- Email: [email protected]
Criminal DNA databases: the European situation
Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
Criminal DNA databases: the European situation Peter M. Schneidera,*, Peter D. Martinb a
Institute of Legal Medicine, Johannes Gutenberg University, Am Pulverturm 3, 55131 Mainz, Germany b Former Deputy Director, Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, London, UK Received 10 September 2000; accepted 14 November 2000
Abstract In the last 5 years, a number of European countries have successfully introduced national databases holding the DNA pro®les from suspected and convicted criminal offenders as well as from biological stain materials from unsolved crime cases. At present, DNA databases are fully or partially in operation in the UK, The Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden. Furthermore, in the other European countries, speci®c legislation will be enacted soon, or the introduction of such databases is being discussed to initiate a legislative process. Numerous differences exist regarding the criteria for a criminal offender to be included in the database, the storage periods and the possibility to remove database records, the possibility to keep reference samples from the offenders as long as their respective records are being held, and the role of judges in the process of entering a database record or to perform a database search. Nevertheless, harmonization has been achieved regarding the DNA information stored in national databases, and a European standard set of genetic systems has been recommended which is included either in part or completely in the DNA pro®les of offenders and crime stains for all European databases. This facilitates the exchange of information from database records to allow the investigation of crime cases across national borders. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Crime; Database; DNA; STR analysis; Legislation; Privacy rights
1. Introduction Forensic DNA typing in Europe is strongly in¯uenced by great differences between the national legal systems as well as by a heterogeneity regarding the laboratories involved in casework. This affects the storage of personal genetic data for the purpose of criminal investigations, the introduction of national DNA databases for criminal offenders, and, in some countries, even the possibility to obtain DNA samples from suspects and the acceptance of DNA evidence in casework. At the political level, a decision was reached in 1997 between the members of the European Union to create a framework for a European DNA database for offenders convicted for sexual abuse of children. In this situation, pan-European standardization of DNA pro®ling as well as DNA database services is absolutely necessary.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 49-6131-39-32-687; fax: 49-6131-39-33-183. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.M. Schneider), [email protected] (P.D. Martin).
The rapid development in the ®eld of forensic molecular genetics in the last 15 years has resulted in at least three consecutive generations of DNA typing methods (for review, see [1]). The European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP; accepted as a working group of the international society for forensic genetics (ISFG) since 1991) is acting towards harmonization in this ®eld, and has initiated a series of scienti®c collaborative exercises for the evaluation of new DNA typing methods and systems. As a result, a number of loci were recommended suitable as common European systems [2±4]. To coordinate and standardize operational processes of DNA typing in casework within the police laboratories as well as in the laboratories providing this service for the police, the DNA working group of the European network of forensic science institutes (ENFSI) was founded 3 years ago. Operational national DNA databases presently exist in the UK (1995), The Netherlands and Austria (1997), Germany (1998) [5,6], in Finland and Norway (1999), and recently in Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden (see Table 1). Furthermore, in a number of countries, legislation is in preparation to allow the creation of a national DNA database (see Tables 1 and 2).
0379-0738/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 7 9 - 0 7 3 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 4 3 5 - 7
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
233
Table 1 DNA databases in Europe Database in operation
Date of introduction
Database in preparation
Date of legislation (date of planned operation)
UK The Netherlands Austria Germany Finland Norway Denmark Switzerland
April 1995 1997 October 1997 April 1998 September 1999 End of 1999 July 2000 July 2000
France Belgium Sweden Spain Italy
June 1998 (no operational details yet) May 1999 (end of 2000) April 1999 (September 2000) In preparation In preparation
It is obvious that the value of a DNA database is directly related to the number of records. This is illustrated by the highly successful national DNA database in the UK [5] with >800,000 entries overall, >70,000 person-to-sample and >10,000 sample-to-sample hits (see Table 2). The database now grows at a rate of 1000 samples per day generating between 400 and 600 hits in each week. This is equivalent to a match rate of 40% for stains (being matched to other stains or persons) and 8% for suspects added to the database. To limit the database size, matched stains will be removed from the database upon request by the police. Furthermore, it is considered to introduce a separate `police elimination database' with DNA pro®les from police of®cers working at crime scenes. This database could be used to screen DNA pro®les from crime scene samples prior to entering them into the national DNA database, to eliminate stains originating from contaminations rather than from unknown perpetrators (D.J. Werrett, personal communication). In Germany, the number of hits increased signi®cantly when the legal problems to obtain reference samples from convicted offenders had been solved (see below). The same could be true for The Netherlands, where mostly crime scene samples have been entered into the database (Table 2). 