By Sara Formoso
La Sociedad Clave has organised its second event in Madrid, the fourth in just a few months of activity and inspiration. On this occasion, the gathering was structured around two analytical panels focused on the future of the profession from a legal perspective.
The first panel addressed how the figure of the detective fits within the framework of the reform of the Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), focusing on their procedural role and on the legal safeguards that must govern their work. The figure of the Private Detective should be reflected as a sign of democratic health.
The event opened with a warm welcome from Julio Gutiez, who introduced the project. There was no shortage of words of thanks and recognition addressed to the business leaders, magistrates and journalists in attendance.
The agenda planned for this year is packed with travelling events across the country. La Sociedad Clave is moving forward with a firm step after barely ten months of activity, consolidating initiatives such as boosting communications, generating contacts, creating an Observatory, hiring a sociometry firm to evaluate future events and securing the support of a communications agency. The objective is clear: to make the profession known as a fundamental tool. Julio Gutiez showed a strong personal commitment to his work and to his career as a detective. He stressed once again the distortion that exists between perception and professional reality. “It is not something strange or morbid; the detective works as a great professional.” This statement reveals a deep-seated problem: the private detective is still perceived as a peripheral player, when in reality and in practice they intervene constantly in judicial proceedings, especially in the labour and criminal spheres.
“Investigation in the reform of the LECrim” was moderated by Elisenda Villena, owner of Elisenda Villena Investigación & Consulting and the first university-trained detective in Catalonia, alongside Francisco Marco, doctor of Law from the UAB and CEO of The Marco Company.
Villena opened the discussion with a central idea that ran through the entire day: “The private detective is already a legal operator.” She noted that the CENDOJ records more than 6,500 rulings since 2019, of which more than
1,000 relate to the criminal sphere, which reinforces the need to include this figure in the future Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal.
The former Minister of Justice Rafael Catalá placed the debate on a structural level, guiding the session with a clear idea: criminal proceedings must guarantee both effectiveness in the investigation and the protection of rights. “A democratic State is characterised by having instruments that guarantee citizens’ rights, but also compliance with the rules.”
Catalá described it as “paradoxical” that Spain continues to operate with a Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal dating from 1882, adapted through partial reforms but still insufficient to respond to current challenges. In this regard, he defended the need for a comprehensive reform, although he warned of the difficulties of the current political context in reaching the necessary consensus.
He also introduced one of the key debates: the possible shift of the investigative phase to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Fiscal), which would entail a reconfiguration of the balance between the various legal operators. In this regard, he warned about the structural difficulties of the current context, noting that in Spain tensions persist in key elements such as the separation of powers, judicial independence and the autonomy of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. “Perhaps the moment is not the most appropriate,” he acknowledged, although the need to address the substance of the reform is unquestionable.
We must be able to look at our European neighbours—France, Italy, Germany—where private investigation has a broad and varied field, and consider how we should join forces to build a more modern criminal process, better suited to reality, one that ultimately guarantees the investigation of offences and criminal liability.
From a jurisdictional perspective, the magistrate José Manuel Suárez Robledano analysed the reform bill with technical precision. He clearly pointed out one of its main shortcomings:
-Private investigation is not regulated in the bill.
Nevertheless, he qualified that the case law of the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) has progressively recognised the validity of evidence obtained by private detectives, provided that it respects fundamental rights.
It would be important to regulate certain competences, provided that the Law was carefully considered and structured, because all regulation carries a risk, as it could be very restrictive or “timid”.
His remarks also provided elements of great practical value for the profession:
-Private evidence is valid if it does not infringe fundamental rights.
-It can be used by both the prosecution and the defence.
-Equality of arms must be guaranteed in the proceedings.
Suárez Robledano also drew attention to specific aspects of the bill, such as the lack of clarity in concepts like the “occasional nature” of surveillance, which could create legal uncertainty.
Professor Nicolás González-Cuéllar approached the debate from a doctrinal perspective, noting that the current Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal:
“It was one of the most advanced in Europe, but today it is obsolete.”
He defended the need to move towards a model of an investigating prosecutor, more aligned with other European systems, although he warned that its implementation requires real guarantees of independence.
In this context, he introduced a key reflection on the role of the detective:
“Why can a private investigator not detect and look more deeply into public offences?”
For González-Cuéllar, the integration of private investigation would not only strengthen the right to a defence, but would also help to avoid biases in the investigation, such as the so-called “tunnel effect”, in which an initial hypothesis is reinforced without exploring alternatives.
The journalist Xavier Gil brought an essential dimension to the debate.
The protection of sources and the right to information.
