ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025
Legitimacy of investigative forensic genetic genealogy under Art. 8 ECHR.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Legitimacy of investigative forensic genetic genealogy under Art. 8 ECHR.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigative forensic genetic genealogy (iFGG) was successfully used in the United States to solve the Golden State Killer case in 2018 and in Sweden to solve the Linköping double-murder case in 2020. However, further use of iFGG in Sweden was temporarily suspended due to concerns about its legitimacy. This article evaluates the legitimacy of iFGG within what we name, the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) four-fold privacy test: the preliminary interference test, the lawfulness test, the legitimate aim test, and the proportionality test. The use of iFGG is an interference with an individual's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Its lawfulness requires the creation of an iFGG-enabling law or amendment of an existing law to allow iFGG use by law enforcement. Its legitimate aim-criminal identification through data derived from DNA deposited at crime scenes-falls squarely under Article 8 § 2 ECHR. The proportionality of its use largely depends on the provision of appropriate safeguards in an iFGG-enabling law that would protect genetic data privacy. Although iFGG is a powerful tool to help solve cold cases, it has to stand on a solid legal ground that allows its use while respecting the right to privacy. It should be able to withstand any legal challenge before the ECtHR in the future. The safeguards identified in this article, if incorporated in an iFGG-enabling law, hope to prevent such legal challenge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.