2. Genetic system selection Based on the initial EDNAP exercises, and on recommendations by ENFSI and the Interpol working party on DNA pro®ling [7], four systems have been recommend as the European standard set (ESS) of loci: THO1, VWA, D21S11, and FGA. Three more systems Ð D3S1358, D8S1179 and D18S51 Ð have been added recently to this set. Regarding the typing technology and system standardization, most countries are already using or planning to use multiplex PCR systems offered by companies like Applied Biosystems or Promega. There are now commercial kits available containing seven ESS loci as well as up to nine additional autosomal STR's as well as the gonosomal Amelogenin locus for gender discrimination. The concept of `uniqueness' of a DNA pro®le in a database, which was the basis of a decision for selecting 13 STR loci in the United
States for the national CODIS database, has not been adopted by the European countries. Nevertheless, the addition of three more systems to the ESS loci is suf®cient for reducing the chance of a random match from one in 100,000 to one in 500 million. 3. Operational procedures and legal restrictions There are signi®cant differences between the European countries regarding the criteria to enter a person onto the database as a suspect already or only in case of conviction, the removal of records, and the possibility to keep reference samples of the offenders (see Table 3). Suspect pro®les may be entered in ®ve countries only, and the records have to be destroyed in case of acquittance or when the charges have been dropped. On the other hand, even in a case of conviction, a separate court order to obtain a sample is required in Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, and Norway. There are ®ve countries where database records of convicted offenders may be stored for lifetime (or in Denmark, to the age of 70 years), and another ®ve countries with periods between 5 and 30 years after which a personal record has to be eliminated. In Denmark, a difference is being made between cases where a charge has been dropped by the prosecution, and cases where an accused person is acquitted only after a trial. In the ®rst case, the database record has to be eliminated immediately, whereas in the second case, the record will be removed only after 10 years. According to a recent survey carried out in Denmark from police records, it has actually been shown that a signi®cantly higher proportion of acquitted suspects will reappear in another investigation within 5 years in comparison to suspects from cases where the charges have been dropped. In Germany and Switzerland, the removal of a record is also based on an evaluation of the person regarding the risk for future offenses. The unlimited storage of reference samples from suspects and convicted criminals is only allowed in four countries. This facilitates internal control tests before a match is being reported (as it is performed in the UK), or to reanalyze these samples if new loci were added to the database set of
234
Table 2 DNA database details Database custodian
The Netherlands Netherlands Forensic Institute, Rijswijk
Austria Central DNA Typing Laboratory, Institute of Legal Medicine, Innsbruck
Germany Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) Wiesbaden (federal criminal agency)
Removal periods
Anonymization requirements
Number of entries (spring 2000)/ DNA systems used for typing
DNA profiles and reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for `any recordable offense'
Acquitted suspects only
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, separate register for personal records
Offenders: 764,000 Unknown samples: 75,200 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 70,400 Sample-to-sample: 10,400 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles only of convicted offenders and unknown samples with consent only, without consent only for serious crimes with 8 years imprisonment or more after court order and no sample in case of confession
Offenders: after 30 years Samples: after 18 years
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles only, separate register for personal records (crime samples can be stored)
Offenders: 600 Unknown samples: 2200 Only small number of hits due to procedural problems ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for crimes against life and health, sexual abuse, robbery, theft, arson, blackmail, drug-related and other serious crimes
Acquitted suspects only
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, separate register for personal records outside the central DNA lab
Offenders: 25,000 Unknown samples: 3500 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 380 Sample-to-sample: 210 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles only of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for serious crimes with 1 year imprisonment or more, sexual abuse and other serious crimes, after court order
Routine case controls for samples to be removed every 5/10 years (juvenile/adult offenders)
Open storage of DNA profiles together with personal data, typing of anonymized personal and crime scene samples in police and university laboratories
Offenders: 32,100 Unknown samples: 3900
Hit statistics: 200 Four ESS loci SE33 (three additional ESS loci in preparation), no multiplex specified
