The Chain Of Custody And Its Impact On The Admissibility Of Forensic
Evidence In The Ecuadorian Criminal Process
La Cadena De Custodia Y Su Impacto En La Admisibilidad
De La Evidencia Forense En El Proceso Penal Ecuatoriano
Anthoni Sebastían Freire Yancha
Lawyer
National University of Chimborazo
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9142-6874
Ángel Teodoro Naranjo Estrada
Graduate Tutor
National University of Chimborazo
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6117-6795
The study focused on analyzing the impact of the
chain of custody on the admissibility of forensic evidence in Ecuador's
criminal proceedings. To this end, 60 lawyers from the Bar Association of
Bolívar province participated, selected intentionally for their expertise in
criminal law. The research employed a mixed-methods approach, combining the
analysis of legal norms and legislation with the application of a structured
survey featuring closed-ended questions.
The results revealed that 68.3% of respondents had
an in-depth understanding of chain of custody procedures, while 75% agreed that
deficiencies in its application could lead to the exclusion of evidence in
court. Additionally, 60% perceived that its implementation was generally
correct, though 30% noted that its effectiveness depended on the case. Thus,
the study demonstrates that inconsistent or deficient chain of custody
practices can undermine fundamental rights and compromise the validity of
evidence.
Consequently, the study concludes that the chain of
custody is a crucial tool to ensure due process, evidence integrity, and trust
in the criminal justice system. Overcoming existing challenges-such as lack of
training, limited resources, and interagency coordination gaps-is deemed
essential.
Keywords: Custody,
Criminal, Admissibility, Evidence, Proof.
Resumen
El estudio se centró en analizar el impacto de
la cadena de custodia en la admisibilidad de la evidencia forense en el proceso
penal ecuatoriano. Para ello, participaron 60 abogados del foro de la provincia
de Bolívar, seleccionados de forma intencionada por su experiencia en derecho
penal. La investigación adoptó una metodología bajo un enfoque mixto,
combinando el análisis de la normativa y legislación con la aplicación de una
encuesta estructurada con preguntas cerradas. Los resultados revelaron que el
68,3% de los encuestados poseía un conocimiento profundo sobre los
procedimientos de cadena de custodia, mientras que el 75% coincidió en que las
deficiencias en su aplicación pueden provocar la exclusión de pruebas en
juicio. Asimismo, el 60% percibió que su implementación se realiza
correctamente, aunque un 30% señaló que su eficacia dependía del caso. Es por
ello que, se evidencia que una aplicación inconsistente o deficiente de la
cadena de custodia puede vulnerar derechos fundamentales y afectar la validez
de las pruebas. Por lo tanto, se ha determinado que la cadena de custodia es
una herramienta esencial para garantizar el debido proceso, la integridad de la
evidencia y la confianza en el sistema penal, siendo indispensable la
superación de desafíos existentes como la falta de capacitación, recursos
limitados y deficiencias en la coordinación interinstitucional.
Palabras clave: Custodia, Penal, Admisibilidad,
Evidencia, Prueba.
Introduction
The renewed criminal justice system has based
its actions in great proportion and with increasing strength, on the ability to
reconstruct criminal acts based on great precision and objectivity, which is
why forensic evidence is understood as the set of material elements, traces,
vestiges or any evidence that can establish the existence of a crime and the
participation of all those responsible, being for this reason, the reason to
emerge as an essential pillar in this process
The probative value and its admissibility
during a trial are directly related to the strict compliance with a series of
steps, procedures and protocols that ensure the care, integrity, authenticity
and inalterability of any evidence taken from the crime scene. This procedure
is known as the chain of custody, being the fundamental mechanism for the
validity of evidence in criminal proceedings
Now, in the Ecuadorian context, the
Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP) regulates the specific framework for
the application of the chain of custody, among them establishes the guidelines
that must be applied when the experts are going to intervene in a crime scene,
since the proper collection, packaging, transport, storage and analysis of the
evidence depends on it, this in order to maintain and preserve the probative
value to ensure the right to due process of the interveners
Therefore, the analysis of the chain of
custody in the Ecuadorian criminal justice system should be considered as a
fundamental element in order to determine its importance in the admissibility
of forensic evidence and, therefore, in the outcome of judicial proceedings.