He raised a question that had already been posed at the first event held in Madrid, “Journalists and Detectives”.
“Can a democracy function if those who reveal the truth are not protected?”
Gil defended professional secrecy as a structural guarantee of the democratic system, warning about the risks posed by new technological tools in criminal investigation.
In his remarks, he clearly distinguished two areas:
-Journalistic investigation, geared towards public information.
-Private investigation, aimed at obtaining evidence.
Nevertheless, he noted that collaboration between the two can strengthen both the quality of information and the soundness of the evidence.
In the final phase of the debate, Francisco Marco addressed the practical consequences of the procedural model under discussion. Marco turned his attention to the Italian model and how it remedied the possible cracks that may appear in the reform bill. He warned that assigning the investigation to the Public Prosecutor’s Office may create imbalances if the defence does not have equivalent tools:
“The only way to guarantee equality of arms is to provide the defence with a private judicial police.”
In this context, the private detective emerges as the instrument that, in practice, makes it possible to balance the proceedings, albeit without clear statutory recognition.
The panel also addressed the role of the detective in the corporate sphere, especially in relation to criminal compliance. It was highlighted that Article 31 bis of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) requires companies to carry out internal investigations in order to be exonerated from criminal liability. In this context, the private detective is configured as an essential operator, since these are investigations that must be carried out by specialised private structures.
The first panel left us with a clear conclusion: the private detective is already part of the judicial system, but its regulation has not evolved at the same pace, leaving a gap between practice and the rules. As long as this gap persists, the detective will continue to operate in hybrid territory, where technical rigour and legal interpretation will be decisive.
The private detective is not an emerging figure, but an active part of the system that is still awaiting formal recognition. But for now, both its regulation and the amendment of the law will have to wait; this gives us room to influence its future design through this kind of debate. We must show ourselves to be united and strong, and fight for clearly defined functions backed by safeguards.
The second panel analysed the increasingly indispensable nature of the detective in judicial proceedings, especially in the social jurisdiction, where they are consolidating their position as a key tool for rigorously addressing labour investigation. During the debate, the limits of their work were examined, along with the way in which magistrates assess the documentary evidence derived from properly structured reports.
Magistrates and Detectives
The second panel of the day was moderated by David Sanmartín, lawyer, private detective and managing partner of Detectives HAS, and Agustín Ruíz, founding partner of the private detective firm INDAGUER.
It was an institutional intervention in which the participation of the speakers was highlighted, along with a more practical approach to the gathering.
Julio Gutiez expressly thanked the presence of Purificación Ferreiro, a territorially assigned Magistrate at the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid), with experience in various jurisdictions and international training; Raquel Vicente, a Magistrate specialising in the social jurisdiction, doctor of Law and with experience in various high courts of justice and in the National Court (Audiencia Nacional), doctor of Law and associate professor at the UNED; and David Checa, a Magistrate in the social jurisdiction with a career in Catalonia and Madrid and experience in the technical office of the Supreme Court. He also thanked the collaboration of Javier de la Cruz, employment lawyer and managing partner of the firm Grupo Área, who introduced the participants, highlighting their involvement, professionalism and institutional contribution to this panel.
Particular emphasis was placed on the willingness of members of the judiciary to take part in spaces for direct dialogue with the sector, underlining the relevance of this kind of forum for bringing the positions of legal operators closer together.
During the opening, the role of La Sociedad Clave within the professional ecosystem was also clarified. It was stressed that its function is not to promote corporate structures, such as the creation of professional associations, but to support those initiatives that arise from within the sector itself.
Reference was made to the need for political momentum for this kind of development, acknowledging that the current difficulties stem not so much from technical issues as from a lack of institutional will.
David Sanmartín clearly set out the purpose of the debate: to present and discuss the role of the private detective as a provider of information and evidence in the labour sphere, in accordance with the current Private Security regulations.
It was stressed that the detective’s function is not limited to investigating fraud in cases of temporary disability—one of the most high-profile areas—but covers a much broader spectrum within employment relationships, not only on behalf of employers but also on behalf of workers.
The following areas of intervention in the social jurisdiction were highlighted; among the main areas of work singled out were:
• Monitoring fraudulent temporary disability, as a paradigmatic case of intervention.
• Verification of work compliance in employees whose activity takes place outside the workplace (sales representatives, delivery drivers, etc.).
• Investigation of workplace harassment situations, especially within the framework of internal whistleblowing channels.
• Actions relating to labour compliance, where the majority of internal investigations are employment-related in nature.
• Monitoring post-contractual non-compete agreements, whose effectiveness depends largely on practical verification.