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
UK Forensic Science Service, central database lab in Birmingham
Samples stored and entry criteria
Finland National Bureau of Investigation, Vantaa
Denmark Department of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen
Sweden SKL: National Institute of Forensic Science, LinkoÈping
Switzerland Coordinator: Institute of Legal Medicine, ZuÈrich
One year after acquittal, suspension of case or death
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, CODIS software (FBI) used
Offenders: 1800 Unknown samples: 600 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 100 Sample-to-sample: 20 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles of convicted offenders and unknown samples, for sexual abuse, crimes against life and health, crimes posing danger to the public (e.g. arson), blackmail and robbery, after court order
No removal except after death or proven innocence
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles only, CODIS software (FBI) used
Offenders: 150 No crime stains yet ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples from suspects and offenders, unknown samples and missing persons Suspects and convicted offenders for crimes with 1.5 years of imprisonment or more
Removal after charges have been dropped, 10 years after acquittal, or age >70 years
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, CODIS software (FBI) used
ABI SGM plus
Two separate databases, one for stains, and one for convicted offenders
Unknown samples: 600 Offenders (collection starts in September 2000) Nine ABI profiler loci is four of seven ESS loci (will be extended with ABI SGM plus kit to comprise all seven ESS loci)
Anonymous storage of samples and profiles, DNA database linked with AFIS database run by police, separate register for personal records (IPAS)
ABI profiler (SGM plus) likely
DNA profiles from routine casework (a) 10 Years after release from prison (without further offense) only from convicted offenders (b) After 30 years (a); unknown samples (b); reference samples only for the period of police investigation from convicted criminals for crimes with 2 years of imprisonment or more, only if a DNA profile has been obtained during the police investigation DNA profiles and DNA reference samples for suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples, for a catalogue of serious crimes
Upon request after acquittal, after 5 years in case the charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence, or after 10/20 years depending on severity of crime (request may be rejected)
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
Norway National police (database) and Institute of Legal Medicine, Oslo (laboratory)
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples, for all crimes with 1 year imprisonment or more, for offenders convicted before 1.7.97 also retrospectively if still held in prison
235
236
Database custodian
Samples stored and entry criteria
Removal periods
Anonymization requirements
Number of entries (spring 2000)/ DNA systems used for typing
Belgium National Institute of Criminalistics, Brussels (law enacted May 1999, royal decree required for implementation, expected in 2000)
DNA profiles only from convicted offenders (a); unknown samples (b); from convicted criminals with court order for crimes with 5 years of imprisonment or more
(a) 10 Years after death (b) After 30 years, or when the case has been closed
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles, two separate databases, one for stains, and one for convicted offenders
Seven ESS loci No multiplex specified
France Italy Spain
A law from June 1998 allows the creation of a database in cases of sexual abuse. According to the existing law, samples can only be obtained by consent, or from clearly identified biological material removed `naturally' from the body, e.g. hair on a comb. Details about the database operation are currently decided by the police and the gendarmerie nationale Prior to introducing a database, a number of law concerning the privacy rights and the storage of personal data have to be amended. This process has been initiated with the objective to establish the legal basis for introducing a DNA database A commission in the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft in May 1999, which will be presented to the parliament. The code of criminal procedures has to be changed to obtain blood or saliva samples without consent
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
Table 2 (Continued )
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
237
Table 3 Comparison of sample entry, storage and removal criteria UK Suspects After conviction Samples stored Removal after
No
NL 18/30
A
GE
F
No
No
(10)
systems, or if a completely new typing technology would be introduced. In Denmark and Sweden, storage of these samples is allowed for up to 2 years only after the case has been decided. In Sweden, this also applies to DNA samples extracted from a crime stain. In all European countries, speci®c legislation was required for the creation of national DNA databases. The existing laws either prohibited the taking of a blood or saliva sample from suspects without consent or outside police investigations only for the purpose of a database, or the use of DNA pro®ling in criminal casework, and the storage of DNA pro®les in computerized databases [8]. Several procedural problems exist in a number of countries limiting the ef®cient use of the database. In The Netherlands, samples cannot be obtained without consent from a convicted perpetrator in case of crimes carrying a punishment of less than 8 years, or when the accused person confesses to the crime. Furthermore, a database search is not