The Prüm Treaty was signed in 2005 by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain in the town of Prüm, Germany, and was subsequently adopted into European Union Law (Decisions 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA).The Prüm Decisions establish the automated exchange of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data (VRD) amongst the EU Member States for the purpose of fighting crime and terrorism.

26 August 2011 marked the date by which all the EU Member State should have implemented the legal and technical changes required by the Prüm Decisions. Almost all Member States have started exchanging DNA data. However, as of April 2018, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom are not fully operational in the Prüm DNA system.

Currently, yes, although some non-EU countries, namely Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein, are also interested in sharing DNA data. In addition, on 13 September 2018, the Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe (PCC SEE) signed a Prüm-like agreement and a memorandum of understanding on automated exchange of DNA, fingerprint, and vehicle registration data. The agreement was signed by Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia.

National DNA databases store profiles from individuals or crime scene stains. Then, these profiles are compared with DNA databases from other countries to check for matches that might be relevant for criminal investigation purposes. Since 2008, EU Member States are required to set up DNA databases and implement the necessary legal and technical measures to share their profiles with all partner countries.

EU law expressly requests that all Member States establish and maintain their own national forensic DNA database.

The Prüm Decisions stipulate that, for the purposes of supplying data, each Member State must designate a National Contact Point whose powers are governed by applicable national legislation. Different countries have attributed custody of the national DNA databases to different entities, ranging from judicial authorities to police forces. As a result, the roles and responsibilities of the Prüm National Contact Points may vary among countries, according to different organisational structures and national legislation.

The Prüm system functions in two different steps. Step 1 refers to the moment when a search is made in a national database for a DNA profile retrieved from a crime scene and no match is found, the Prüm Decisions permits the DNA profile reference to be transmitted and searched in other Member States national databases. A notification is then sent to the original Member State informing it of a match or no match. If a match is identified, Step 2 occurs and further requests for information are processed through the existing police and/or judicial channels.

Small, highly variable parts of the DNA structure can be translated into a numerical code – a DNA profile – making it possible for organic samples to be transformed into a set of numbers and stored in a database. A forensic DNA database is a computerised collection of DNA profiles derived from samples (e.g. from blood, semen, saliva or hair roots) collected at a crime scene or directly from individuals, and corresponding files with personal data. Matching profiles can create a connection between a person and a crime.

Forensic DNA databases are intended as a tool for fighting crime, allowing criminal investigators to identify, confirm or discard a suspect offender. As such, DNA evidence also serves to exonerate innocent suspects. However, it is necessary to point out that any match needs to be contextualised with other evidence. Furthermore, when a match is obtained through a database search, there is always the chance of false positives or false negatives. Therefore, laws in many countries do not allow convictions based solely on DNA evidence.

Ethical and privacy issues raised by DNA profiling and databasing have been framed around questions related to privacy, autonomy, informed consent, equality and presumption of innocence. For example, Member States have different inclusion and retention criteria for DNA profiles in their databases – some databases have profiles of minors and persons that were not convicted – which raises issues of equality and presumption of innocence.

No. The EXCHANGE project departs from a non-normative approach. This means that we are not trying to say that there are ‘better’ or ‘worse’ models. Our focus is to empirically study the cultural, ethical and social implications of using scientific tools – such as DNA technologies and databases – for combating crime.

EXCHANGE builds on the knowledge repertoire provided by the social studies of science and technology in general and on their applications in the field of forensic genetics in particular. Hence, the project adopts a ‘grounded theory’ approach. That is, an approach aiming to identify and generate new concepts resulting from observing and interpreting the empirical reality, accompanied by continuous critical reflection.