Initially, it is assumed that a solid and well-documented chain of custody
substantially increases the likelihood that forensic evidence will be
effectively admitted in criminal proceedings by guaranteeing the integrity,
authenticity and credibility of the evidence presented in court.
The COIP becomes the central axis of
applicability for the Ecuadorian legal context, which is why this instrument
establishes all the parameters regarding the chain of custody and its correct
application, conceiving it as the procedure that supports the evidence from its
origin, i.e. the respective collection, until the presentation at trial,
ensuring that the material collected and examined by the experts and assessed
by the judges is the same as the original one from the crime scene, without
alterations, contamination, substitutions or loss
In addition, this body of law
defines the responsibilities of all the actors involved, i.e., from the
officials who proceed with the collection of evidence at the crime scene, to
the expert, who is the person who analyzes the samples in laboratories, to
finally proceed with the judges who evaluate the findings at the trial stage
On the other hand, the influence of
international standards and contemporary criminal doctrine in Ecuadorian law
has allowed to recognize the chain of custody from a stronger element, and not
only as a formalism, since it constitutes an essential guarantee for the
validity of evidence in criminal proceedings. Its focus is on the protection of
due process, enshrined in Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Ecuador, which establishes the right to a fair trial, the presumption of
innocence and the right to contradict evidence. The chain of custody, by
ensuring the authenticity of evidence, allows the parties to exercise their
right of defense, question the evidence presented against them and avoid
convictions based on dubious or manipulated evidence
The application of chain of custody in Ecuador
faces significant challenges that compromise the integrity of evidence and its
admissibility in court. A critical problem is the insufficient training and
specialization of personnel responsible for handling evidence, which leads to
procedural errors that can invalidate crucial evidence
The chain of custody manual of the Attorney
General's Office establishes the different procedures for the collection,
handling and analysis of evidence, but the lack of training may mean that the
process is not carried out correctly. This document represents an important
step forward in standardizing processes; however, incorrect implementation due
to lack of resources or work overload of the different officials involved in
the process makes it difficult to comply with the care of evidence
In addition, a problem identified is the
scarcity of adequate physical (tools) and technological (systems) resources to
ensure the integrity of the chain of custody (
In addition, there is a lack of effective
coordination and communication between the different institutions and actors
involved in the chain of custody. Evidence may pass through several hands
throughout the criminal process, from the police officers who collect it at the
crime scene, to the forensic experts who analyze it in the laboratory, and
finally the judges who evaluate it at trial
The Specialized System of Investigation,
Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences seeks to establish channels of
communication between all participants, but its effectiveness depends on
adequate implementation and follow-up. The lack of interoperability between the
information systems of the different institutions also hinders the exchange of
information and the traceability of the evidence throughout the process. This
lack of effective communication can generate gaps in the chain of custody,
where it is not possible to determine precisely who had responsibility over the
evidence at a given time, which compromises its integrity
The COIP indicates that the procedures
involving the use of the chain of custody directly affect the validity of the
evidence, being in some cases more complex, the exclusion of the criminal
process
The decision to exclude evidence due to
notable evidences in the application of the chain of custody in a criminal
proceeding is a transcendental decision for the judge handling the case, since
it implies an interaction between the protection of the rights of the accused
with the need to guarantee justice. That is why Ecuadorian law has established
the exclusion of evidence as an exceptional measure, which should be applied
only in cases where the irregularities committed in the chain of custody are so
serious that they generate a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the
evidence and directly affect the parties
Therefore, although still in normative
changes, the legal standard has begun to establish specific criteria to
determine the admissibility of evidence in cases where the application of the
chain of custody can be questioned, since the courts have emphasized the need
to analyze in detail the integrity of each evidence presented in a process, to
consider compliance with the essential requirements to avoid reasonable doubts
about the authenticity or unalterability of the same
In this context, Ecuadorian legislation, based
on all its laws, regulations and resolutions, seeks a balance between the
protection of due process and the avoidance of impunity by assessing the
specific circumstances of each case and applying the principle of
proportionality. However, the lack of uniformity in jurisprudential criteria
remains a challenge. The existence of divergent criteria among different courts
generates legal uncertainty and hinders the work of the operators of the
criminal justice system. There is therefore a need for further jurisprudential
development that establishes clear and uniform lines on the evaluation of
evidence in cases of irregularities in the chain of custody (Rosales, 2023).