done automatically after a DNA pro®le has been added, but only upon request by the investigating judge or prosecutor in the context of a speci®c case investigation. Thus so-called `cold hits', where a suspect is unexpectedly linked to an apparently unrelated crime scene sample cannot be obtained. These dif®culties have resulted in only a small number of successful hits, and an amendment of the existing law facilitating a more ef®cient use of the database is in preparation (A. Kloosterman, W. Jansen, personal communication) [9]. In Sweden, and initially in Germany, it is only possible to obtain DNA samples from suspects in the course of routine police investigations, when stain evidence has to be analyzed. Samples from convicted offenders serving their prison term or from persons not convicted based on DNA evidence can therefore not be obtained, and the database may contain only a fraction of offenders otherwise qualifying for a database entry. In Germany, these problems have ®nally been solved by enacting a law on the ``determination of identity by DNA analysis'' (DNA-IdentitaÈtsfeststellungsgesetz) in 1998, as well as an amendment to this law in 1999 allowing the state prosecutors to inquire at the Federal Central Register (of criminal offenders) about the identity of convicts currently serving their prison terms according to a catalogue of crimes. 4. International aspects At the international level, Interpol will probably serve as a platform to exchange data. The Interpol working party on
N
B
No
30
DK
S
CH
() No
() 10/30
5±20
DNA pro®ling [6] has been replaced in 1999 by the Interpol DNA pro®le monitoring expert group (DNA MEG) to achieve world-wide representation. In a model currently discussed, Interpol member states may send DNA pro®les from unknown crime samples with a possible international dimension to a central Interpol database, and these records would then be made available to the participating national databases for comparison against the local records of criminal offenders. To address concerns about data protection and privacy rights, only the DNA pro®les from unknown crime samples, but not those from individual persons, would be shared with other countries. Thus personal DNA data will remain in national custody, but could be compared in a given crime investigation with DNA pro®les from another country. It is to be expected that the European countries who have not yet introduced a national DNA database such as Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and Greece as well as the countries of the former eastern Europe will soon start the legislative process. In many of these countries, commissions have been formed already, or reports have been submitted to the government about the requirements to initiate a legislation in this direction. So it may take only a few more years until this powerful investigative tool becomes a standard procedure in all European countries. Acknowledgements We would like to sincerely thank all our colleagues of the EDNAP group who have continuously provided the informations necessary to write this survey. This study was supported in part by the European Commission in the context of the STADNAP network (www.STADNAP.unimainz.de; contract SMT 97-7506). References [1] P.D. Martin, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, A brief history of the formation of DNA databases in forensic science within Europe, this issue. [2] P. Gill, C. Kimpton, E. D'Aloja, J.F. Andersen, W. BaÈr, B. Brinkmann, S. Holgerssen, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, M.V. Lareu, L. Nellemann, H. P®tzinger, C.P. Phillips, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M. Stenersen, Report of the European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP) Ð towards standardization of short tandem repeat (STR) loci, Forensic Sci. Int. 65 (1994) 51±59.
238
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
[3] C. Kimpton, P. Gill, E. D'Aloja, J.F. Andersen, W. BaÈr, S. Holgerssen, S. Jacobsen, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, M.V. Lareu, L. Nellemann, H. P®tzinger, C.P. Phillips, S. Rand, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M. Stenersen, M.C. Vide, Report on the second EDNAP collaborative STR exercise, Forensic Sci. Int. 71 (1995) 137±151. [4] P. Gill, A. D'Aloja, J. Andersen, B. Dupuy, M. Jangblad, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, A. Kratzer, M.V. Lareu, M. Meldegaard, C. Philips, H. P®tzinger, S. Rand, M. Sabatier, R. Scheithauer, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M.C. Vide, Report of the European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP): an investigation of the complex STR loci D21S11 and HUMFIBRA (FGA), Forensic Sci. Int. 86 (1997) 25±33. [5] D.J. Werrett, The national DNA database, Forensic Sci. Int. 88 (1997) 33±42. [6] P.M. Schneider, DNA databases for offender identi®cation in Europe Ð the need for technical, legal and political
harmonization, in: Proceedings from the Second European Symposium on Human Identi®cation, Promega Corporation, 1998, pp. 40±44. [7] A. Leriche D. Vanek, H. Schmitter, U. Schleenbecker, J. Woller, P. Montagna, L. Garofano, W. Sprangers, S. Wolf, N. Moe, J. Matusek, J.A. Heranz, A.M. Garcia-Rojo Gembin, L.S. Utrilla, W. Grohamslaw, P. Fibra, M. Branchhlower, Final report of the Interpol working party on DNA pro®ling, in: Proceedings from the Second European Symposium on Human Identi®cation, Promega Corporation, 1998, pp. 48±54. [8] P.M. Schneider, C. Rittner, P.D. Martin (Eds.), in: Proceedings of the European Symposium on Ethical and Legal Issues of DNA Typing in Forensic Medicine, Forensic Sci. Int. 88 (1997) 1±110. [9] H. Janssen, A. Kloosterman, The DNA database in The Netherlands, personal communication.
