Supreme Court: Trojan interceptions valid for pre-2020 proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the appeal filed by a suspect against his pre-trial detention for an association crime aimed at drug trafficking. The man contested the admissibility of interceptions carried out via a computer trojan, also arguing the insufficiency of evidence of guilt.

The Court rejected the objections regarding the trojan, establishing that the new regulation requiring specific justification for its use applies only to proceedings registered from September 1, 2020. Since the case in question dates back to 2018, the previous legislation is valid. The Supreme Court also reiterated that non-compliance with some technical provisions does not automatically render evidence inadmissible.

Regarding the evidence of guilt, the Court declared the ground inadmissible, confirming that it cannot re-examine the evidence but only verify the logical and legal correctness of the reasoning of the Tribunal. The latter had found serious evidence based on interceptions, video surveillance, and tracking, which demonstrated a stable drug trafficking organization with the suspect in a leadership role.

Computer interceptors, commonly known as trojans, are malicious software secretly installed on electronic devices (such as smartphones or computers) to intercept communications and activities. They are powerful and invasive investigative tools, whose use has sparked debates for years about the balance between investigative needs and the protection of privacy, safeguarded by Article 15 of the Constitution.

The origin of the regulatory debate dates back to the evolution of crime, which has increasingly utilized encrypted technologies. Law enforcement agencies have therefore demanded adequate tools. For years, the use of trojans was regulated by fragmented norms and practices, without an organic law governing its limits and safeguards. This created uncertainty about the validity of the evidence obtained.

The situation partially changed on September 1, 2020, when new regulations came into effect, imposing stricter requirements, such as specific justification for authorizing their use. The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies a crucial point: the new law is not retroactive. Proceedings initiated before that date remain governed by the old rules, according to the principle "tempus regit actum" (time governs the act). This creates a regulatory dualism that continues to influence ongoing trials.