However, in the field of criminalistics in
Ecuador, the influence of organized crime, drug trafficking and other highly
complex crimes poses strong additional challenges involving the chain of
custody in the legal system, since criminal offenses, sometimes due to their
impact, often require the handling of evidence that is difficult to manipulate
and store. Moreover, corruption and violence may pose additional risks to the
integrity of the chain of custody, as there may be attempts to manipulate or
destroy evidence to protect the perpetrators (Hurtado et al., 2024).
The presence of organized criminal groups with
the capacity to influence State institutions poses a major challenge for the
chain of custody, as these groups may attempt to infiltrate the institutions in
charge of evidence management or exert pressure on officials to alter or
destroy evidence
In this scenario, international and
inter-institutional cooperation is essential to strengthen corporate
capacities, which is why Ecuador has received support from various countries
and international organizations to improve its criminal justice systems and
strengthen the chain of custody to ensure due process. This cooperation has
resulted in the training of officials, the provision of equipment and
technology, and the adoption of international best practices
As there are different shortcomings, in recent
years, the Ecuadorian judicial system has been reforming to include efforts to
strengthen the chain of custody, therefore, there are legal modifications,
which, despite having been a complex and gradual process, still require further efforts to ensure that the chain of custody is
effectively implemented throughout the country. Resistance to change within
institutions, lack of sustainable resources and the persistence of entrenched
practices are some of the obstacles that hinder the full implementation of
reforms
One of the key aspects to improve the chain of
custody is the adoption of a comprehensive approach that covers all aspects of
the process, from the collection of evidence at the crime scene to its
presentation at trial, complying with due process and established protocols,
which implies not only strengthening personnel training and providing
institutions with the necessary resources, but also improving coordination
between the different agencies involved, establishing clear and detailed
protocols, and ensuring effective supervision and control of the chain of
custody at each stage of the process
On the other hand, it is essential to promote
a culture of legality and integrity within the institutions in charge of
criminal investigation . Officials must be aware of the importance of the chain
of custody and the consequences of non-compliance, and must act professionally
and ethically in the performance of their duties
Such training should be supported by the
combined participation of civil society and academia to play an important role
in strengthening the implementation of chain of custody. Non-governmental
organizations, universities and other societal actors can contribute to the
training of officials, research on good practices, monitoring of the criminal
justice system and promotion of legal and institutional reforms
Therefore, the research was developed based on
the hypothesis: does a solid and well-documented chain of custody increase the
probability that forensic evidence will be effectively admitted in trial
hearings in Ecuadorian criminal proceedings by guaranteeing the integrity,
authenticity and credibility of the evidence presented in court, with the aim
of demonstrating that strict compliance with chain of custody procedures is a
determining factor for the validity of forensic evidence and for the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Ecuador.
Pre-trial hearing: admissibility of evidence, appropriate stage to
challenge or not chain of custody
In the Ecuadorian criminal legal system,
evidence is a fundamental instrument of the process, according to article 453
of the COIP, the purpose is to lead the judge to the conviction of the facts
that make up the criminal offense, as well as the responsibility or not of the
person prosecuted. However, the effectiveness of such evidence depends not only
on its content, but also on its collection, preservation and presentation in
accordance with the law, which includes, essentially, strict compliance with the
chain of custody
The chain of custody guarantees the
authenticity and integrity of the material evidence from the moment of its
collection until its analysis at trial. If this process is not executed in
accordance with the standards established in criminal and technical
regulations, its legal validity is compromised, which can substantially
influence the process.
In the same body of law, Article 454
establishes the guiding principles of evidence: opportunity, immediacy,
contradiction, evidentiary freedom and relevance. In this framework, it is
established that the elements of conviction must be announced in the evaluation
and preparatory hearing of trial, although its practice is carried out in the
trial hearing
In this sense, the preparatory trial hearing,
regulated in articles 603 and 604 of the COIP, is the appropriate and timely
procedural stage to challenge the legality of the evidence, including forensic
material evidence whose chain of custody is compromised. In this hearing:
·
The
parties are allowed to present objections to the means of evidence (Art. 604,
numeral 4, literal c).
·
Exclusions
may be requested on the grounds that the evidence was obtained illegally, or
that it was collected in violation of rights, principles or guarantees set
forth in the Constitution, international treaties or the COIP itself.