Criminal DNA databases: the European situation Peter M. Schneidera,*, Peter D. Martinb a
Institute of Legal Medicine, Johannes Gutenberg University, Am Pulverturm 3, 55131 Mainz, Germany b Former Deputy Director, Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, London, UK Received 10 September 2000; accepted 14 November 2000
Abstract In the last 5 years, a number of European countries have successfully introduced national databases holding the DNA pro®les from suspected and convicted criminal offenders as well as from biological stain materials from unsolved crime cases. At present, DNA databases are fully or partially in operation in the UK, The Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden. Furthermore, in the other European countries, speci®c legislation will be enacted soon, or the introduction of such databases is being discussed to initiate a legislative process. Numerous differences exist regarding the criteria for a criminal offender to be included in the database, the storage periods and the possibility to remove database records, the possibility to keep reference samples from the offenders as long as their respective records are being held, and the role of judges in the process of entering a database record or to perform a database search. Nevertheless, harmonization has been achieved regarding the DNA information stored in national databases, and a European standard set of genetic systems has been recommended which is included either in part or completely in the DNA pro®les of offenders and crime stains for all European databases. This facilitates the exchange of information from database records to allow the investigation of crime cases across national borders. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Crime; Database; DNA; STR analysis; Legislation; Privacy rights
1. Introduction Forensic DNA typing in Europe is strongly in¯uenced by great differences between the national legal systems as well as by a heterogeneity regarding the laboratories involved in casework. This affects the storage of personal genetic data for the purpose of criminal investigations, the introduction of national DNA databases for criminal offenders, and, in some countries, even the possibility to obtain DNA samples from suspects and the acceptance of DNA evidence in casework. At the political level, a decision was reached in 1997 between the members of the European Union to create a framework for a European DNA database for offenders convicted for sexual abuse of children. In this situation, pan-European standardization of DNA pro®ling as well as DNA database services is absolutely necessary.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 49-6131-39-32-687; fax: 49-6131-39-33-183. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.M. Schneider), [email protected] (P.D. Martin).
The rapid development in the ®eld of forensic molecular genetics in the last 15 years has resulted in at least three consecutive generations of DNA typing methods (for review, see [1]). The European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP; accepted as a working group of the international society for forensic genetics (ISFG) since 1991) is acting towards harmonization in this ®eld, and has initiated a series of scienti®c collaborative exercises for the evaluation of new DNA typing methods and systems. As a result, a number of loci were recommended suitable as common European systems [2±4]. To coordinate and standardize operational processes of DNA typing in casework within the police laboratories as well as in the laboratories providing this service for the police, the DNA working group of the European network of forensic science institutes (ENFSI) was founded 3 years ago. Operational national DNA databases presently exist in the UK (1995), The Netherlands and Austria (1997), Germany (1998) [5,6], in Finland and Norway (1999), and recently in Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden (see Table 1). Furthermore, in a number of countries, legislation is in preparation to allow the creation of a national DNA database (see Tables 1 and 2).
0379-0738/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 7 9 - 0 7 3 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 4 3 5 - 7
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
233
Table 1 DNA databases in Europe Database in operation
Date of introduction
Database in preparation
Date of legislation (date of planned operation)
UK The Netherlands Austria Germany Finland Norway Denmark Switzerland
April 1995 1997 October 1997 April 1998 September 1999 End of 1999 July 2000 July 2000
France Belgium Sweden Spain Italy
June 1998 (no operational details yet) May 1999 (end of 2000) April 1999 (September 2000) In preparation In preparation
It is obvious that the value of a DNA database is directly related to the number of records. This is illustrated by the highly successful national DNA database in the UK [5] with >800,000 entries overall, >70,000 person-to-sample and >10,000 sample-to-sample hits (see Table 2). The database now grows at a rate of 1000 samples per day generating between 400 and 600 hits in each week. This is equivalent to a match rate of 40% for stains (being matched to other stains or persons) and 8% for suspects added to the database. To limit the database size, matched stains will be removed from the database upon request by the police. Furthermore, it is considered to introduce a separate `police elimination database' with DNA pro®les from police of®cers working at crime scenes. This database could be used to screen DNA pro®les from crime scene samples prior to entering them into the national DNA database, to eliminate stains originating from contaminations rather than from unknown perpetrators (D.J. Werrett, personal communication). In Germany, the number of hits increased signi®cantly when the legal problems to obtain reference samples from convicted offenders had been solved (see below). The same could be true for The Netherlands, where mostly crime scene samples have been entered into the database (Table 2). 