies at their work.
In the Republic of Slovenia, the establishment of joint investigation teams is regulated in the ZSKDČEU1B, namely, Article 53 regulates the procedure of its establishment and Article 54 regulates the manner of its
work. The procedure of the establishment and the operations of the joint investigation team is also regulated
in Article 160b69 of the ZKP.
However, neither the ZSKDČEU-1B nor the ZKP regulate the issue of obtaining evidence in a joint
investigation team, and thereby the admissibility thereof as well, due to which the answer to this question is
to be sought in international acts that regulate the operations of a joint investigation team.
1. Application of the Law in Joint Investigation Teams
International criminal law agreements that are relevant for the cooperation between countries in criminal
prosecution of the criminal offenders override domestic law, under the condition that such agreements havebeen ratified and published. The provisions of a ratification act with which an international agreement isincluded in the internal legal order of a state, have the power of a law both in the formal as well as material
sense given lex lata. However, with the publication of the ratification act, an international agreement starts toapply directly.

Reimbursement of the costs of transport and accommodation, interpretation and translation costs as well as the costs ofevidence materialsʼ transport and/or seized itemsʼ transport costs.
69
The Article 160b of the ZKP states: (1) In the case which is the subject to the pre-trial procedure, investigation or court
proceedings in one or more countries, the police may cooperate with the police staff of the other country in the territory oroutside the territory of the Republic of Slovenia in carrying out tasks and measures in the pre-trial procedure and investigation
procedure for which it is responsible according to the provisions of this Act. (2) In carrying out the tasks and measures referred
to in the preceding paragraph, the police shall be directed by the public prosecutor pursuant to Article 160.a of this Act andmay cooperate with the public prosecutors of the other country in the territory and outside the territory of the Republic ofSlovenia in carrying out the stated activity and in exercising other powers in compliance with the provisions of this Act (joint
investigation team). (3) The tasks, measures, guidance and other powers referred to in the previous paragraphs of this Article
must be carried out in accordance with the agreement on the establishment and operation of joint investigation team in the
territory of the Republic of Slovenia or other countries that shall be concluded on a case by case basis by the Public Prosecutor
General or under his authorisation by his deputy with the Public Prosecution Office, court, police or other competent authoritiesof other states as set out in the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (Official Journal of theEuropean Union, No. L 162/1, 20.6.2002) or in the existing international treaty concluded with a country not being a member ofthe European Union after obtaining the opinion of the Director General of the Police. The agreement shall be concluded on theinitiative of the Public Prosecutor General, the Head of the District Public Prosecution Office or the Head of the Group of Public
Prosecutors for Special Affairs or on the initiative of the competent authority of another state. (4) The agreement referred to in
the previous paragraph shall lay down which authorities are to conclude the agreement, in which case the joint investigationteam will act, the purpose of the operation of the team, the Public prosecutor of the Republic of Slovenia who is its Head in the
territory of the Republic of Slovenia, other team members and the duration of its operation. The Public Prosecutor Generalmust notify the ministry responsible for justice in writing of any agreement concluded. (5) The police staff, public prosecutors orother competent authorities of other states shall only carry out tasks, measures, guidance and/or other powers referred to in
the first and second paragraphs of this Article in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia within the framework of the joint
investigation team in compliance with the provisions of the agreement on the establishment and operation of the joint
investigation team referred to in the third paragraph of this Article. (6) If so provided for in the agreement on the establishment
and operation of the joint investigation team referred to in the third paragraph of this Article, the representatives of competentauthorities of the European Union, such as EUROPOL, EUROJUST and OLAF, may participate in the joint investigation team.
The representatives of competent authorities of the European Union shall only exercise their powers in the territory of the
Republic of Slovenia within the framework of the joint investigation team in compliance with the provisions of the agreement
referred to in the third paragraph of this Article. (7) The police organisation units and Public Prosecution Offices of the Republicof Slovenia are obliged to offer all the necessary assistance to the joint investigation team. (8) Upon the completion of the work
done by the joint investigation team, the head of the joint investigation team shall make a report in writing to all its members
and the Public Prosecutor General.
68