·
The
judge, when ruling on these objections, must declare the evidence ineffective
or exclude it, if he or she finds that it has been obtained in violation of due
process
Article 455 reinforces this criterion by
stating that all evidence must have a causal link between the offense and the
person prosecuted, based on real facts and legal means of proof, which excludes
any presumption without verifiable material support. If an evidence loses its
traceability due to a deficient or undocumented chain of custody, such nexus is
broken, compromising its admissibility
Therefore, an incomplete, manipulated or not
properly documented chain of custody constitutes sufficient grounds for one of
the parties to request its exclusion at the preparatory hearing, and for the
judge to declare it inadmissible. This inadmissibility is not related to the
content of the evidence itself, but to the way in which it was obtained, which
must be strictly subject to the legal framework.
By virtue of the foregoing, the preparatory
hearing is the opportune and exclusive procedural moment to challenge the
validity of evidence based on defects in the chain of custody. The omission of
this challenge at such hearing may lead to a tacit validation of the evidence,
making the defect lose legal relevance in later stages of the process.
Exclusion of evidence for failure to comply with proper chain of custody
procedure
The exclusion of evidence is an essential
procedural tool to safeguard the right to due process, the right to defense,
and the principle of legality within the criminal system. In the Ecuadorian
case, the COIP expressly regulates the foundations, principles and consequences
of evidence that has been obtained without respecting the legally established
procedures, especially with regard to the chain of custody, which constitutes
the technical-legal axis of all material or digital evidence in the forensic
field.
In numeral 6 of Article 454 of the COIP, it
establishes with absolute clarity that any evidence or element of conviction
obtained in violation of the rights established in the Constitution,
international instruments or the law, lacks evidentiary effectiveness and,
therefore, must be excluded from the criminal process. This rule stands as a
manifestation of the principle of evidentiary exclusion, according to which no
illegal evidence can be used to support a judicial decision
Exclusion is imperative, not discretionary:
once it has been established that evidence was obtained or handled in disregard
of the legal requirements, i.e., the omission of the chain of custody, the
judge is obliged to exclude it, without being able to make up for such
illegality with subjective assessments or appreciations of good faith. This
provision reinforces the notion that respect for procedures is as important as
the content of the evidence itself.
In the same sense, article 456 specifically
regulates the application of the chain of custody to all physical elements or
digital content that may constitute evidence. It establishes as a fundamental
purpose the guarantee of authenticity, through the identification of the
origin, original state, conditions of collection, handling, transport and
conservation, as well as the identification of each person who has intervened
in such process
For its part, Article 457 of the COIP
reinforces the analysis to support the legality, authenticity and submission to
chain of custody are determining criteria to assess any evidence. The norm
establishes a negative presumption with respect to evidentiary elements not
subject to chain of custody: in such cases, the burden of proving its
authenticity falls on the party that presents it, weakening its validity and
procedural legitimacy. This reinforces the duty of the party providing the
evidence to guarantee that it was obtained, transferred and preserved in
accordance with the law.
The exclusion of evidence vitiated by a
failure in the chain of custody is not an option, but a legal and
constitutional requirement, which reaffirms that respect for form is also
respect for justice. The COIP, by establishing this provision, is aligned with
international human rights standards and reinforces the principle that only
justice based on legally obtained evidence can be considered true justice.
Methodology
The research was developed under a mixed
approach, since, by combining qualitative techniques, i.e., review of
regulations and judicial cases in which an adequate management of the chain of
custody was applied, contrasted with quantitative values, it allowed to
approach the subject in a comprehensive manner, by exploring the perceptions
and experiences of the participants, which facilitated a holistic understanding
of the phenomenon under study.
A purposive sample of 60 lawyers was selected,
deliberately chosen from a total population of 2,437 registered in the forum of
the province of Bolivar, Ecuador. The selection of this sample was based on
criteria of representativeness and relevance, considering that these
participants have relevant experience and knowledge in the handling of forensic
evidence in the criminal field. The purposeful selection made it possible to
focus the study on those actors who, because of their experience and
specialization, could provide valuable information for the analysis.