2. Genetic system selection Based on the initial EDNAP exercises, and on recommendations by ENFSI and the Interpol working party on DNA pro®ling [7], four systems have been recommend as the European standard set (ESS) of loci: THO1, VWA, D21S11, and FGA. Three more systems Ð D3S1358, D8S1179 and D18S51 Ð have been added recently to this set. Regarding the typing technology and system standardization, most countries are already using or planning to use multiplex PCR systems offered by companies like Applied Biosystems or Promega. There are now commercial kits available containing seven ESS loci as well as up to nine additional autosomal STR's as well as the gonosomal Amelogenin locus for gender discrimination. The concept of `uniqueness' of a DNA pro®le in a database, which was the basis of a decision for selecting 13 STR loci in the United
States for the national CODIS database, has not been adopted by the European countries. Nevertheless, the addition of three more systems to the ESS loci is suf®cient for reducing the chance of a random match from one in 100,000 to one in 500 million. 3. Operational procedures and legal restrictions There are signi®cant differences between the European countries regarding the criteria to enter a person onto the database as a suspect already or only in case of conviction, the removal of records, and the possibility to keep reference samples of the offenders (see Table 3). Suspect pro®les may be entered in ®ve countries only, and the records have to be destroyed in case of acquittance or when the charges have been dropped. On the other hand, even in a case of conviction, a separate court order to obtain a sample is required in Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, and Norway. There are ®ve countries where database records of convicted offenders may be stored for lifetime (or in Denmark, to the age of 70 years), and another ®ve countries with periods between 5 and 30 years after which a personal record has to be eliminated. In Denmark, a difference is being made between cases where a charge has been dropped by the prosecution, and cases where an accused person is acquitted only after a trial. In the ®rst case, the database record has to be eliminated immediately, whereas in the second case, the record will be removed only after 10 years. According to a recent survey carried out in Denmark from police records, it has actually been shown that a signi®cantly higher proportion of acquitted suspects will reappear in another investigation within 5 years in comparison to suspects from cases where the charges have been dropped. In Germany and Switzerland, the removal of a record is also based on an evaluation of the person regarding the risk for future offenses. The unlimited storage of reference samples from suspects and convicted criminals is only allowed in four countries. This facilitates internal control tests before a match is being reported (as it is performed in the UK), or to reanalyze these samples if new loci were added to the database set of
234
Table 2 DNA database details Database custodian
The Netherlands Netherlands Forensic Institute, Rijswijk
Austria Central DNA Typing Laboratory, Institute of Legal Medicine, Innsbruck
Germany Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) Wiesbaden (federal criminal agency)
Removal periods
Anonymization requirements
Number of entries (spring 2000)/ DNA systems used for typing
DNA profiles and reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for `any recordable offense'
Acquitted suspects only
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, separate register for personal records
Offenders: 764,000 Unknown samples: 75,200 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 70,400 Sample-to-sample: 10,400 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles only of convicted offenders and unknown samples with consent only, without consent only for serious crimes with 8 years imprisonment or more after court order and no sample in case of confession
Offenders: after 30 years Samples: after 18 years
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles only, separate register for personal records (crime samples can be stored)
Offenders: 600 Unknown samples: 2200 Only small number of hits due to procedural problems ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for crimes against life and health, sexual abuse, robbery, theft, arson, blackmail, drug-related and other serious crimes
Acquitted suspects only
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, separate register for personal records outside the central DNA lab
Offenders: 25,000 Unknown samples: 3500 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 380 Sample-to-sample: 210 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles only of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples for serious crimes with 1 year imprisonment or more, sexual abuse and other serious crimes, after court order
Routine case controls for samples to be removed every 5/10 years (juvenile/adult offenders)
Open storage of DNA profiles together with personal data, typing of anonymized personal and crime scene samples in police and university laboratories
Offenders: 32,100 Unknown samples: 3900
Hit statistics: 200 Four ESS loci SE33 (three additional ESS loci in preparation), no multiplex specified
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
