Presumption of DNA guilt

The Federation Council Committee on State Building on Tuesday recommended approval of a government law to expand mandatory genomic registration, which is expected to be approved by the upper house at a plenary session on February 1. However, some senators have questions about the mechanism for excluding those who have received the right to rehabilitation from the DNA database: the procedure may be too complicated, they believe.

The new law significantly expands the list of persons from whom DNA will be forcibly taken for inclusion in a special database. Now, Irina Rukavishnikova, deputy chairman of the State Construction Committee, reminded her colleagues that such a measure is provided only for those convicted of serious and especially serious crimes, as well as any crimes against sexual integrity. After the adoption of the amendments, compulsory genomic registration awaits all convicts serving sentences of imprisonment, all suspects and defendants, as well as persons subjected to administrative arrest.

The radical expansion of opportunities for the forced collection of biomaterial was accompanied by an active discussion in the State Duma. In particular, the communist Aleksey Kurinny proposed that only persons suspected and accused of committing grave and especially grave crimes be subjected to genomic registration. But the only concession was the amendment introduced by United Russia, which fixes the procedure for the destruction of genomic information in the event that suspects, accused or convicted persons have the right to rehabilitation.

Senators also have questions. It is not clear why biometric personal data should be taken from all suspects and defendants, Elena Mizulina got excited. “This is some kind of lawlessness, they are still innocent, why is this necessary?” she wondered. It is understandable when this is done in relation to convicted convicts: if there is a relapse, then it can be quickly detected, but the selection of biometric data is a restriction on the freedom of the individual, and it is necessary to carefully weigh what status it should apply to persons with what status, the senator insisted. “It doesn’t cost anything to become a suspect in our country, it’s easy,” she reminded her colleagues. “The decision was made to involve him as a suspect, because he was in the place where the crime took place, and you can take all the data without his consent!”

The law is of great importance for the protection of citizens from crime, objected the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Alexander Avdeyko. Foreign experience says that genomic registration starts to really work from a base of 1% of the population, and thanks to the law under discussion, about 4% will be registered with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the ministry calculates. There are fears that this information will be used for some purposes other than personal identification, but this is impossible, Mr. Avdeiko reassured the senators: during genomic registration, only DNA sections that do not carry information about the physical and physiological state are examined – the maximum gender can be determined . “There are no restrictions on rights as such,” assured the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But he did not convince Andrey Klishas, ​​the head of the state building committee: since the law provides for the right to rehabilitation and the possibility of data destruction, it means that some rights are still violated, the senator reasonably noted.

Ms. Mizulina drew attention to the cumbersome procedure for the restoration of rights: this will require a separate court order, which will need to be attached to the application. The decision can be issued simultaneously with the court decision, for this it is not necessary to start a separate process, Ms. Rukavishnikova assured her colleague. But in the end, the senators nevertheless decided to further study the proposed procedure and, in particular, to clarify how it is understood in the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky notes that it is very difficult to achieve rehabilitation: both in criminal and administrative cases, such decisions are made extremely rarely. It follows from this that not all persons who have entered the database will be able to apply for the destruction of their biometrics. In addition, the lawyer adds, practice shows that even a formal justification does not guarantee the deletion of data. In fact, we are talking about creating another instrument of control over citizens, the expert believes. And here, in his opinion, it is very important to find a balance between the technical capabilities of the investigation and the privacy of law-abiding people.

Lawyer Vladislav Vatmanyuk points out that in recent years, biometric information has become a widespread method of identification. Increasingly, there are systems for identifying the individual characteristics of a certain person, with the help of which a considerable volume of criminal cases and cases of administrative offenses is being investigated. But in the case of mandatory registration of persons subject to administrative responsibility, the question may arise about the proportionality of such restrictions, the expert warns: “It is possible that in the near future we will see the facts of citizens’ appeals to the Constitutional Court on this issue.”

Anastasia Kornya