Data collection was carried out through the
application of a structured survey consisting of 10 closed questions and 1 open
question. The surveys made it possible to collect quantitative information on
the level of knowledge and application of chain of custody protocols. In
addition, we considered analyzing criminal case No. 13284-2020-05358 issued by
the Specialized Criminal, Military Criminal, Police Criminal and Transit Court
of the Provincial Court of Justice of Manabí, which establishes the importance
of applying the chain of custody in criminal proceedings.
The data analysis was carried out using
descriptive statistical techniques for the quantitative aspects and a thematic
analysis for the qualitative data, making it possible to identify patterns,
relationships and divergences in the information collected. This mixed
methodological design made it possible to obtain a broad and deep vision of the
management of forensic evidence, consolidating a significant contribution to
the improvement of evidentiary processes in the Ecuadorian criminal justice
system.
Results
A detailed analysis of the results obtained is
presented below, complemented with tables and graphical representations that
illustrate the distribution of the answers provided by the sample of 60
attorneys. The survey consisted of 11 questions focused on the level of
knowledge about chain of custody protocols, their practical application, the
perception of their importance and the influence of possible deficiencies in
the admissibility of forensic evidence.
Descriptive statistical analysis
Table 1: Level
of chain of custody knowledge
|
Response option |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Get to know the procedures in depth |
41 |
68.3% |
|
Partially familiar with the procedures |
13 |
21.7% |
|
No knowledge of procedures |
6 |
10.0% |
|
Total |
60 |
100% |
·
Of
the participants, 68.3% stated that they had in-depth knowledge of the chain of
custody, while 21.7% indicated that they had partial knowledge, and 10.0%
acknowledged that they did not fully understand the protocols.
·
The
mean self-perceived knowledge (rated on a scale of 1 to 5) was 4.0, with a
standard error of 0.25.
Table 2: Specific
chain of custody training
|
Received specific training |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Yes |
33 |
55.0% |
|
No |
27 |
45.0% |
|
Total |
60 |
100% |
A total of 55.0% of the respondents reported
having received specific training in the management of the chain of custody,
which reinforces the need for continuous training processes to ensure the
correct application of the protocols.
The mean rating of the usefulness of this training was 3.8 (SD = 0.5),
indicating a mostly positive perception of its relevance.
Table 3: Perception
of the correct application of chain of custody
|
Reply |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Correctly applied |
36 |
60.0% |
|
Depends on the case |
18 |
30.0% |
|
Rarely applied properly |
6 |
10.0% |
|
Total |
60 |
100% |
60.0% of the participants considered that the chain of custody is
correctly applied in criminal proceedings, while 30.0% believe that its
application may vary depending on the case, and 10.0% perceive it as inadequate
on most occasions.
The mean of the perception of correct application was 3.9 (standard
error = 0.3).
Table 4: Perception of the influence
of the chain of custody on the admissibility of the evidence
|
Reply |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
A deficiency may result in inadmissibility |
45 |
75.0% |
|
Not decisive |
6 |
10.0% |
|
Depends on other factors |
9 |
15.0% |
|
Total |
60 |
100% |
75.0% of respondents indicated that deficiencies in the chain of custody
may have a direct impact on the inadmissibility of evidence, with a mean of 4.2
(SD = 0.4) in rating the importance of this factor.
Graphical representations
For a better visualization of the results, two graphs are presented that
summarize the most relevant information related to the level of knowledge of
the chain of custody and the perception of its application in the criminal
field:
Figure 1: Level of chain of custody knowledge
It reflects that the majority of respondents (68.3%) fall into the
category of in-depth knowledge, indicating a high degree of stated familiarity
with formal procedures.
Figure 2: Perception of the correct application of the chain
of custody.
60.0% believe that they are correctly applied, which suggests an
optimistic view of the effectiveness of the protocols, while 30.0% believe that
the application varies from case to case, showing some ambiguity in the
uniformity of the processes.
Reliability Analysis (Cronbach's Alpha)
Cronbach's alpha coefficient analysis was carried out to determine the
internal consistency of the instrument. The result obtained was:
Cronbach's alpha = 0.82
This value indicates good internal consistency, since the items of the
questionnaire correlate adequately with each other, which supports the
reliability of the instrument to evaluate the management of the chain of
custody, therefore, the instrument has good internal reliability, since the
items correlate positively and significantly. These results support the
internal validity of the questionnaire applied to evaluate the management of
the chain of custody in the Ecuadorian criminal process.