UK Forensic Science Service, central database lab in Birmingham
Samples stored and entry criteria
Finland National Bureau of Investigation, Vantaa
Denmark Department of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen
Sweden SKL: National Institute of Forensic Science, LinkoÈping
Switzerland Coordinator: Institute of Legal Medicine, ZuÈrich
One year after acquittal, suspension of case or death
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, CODIS software (FBI) used
Offenders: 1800 Unknown samples: 600 Hit statistics Person-to-sample: 100 Sample-to-sample: 20 ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles of convicted offenders and unknown samples, for sexual abuse, crimes against life and health, crimes posing danger to the public (e.g. arson), blackmail and robbery, after court order
No removal except after death or proven innocence
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles only, CODIS software (FBI) used
Offenders: 150 No crime stains yet ABI SGM plus
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples from suspects and offenders, unknown samples and missing persons Suspects and convicted offenders for crimes with 1.5 years of imprisonment or more
Removal after charges have been dropped, 10 years after acquittal, or age >70 years
Anonymous storage of reference samples and DNA profiles, CODIS software (FBI) used
ABI SGM plus
Two separate databases, one for stains, and one for convicted offenders
Unknown samples: 600 Offenders (collection starts in September 2000) Nine ABI profiler loci is four of seven ESS loci (will be extended with ABI SGM plus kit to comprise all seven ESS loci)
Anonymous storage of samples and profiles, DNA database linked with AFIS database run by police, separate register for personal records (IPAS)
ABI profiler (SGM plus) likely
DNA profiles from routine casework (a) 10 Years after release from prison (without further offense) only from convicted offenders (b) After 30 years (a); unknown samples (b); reference samples only for the period of police investigation from convicted criminals for crimes with 2 years of imprisonment or more, only if a DNA profile has been obtained during the police investigation DNA profiles and DNA reference samples for suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples, for a catalogue of serious crimes
Upon request after acquittal, after 5 years in case the charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence, or after 10/20 years depending on severity of crime (request may be rejected)
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
Norway National police (database) and Institute of Legal Medicine, Oslo (laboratory)
DNA profiles and DNA reference samples of suspects, convicted offenders and unknown samples, for all crimes with 1 year imprisonment or more, for offenders convicted before 1.7.97 also retrospectively if still held in prison
235
236
Database custodian
Samples stored and entry criteria
Removal periods
Anonymization requirements
Number of entries (spring 2000)/ DNA systems used for typing
Belgium National Institute of Criminalistics, Brussels (law enacted May 1999, royal decree required for implementation, expected in 2000)
DNA profiles only from convicted offenders (a); unknown samples (b); from convicted criminals with court order for crimes with 5 years of imprisonment or more
(a) 10 Years after death (b) After 30 years, or when the case has been closed
Anonymous storage of DNA profiles, two separate databases, one for stains, and one for convicted offenders
Seven ESS loci No multiplex specified
France Italy Spain
A law from June 1998 allows the creation of a database in cases of sexual abuse. According to the existing law, samples can only be obtained by consent, or from clearly identified biological material removed `naturally' from the body, e.g. hair on a comb. Details about the database operation are currently decided by the police and the gendarmerie nationale Prior to introducing a database, a number of law concerning the privacy rights and the storage of personal data have to be amended. This process has been initiated with the objective to establish the legal basis for introducing a DNA database A commission in the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft in May 1999, which will be presented to the parliament. The code of criminal procedures has to be changed to obtain blood or saliva samples without consent
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
Table 2 (Continued )
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
237
Table 3 Comparison of sample entry, storage and removal criteria UK Suspects After conviction Samples stored Removal after
No
NL 18/30
A
GE
F
No
No
(10)
systems, or if a completely new typing technology would be introduced. In Denmark and Sweden, storage of these samples is allowed for up to 2 years only after the case has been decided. In Sweden, this also applies to DNA samples extracted from a crime stain. In all European countries, speci®c legislation was required for the creation of national DNA databases. The existing laws either prohibited the taking of a blood or saliva sample from suspects without consent or outside police investigations only for the purpose of a database, or the use of DNA pro®ling in criminal casework, and the storage of DNA pro®les in computerized databases [8]. Several procedural problems exist in a number of countries limiting the ef®cient use of the database. In The Netherlands, samples cannot be obtained without consent from a convicted perpetrator in case of crimes carrying a punishment of less than 8 years, or when the accused person confesses to the crime. Furthermore, a database search is not done