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

Since the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of theEuropean Union was also ratified with an appropriate law in Slovenia70, this Convention is also directly
applicable in Slovenia in the basis of Article 8 of the Constitution71, which means that Article 13 of the said
Convention is also directly applicable, whereby this Article precisely determines under which conditions a
JIT may be established, who is in the composition, how and where it operates etc. It is stated in item a) of thethird paragraph of Article 13 that the team leader acts in the scope of its competencies as per his national
legislation. However, item b) of the third paragraph of Article 13 prescribes that the JIT performs its tasks inaccordance with the legislation of the Member State in which it operates. These provisions are therefore
directly applicable and in effect in the Republic of Slovenia.
We find the same diction about the operations of the team leader and the performance of team tasks, i.e.
that these teams should comply with the national legislation of the Member State in which they operate, inthe following:

items a) and b) of Article 3 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation
teams (2002/465/JHA);

items a) and b) of Article 5 of the Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe;72

 items a) and b) of the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Second Additional Protocol to theEuropean Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters;73
 the fourth paragraph of Article 5 of Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European
Union and the United States of America74 that includes a provision that refers to the application of
the national law of the state in which the joint investigation team operates.
Item c) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances75 also stipulates that team members may, upon theauthorization of appropriate bodies on the territory of which the investigation is to be executed, act on thebasis of the authorization and that all parties must ensure the complete consideration of the sovereignty ofthe party on the territory of which the investigation is being carried out. It may be concluded that thisprovision, too, refers the operations of the joint investigation team to the application of the national law of thestate where the investigation is being carried out.
Article 19 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime76 and Article 49 of
the United Nations Convention against Corruption77 entail an identical text, namely, that the relevant
contracting states ensure the complete consideration of the sovereignty of the contracting state on the
territory of which the investigation is to be carried out.

Ratified in Slovenia with the Act ratifying the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member
States of the European Union (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia ‒ International Agreements no. 7/2005 of 18 May
2005).
71
Article 8 of Slovenian Constitution states that laws and regulations must comply with the generally accepted principles ofinternational law and with treaties that are binding on Slovenia. Ratified and published treaties shall be applied directly.
72
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification of the Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe Act (Official Gazette of
the RS no. 108/2012 of 29 December 2012).
73
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistancein Criminal Matters Act (Official Gazette of the RS no.92/2012 of 6 December 2012)74
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and theUnited States of America Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 121/2005 of 30 December 2005 ‒ International Agreements, no.
22/05).
75
Ratified in SFRJ with the Ratification on the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act (Official Gazette of the SFRJ no. 14 of 23 November 1990).
76
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification on the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime Act(Official Gazette of the RS no. 41/2004 of 22 April 2004.
77
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification on the United Nations Convention against Corruption Act (Official Gazette of the RS
no. 5/2008 of 4 March 2008.
70

142

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

Given the international acts, I can state that joint investigation teams must, when acquiring evidence inthe territory of a team Member State where it collects evidence, comply with its national legislation andcollect evidence in line with the procedures that apply in this state. This means that if a joint investigationteam is operating and collecting evidence in the territory of three states, it must comply with three different
sets of legislation. However, this does not mean that the evidence that was obtained in the scope of a joint
investigation team in different states is also automatically admissible for an evidentiary procedure in anotherstate. On the contrary. Its admissibility should always be diligently considered especially in the light of thestandards of the national legal order and the European Convention on Human Rights78 and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights79.

II. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE CONTENT BY SLOVENE COURTSAs stated at the outset, the court must, when considering whether evidence was collected in accordancewith the national law of the country where such evidence was collected, also consider whether such acts
materially comply with the standards of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. This means that the
court further considers two more sets of questions, namely: 1. the evidentiary basis for consideration at the
moment when procedural acts by foreign investigators are ordered, and 2. whether the evidentiary basis
meets the standards that, in accordance with the Slovene ZKP, allow this type of invasion in basic humanrights. Such an opinion was also adopted by the Slovene case law80.
A Slovene court must check the evidentiary basis that was handled by foreign bodies before they carryout individual procedural acts. Evidentiary basis may be acquired (bank) documentation, hearing of witnesses
and data obtained with special methods and means, such as telephone tapping and following. If such anevidentiary basis meets the Slovene evidence standards (i.e. justified grounds for suspicion and reasons for
suspicion), and the same procedural acts would have been ordered on the evidentiary basis, then theprocedural acts by the foreign bodies were materially compliant with the standards of the Constitution of the
Republic of Slovenia and such evidence is also admissible on the same grounds in a Slovene procedure.

III. CONCLUSION
When acquiring evidence from abroad, their admissibility before the court must be verified. This meansthat both the law enforcement bodies and prosecution services as well as the courts must, along the legalityof the acquisition of the evidence obtained abroad, also consider whether such evidence was obtained inviolation of a constitutionally or internationally legally determined human right and fundamental freedom. If
evidence obtained abroad was obtained illegally, it must be excluded from the brief. The mere fact that
evidence obtained abroad was obtained under a different procedure than in the state in which the court willuse it for an evidentiary procedure does not necessarily mean that such evidence is automatically
inadmissible.
Evidence obtained abroad that was obtained independently of a request or participation of another statemust be obtained legally in such a state, whereby it is valid also in a criminal procedure being held in anotherstate, even though it was not obtained in a manner prescribed in this other state where it will be used.
If evidence was obtained abroad illegally or in violation of basic human rights, then such evidence isundoubtedly inadmissible and must be excluded from the brief with which we prevent illegal investigations
and seizures and prioritize the respect of human rights and not the establishment of truth and the efficiencyof criminal procedure.
Given the fact that the acquisition of evidence from abroad through requests may be inefficient in terms oftime and costs, the objective of an efficient fight against international crime calls for employing other
instruments of international cooperation as well. One of the more efficient instruments of gathering evidence
is undoubtedly through the formation and operation of joint investigation teams. They can operate and obtain
Ratified in Slovenia with the Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Act amended by protocols Nos. 3, 5 and 8, and completed by protocol No. 2 (Official Gazette of the RS-MP, no. 7-41/1994).
79
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A on 10 October 1948.
80
Judgement by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia ref. no. XI Ips 44415/2010 of 22 June 2010.
78143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

evidence in the territory of one participating state or in the territory of several participating states. A joint
investigation team undoubtedly saves on time and costs that would have otherwise been spent for writing
and translating time-consuming requests; operating through investigative bodies is not only limited to one or
two investigating acts ‒ investigative bodies can actually carry out several investigative acts simultaneously
and work actively both at home as well as abroad; they can receive evidence and information immediately;
direct communication is established with foreign bodies; most importantly, the collection of evidence issubject to the law of the state in which the joint investigation team operates, with which errors in the legalityof evidence collection and consequently, the possibility of their exclusion in another state, are decreased.
However, in the establishment and provision of the financial means for the operation of joint investigation
teams, and consequently also in the admissibility of evidence before the courts, we must not overlook theefficient assistance provided by Eurojust as shown by the numbers as well, as the number of newlyestablished joint investigation teams whose operations were financially supported by Eurojust is growing
every year81.
It can in no way be expected that a joint investigation team is a ʻmagic wandʼ and that all investigation,evidentiary, legal, financial, logistic, technical, translation and other problems will be solved simply with theconclusion of an agreement on the establishment of a joint investigation team. However, it may be expectedthat these problems will be resolved more easily with the close cooperation and a speedy decision on the
country in which a criminal procedure will be held and against whom82 it will be brought.

Summarized from the webpage: http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/Pages/annual-reports.aspx, accessible
on 24 September 2018.
82
I propose for the sake of an easier execution of a procedure, especially from the aspect of the protection of the rights of theaccused and economy of the procedure, that in principle, each state participating in the team, shall perform the criminal
prosecution of its own citizens unless other state is in a better position to prosecute.
81

144