Correlation analysis (Pearson's Coefficient)
To complement the reliability analysis, Pearson correlations were
calculated between the 11 items. The correlation matrix (see Table 2) reveals
that most of the items are positively related and with adequate significance
levels (p < 0.05), which supports the internal structure of the instrument.
The average Pearson's inter-item correlation coefficient, calculated
from the correlation matrix of the 11 items, was approximately 0.45 (p <
0.05). This value indicates that, on average, there is a moderate and
statistically significant relationship between the different items of the
questionnaire, which supports the internal coherence of the instrument and the
consistency in measuring chain of custody management.
Table 5: Pearson's correlation
analysis
|
Metrics |
Value |
|
Average inter-item correlation coefficient |
0.45 |
|
Statistical significance |
p < 0.05 |
This table indicates that, on average, the items are moderately
correlated (0.45) in a statistically significant way, which supports the
internal consistency of the instrument, as being positively and significantly
related statistically implies that the chain of custody and its correct
application in a criminal process impacts the admissibility of the forensic
evidence in a process, therefore, it is one of the key elements for judges to
issue a final verdict.
Analysis of the results obtained in the survey
Knowledge and training: Participants showed a high
level of knowledge of chain of custody protocols (68.3%). However, 21.7%
acknowledged having a partial mastery and 10.0% admitted not knowing the
procedures in depth, which highlights the need to strengthen training and the
dissemination of standardized protocols.
Perception of practical application: 60.0% of respondents
described that the chain of custody is correctly applied; however, 30.0%
indicated that its application depends on the case. This indicates that,
despite the existence of protocols, their enforcement may not be uniform in all
circumstances.
Influence on the admissibility of evidence: the finding that 75.0% of attorneys are of the opinion that a deficiency
in the chain of custody can lead to inadmissibility of evidence underscores the
relevance of having sound procedures in place for the collection, preservation
and documentation of evidence.
Specific training: 55.0% of the respondents
received specific training, which translates into a positive evaluation (mean
of 3.8) on the usefulness of such training. However, there is room for
improvement in training coverage for the entire forum.
These results show the correlation between adequate training in chain of
custody protocols and the perception that it is effectively applied in the
Ecuadorian criminal justice system. Furthermore, they highlight the importance
of uniformity in the application of procedures, given that even a significant
minority (30.0%) consider that the application of chain of custody varies
depending on the case, which could impact the validity of evidence during
trial.
Taking as reference the criminal case No. 13284-2020-05358, and after a
thorough analysis to demonstrate whether the sentence issued fully complied
with due process, especially regarding the handling of forensic evidence with a
correct application of the chain of custody, in strict compliance with the Constitution
and the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP).
In the first instance, the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador,
being the magna carta in Ecuadorian territory, in its articles enshrines the
right to a fair trial and effective defense, requiring that all judicial
decisions be based on criteria of motivation and transparency. The judgment
under analysis was based on these principles by setting out in detail the
factual and legal grounds that supported the evaluation of the evidence.
However, certain deficiencies were detected in practice, such as: the
insufficient reconstruction of the crime scene and some omissions in the
documentation of the expert proceedings related to the chain of custody, which
are fundamental to guarantee its strict compliance. These deficiencies,
although recognized by the parties in the appeal, were evaluated by the Court
and considered not to be decisive for violating the due process, since, as a
whole, the documentary records allowed evidencing a reasonable path of the evidence
from its collection to its presentation in the trial.
Therefore, the COIP clearly establishes that forensic evidence must be
subjected to rigorous protocols to ensure its care, integrity, authenticity and
inalterability. In the criminal case under analysis, despite the deficiencies
presented in the process, the Court concluded that the evidentiary elements
were kept in a sufficiently adequate framework to support the assessment of the
guilt of the defendants. This criterion is based on the jurisprudential
distinction between formal errors and substantial defects: while the former can
be corrected without affecting the overall probative value, the latter would
compromise the authenticity of the evidence in a decisive manner . Thus, the
Court determined that the chain of custody, although it presented areas of
opportunity, remained in line with the requirements of the law, allowing the
evidence to be admitted and valued in the process.