automatically after a DNA pro®le has been added, but only upon request by the investigating judge or prosecutor in the context of a speci®c case investigation. Thus so-called `cold hits', where a suspect is unexpectedly linked to an apparently unrelated crime scene sample cannot be obtained. These dif®culties have resulted in only a small number of successful hits, and an amendment of the existing law facilitating a more ef®cient use of the database is in preparation (A. Kloosterman, W. Jansen, personal communication) [9]. In Sweden, and initially in Germany, it is only possible to obtain DNA samples from suspects in the course of routine police investigations, when stain evidence has to be analyzed. Samples from convicted offenders serving their prison term or from persons not convicted based on DNA evidence can therefore not be obtained, and the database may contain only a fraction of offenders otherwise qualifying for a database entry. In Germany, these problems have ®nally been solved by enacting a law on the ``determination of identity by DNA analysis'' (DNA-IdentitaÈtsfeststellungsgesetz) in 1998, as well as an amendment to this law in 1999 allowing the state prosecutors to inquire at the Federal Central Register (of criminal offenders) about the identity of convicts currently serving their prison terms according to a catalogue of crimes. 4. International aspects At the international level, Interpol will probably serve as a platform to exchange data. The Interpol working party on
N
B
No
30
DK
S
CH
() No
() 10/30
5±20
DNA pro®ling [6] has been replaced in 1999 by the Interpol DNA pro®le monitoring expert group (DNA MEG) to achieve world-wide representation. In a model currently discussed, Interpol member states may send DNA pro®les from unknown crime samples with a possible international dimension to a central Interpol database, and these records would then be made available to the participating national databases for comparison against the local records of criminal offenders. To address concerns about data protection and privacy rights, only the DNA pro®les from unknown crime samples, but not those from individual persons, would be shared with other countries. Thus personal DNA data will remain in national custody, but could be compared in a given crime investigation with DNA pro®les from another country. It is to be expected that the European countries who have not yet introduced a national DNA database such as Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and Greece as well as the countries of the former eastern Europe will soon start the legislative process. In many of these countries, commissions have been formed already, or reports have been submitted to the government about the requirements to initiate a legislation in this direction. So it may take only a few more years until this powerful investigative tool becomes a standard procedure in all European countries. Acknowledgements We would like to sincerely thank all our colleagues of the EDNAP group who have continuously provided the informations necessary to write this survey. This study was supported in part by the European Commission in the context of the STADNAP network (www.STADNAP.unimainz.de; contract SMT 97-7506). References [1] P.D. Martin, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, A brief history of the formation of DNA databases in forensic science within Europe, this issue. [2] P. Gill, C. Kimpton, E. D'Aloja, J.F. Andersen, W. BaÈr, B. Brinkmann, S. Holgerssen, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, M.V. Lareu, L. Nellemann, H. P®tzinger, C.P. Phillips, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M. Stenersen, Report of the European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP) Ð towards standardization of short tandem repeat (STR) loci, Forensic Sci. Int. 65 (1994) 51±59.
238
P.M. Schneider, P.D. Martin / Forensic Science International 119 (2001) 232±238
[3] C. Kimpton, P. Gill, E. D'Aloja, J.F. Andersen, W. BaÈr, S. Holgerssen, S. Jacobsen, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, M.V. Lareu, L. Nellemann, H. P®tzinger, C.P. Phillips, S. Rand, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M. Stenersen, M.C. Vide, Report on the second EDNAP collaborative STR exercise, Forensic Sci. Int. 71 (1995) 137±151. [4] P. Gill, A. D'Aloja, J. Andersen, B. Dupuy, M. Jangblad, V. Johnsson, A.D. Kloosterman, A. Kratzer, M.V. Lareu, M. Meldegaard, C. Philips, H. P®tzinger, S. Rand, M. Sabatier, R. Scheithauer, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, M.C. Vide, Report of the European DNA pro®ling group (EDNAP): an investigation of the complex STR loci D21S11 and HUMFIBRA (FGA), Forensic Sci. Int. 86 (1997) 25±33. [5] D.J. Werrett, The national DNA database, Forensic Sci. Int. 88 (1997) 33±42. [6] P.M. Schneider, DNA databases for offender identi®cation in Europe Ð the need for technical, legal and political
harmonization, in: Proceedings from the Second European Symposium on Human Identi®cation, Promega Corporation, 1998, pp. 40±44. [7] A. Leriche D. Vanek, H. Schmitter, U. Schleenbecker, J. Woller, P. Montagna, L. Garofano, W. Sprangers, S. Wolf, N. Moe, J. Matusek, J.A. Heranz, A.M. Garcia-Rojo Gembin, L.S. Utrilla, W. Grohamslaw, P. Fibra, M. Branchhlower, Final report of the Interpol working party on DNA pro®ling, in: Proceedings from the Second European Symposium on Human Identi®cation, Promega Corporation, 1998, pp. 48±54. [8] P.M. Schneider, C. Rittner, P.D. Martin (Eds.), in: Proceedings of the European Symposium on Ethical and Legal Issues of DNA Typing in Forensic Medicine, Forensic Sci. Int. 88 (1997) 1±110. [9] H. Janssen, A. Kloosterman, The DNA database in The Netherlands, personal communication.