Therefore, the chain of custody is not limited to being a mere formal
requirement, but constitutes an essential instrument for the protection of the
fundamental rights of the parties involved in a process. The motivation of the
sentence is based on the need for the forensic evidence to be evaluated in
terms of its integrity and reliability, which is absolute in order to guarantee
the right to defense and due process. Thorough documentation of each
evidentiary phase helps the judge to form a conviction based on proven facts,
consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the COIP.
A comparison of these findings with the results of the survey applied to
a purposive sample of 60 lawyers from the Bolivar province forum shows a
significant concordance. The survey data indicate that 68.3% of the respondents
stated that they have a thorough knowledge of chain of custody protocols, while
60% consider that their application in the criminal area is generally adequate,
although 30% believe that their execution varies from case to case.
Furthermore, 75% of the participants stated that deficiencies in the chain of
custody can lead to the inadmissibility of evidence. These results reinforce
the importance of having a uniform and documented handling of evidence, as
required by constitutional precepts and the COIP.
Conclusions
The results of the investigation confirm that strict respect for chain
of custody procedures guarantees the authenticity, integrity and traceability
of forensic evidence, which is indispensable for its admission at trial.
Ecuadorian law, in strict compliance with the COIP, establishes that any
evidence collected without complying with these parameters will be excluded for
violating fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of procedural
legality. In this sense, the chain of custody not only has a technical value,
but is configured as a constitutional guarantee of due process and the right to
defense, especially when the evidence is the main support of the criminal
charge.
In addition, several factors were identified that hinder the uniform
application of chain of custody protocols in Ecuador. Among them are: the lack
of specialized training, the scarcity of technological and logistical
resources, and the weakness of inter-institutional coordination. These
shortcomings lead to errors in the collection, packaging, transport and storage
of evidence, which can lead to the exclusion of essential evidence at trial, as
they represent direct risks for the administration of justice, given that they
compromise the validity of the evidence and increase the likelihood of impunity
or injustice.
The mixed approach adopted in the study, which includes the analysis of
an emblematic criminal case and the results of surveys of 60 lawyers, confirms
that strengthening the chain of custody requires a comprehensive strategy. This
should range from continuous training of the personnel involved, investment in
forensic and technological infrastructure, to the formulation of public
policies aimed at establishing uniform criteria for the evaluation of evidence.
In addition, the need to consolidate a culture of legality and institutional
ethics is an indispensable condition for guaranteeing transparency in the
handling of evidence and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Cooperation between the State, civil society and academia is emerging as a
strategic axis for the improvement of the evidentiary model in Ecuador.
Reference
Arias, V. H., & Cedeño, L. F. (2024). Analysis
of reliability in the incorporation of means of evidence in criminal matters
in Ecuador. Religación, 9(41),
e2401306. https://doi.org/10.46652/rgn.v9i41.1306
Arnold, D. (2021). Evidence and proof as a
foundation for scientific validity in forensic audits. Columbus Journal
Science, Technology and Business, 8(2).
National Assembly of Ecuador (2014). Código Orgánico
Integral Penal. Official Gazette Supplement 180 of February 10, 2014.
National Assembly of Ecuador (2015). Reglamento
Organización, Operación de Investigación, Medicina Legal. https://www.cienciasforenses.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DECRETO-EJECUTIVO-759-2015.pdf
Benavides, M., Loor, Z.,
Moreira, D., & Tenorio, K. (2024). Standards
for judicial investigation of gross human rights violations. Polo Del Conocimiento, 9(6), 483-503.
https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v9i6.7330
Bermeo, R., Alvarado, L., & Alomoto, M. (2025). Due
Process in the Legal Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo
in Latacunga Canton. Dominio
de Las Ciencias, 11(1), 1427-1447.
https://doi.org/10.23857/dc.v11i1.4248
Brito, O., & Muñoz, Y. (2023). The
chain of custody and safekeeping of material evidence. Metropolitan
Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(S1), 57-67.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=721778121008.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=721778121008
Castelo, G., & Hidalgo, F. (2024). The principle
of immediacy and evidentiary activity in the administration of justice: an
analysis of Ecuadorian procedural regulations. Esprint
Investigacion, 3(2), 25-36.
https://doi.org/10.61347/ei.v3i2.72
Chiluiza, E. (2024). Principles of Criminal Law in Ecuador. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(3), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i3.11189
Chuma, L., & Durán, A.
(2024). The stages of chain of custody according to the Código
Orgánico Integral Penal. Polo Del Conocimiento, 9(6),
2116-2131. https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v9i6.7425
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008). Article
76 [Title II]. In Official Gazette 449 of October 20, 2008.
Duran, A. (2023). Chain of custody of evidence. A
legal institution under debate and development in Ecuador. Metropolitan
Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(22).
https://remca.umet.edu.ec/index.php/REMCA/article/view/659/652.
https://remca.umet.edu.ec/index.php/REMCA/article/view/659/652
Attorney General's Office (n.d.).
Chain of Custody Manual.
Attorney General's Office (2014). Manuals,
protocols, instructions and formats of the integral specialized system of
Investigation forensic medicine and forensic sciences . Registro Oficial No318.
Flores, D., & Sánchez, D. (2024). The evaluation
of evidence in the criminal type of illicit trafficking of scheduled
controlled substances. Polo Del Conocimiento, 11(9).
https://polodelconocimiento.com/ojs/index.php/es/article/view/8354/html
Gandžalová, D. (2024). The importance of taking
evidence as part of the court proceedings. Legestic, 2, 7-15. https://doi.org/10.5219/legestic.8.
Hurtado, K., Guamán, I., Reinoso, A., & Tenorio,
D. (2024). Advances and Challenges in Forensic Ballistics in
Firearm-Related Homicide Investigations in Ecuador: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnologia, 4. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2024.528
Jaramillo, E. (2024). El Código Integral Penal en
Base a la Justicia Restaurativa en el Ecuador. Ciencia Latina Revista
Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(3), 155-167.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i3.11190
León, C., & Guerrero, E. (2024). Application of
penal law in ecuador: a comprehensive analysis. Alcance
Magazine, 7(1).
https://scispace.com/pdf/aplicacion-del-derecho-penal-en-el-ecuador-un-analisis-3p1ur33t4n.pdf
Marchal, A. N. (2023). The chain of custody and its impact
on the judicial process. Via Iuris Magazine,
35, 214-251. https://doi.org/10.37511/viaiuris.n35a6
Martínez, C. (2024). The legislative process in Ecuador. Una mirada desde la formación. Revista Mexicana de Investigación e
Intervención Educativa, 3(1).
https://scispace.com/pdf/el-proceso-legislativo-en-el-ecuador-una-mirada-desde-la-4lt24zwm96.pdf
Mendoza, E., Eslava, C., Escudero, F., &
Salazar, S. (2024). Expert evidence in effective collaboration process:
analysis of violation of the right to contradiction. Revista Científica UISRAEL, 11(1),
161-177. https://doi.org/10.35290/rcui.v11n1.2023.997
United Nations (n.d.). Code
of conduct for law enforcement officials. Human Rights Instruments.
Neira, A., Alvear, E., Bueno, F., Pérez, A.,
Ferreiro, X., Reyes, M., Soto, D., Velázquez, S., & Aguirre, P. (2022). Derecho
Procesal Penal Aspectos Probatorios (Tribu). Espiritu Santo University.
https://uees.edu.ec/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DerechoProcesalPenalAspectosProbatorios.pdf
Paspuel, J., Panchi, C., Paredes, J., &
Suquitana, M. (2024). Organized Crime And Cybercrime In Ecuador, A New
Reality Of Complex Criminality. Migration Letters, 21(S10),
734-747. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v21is11.10561.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v21is11.10561
Pesantes, L., Valarezo, L., & Vilela, W. (2019).
Importance of judicial and criminalistic
investigation in determining the veracity of crime. University and Society,
11(4). http://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus
Rodríguez, M. (2018). Effective criminal defense as
a guarantee of due process in Ecuador. Universidad
y Sociedad, 10(1). http://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus
Saltos, S., Demera, E., & Díaz, E. (2024). Crime
scene assessment in the sicariato in Ecuador. LATAM
Latin American Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(6).
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i6.3151.
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i6.3151
Stoykova, R., & Franke, K. (2023). Reliability
validation enabling framework (RVEF) for digital forensics in criminal
investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation,
45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301554
Tapia, C., & Fierro, C. (2024). Organized crime
in Ecuador and its relationship with the administration of justice. LATAM
Latin American Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(4).
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i4.2270