In this context, the doctrine of the Supreme Court was recalled, which as far back as 1991 described the private detective as a practically exclusive instrument for the employer’s monitoring of compliance with labour obligations. Structural problems in the social jurisdiction—such as reckless claims that go unpunished—prompted a critical reflection on certain dysfunctions of the system, particularly in relation to litigiousness in the social order: the absence of costs in accessing the jurisdiction may encourage the filing of claims even in cases of little legal viability, generating an additional burden on the system and reinforcing the need for solid evidence, where the role of the detective becomes relevant.
The first contribution of the panel was given by Magistrate Purificación Ferreiro, who systematically addressed the role of the detective’s report in the social jurisdiction.
She began with a key idea: the private detective is already a regular player in the labour process; the main proceedings in which the detective intervenes are disciplinary dismissal and fraud in situations of temporary disability.
From a technical standpoint, she clarified an essential question about the legal nature of this evidence. As opposed to the traditional conception as documentary evidence, case law has consolidated its character as improper witness evidence, or documented witness testimony, insofar as the report reflects facts directly perceived by the detective.
This classification has relevant procedural consequences: the report, on its own, lacks full evidentiary force if it is not accompanied by ratification in court. “It is important, and it is the key moment for it to produce evidentiary effects, that the detective attends the trial, ratifies their report and answers the questions put to them by the parties in accordance with the principle of cross-examination.” As the magistrate pointed out, it is at the trial itself, under the principles of cross-examination and immediacy, that the judge can truly assess the evidence for what it is: witness evidence.
In relation to the validity of the investigation, Ferreiro introduced a relevant development in case-law doctrine. When is it lawful to carry out this kind of investigation? Traditionally, the existence of prior indications of non-compliance was required. However, more recent case law has shifted the focus towards the proportionality test.
Following the doctrine of the Supreme Court, what is decisive is not the intensity of the initial suspicion, but rather that the measure is appropriate and suitable, necessary and proportionate, as well as respectful of the worker’s fundamental rights. To this end, she highlighted the ruling of the TSJ of
12 September 2023 in its appeal 2,261/2022, which effectively tells us that its lawfulness or unlawfulness does not depend so much on the mere fact that it is ordered on the basis of slight suspicions, or of mere indications or relevant indications, but rather on whether it passes this test of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity, and is suited to the objective of that investigation.
This approach makes the starting point of the investigation more flexible, but tightens the control over its execution. How do judges assess the detective’s report? The magistrate stressed that the judicial assessment is not limited to the written report, but is carried out as a whole: report, video material and the detective’s testimony.
She also recalled, and this is very important, that this assessment falls to the trial judge, which limits its review on appeal (suplicación).
In practical terms, she set out a clear criterion regarding the quality of the report. The most solid reports are those that confine themselves to describing facts. What was observed? When? Where, and for how long? In other words, something purely objective.
—Descriptive, objective and chronological reports.
In this way, reports that incorporate legal or medical assessments lose value. The detective’s function, she insisted, is not to interpret, but to describe verifiable facts. A private detective’s report cannot state, “It can be observed that the worker is fit to work”.
As an illustrative example, she presented a case in which the detective’s evidence proved decisive.
A worker on temporary disability for a back ailment was teaching make-up courses at her home. The worker received the detective at her house, gave a make-up course and was paid 50 euros via Bizum. The investigation established:
-Actual professional activity.
-Payment received by electronic means.
-Functional incompatibility with the sick leave.
The level of detail in the report—including timings (one hour), clear identification of the person and the sequence of events—made it possible to establish the breach of contractual good faith, justifying the fairness of the dismissal.
Purificación introduced a matter of particular practical relevance: the reform deriving from Organic Law 1/2025 (Ley Orgánica 1/2025).
The new regulation requires evidence to be submitted in advance, at least ten days beforehand, which directly affects procedural strategy.
This change reduces the so-called “surprise factor”, traditionally relevant in this kind of proceeding, and forces a rethink of how the detective’s report is used within the process.
Magistrate David Checa focused his remarks on the day-to-day practice of the courts.
Drawing on real cases, he stressed that the central problem is not the existence of suspicions, but the lawfulness of how the evidence is obtained. Evidence obtained in breach of fundamental rights is affected by the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, contaminating the rest of the evidentiary material.
Nevertheless, he qualified a relevant point: the unlawfulness of the evidence does not automatically determine that the dismissal is null and void, but only its exclusion from the assessment process. “Well, case law has already said no. Classifying a piece of evidence as unlawful means that this evidence was obtained by violating fundamental rights and public freedoms, but not that the classification of the dismissal as such is null and void, because a dismissal is null and void only for objective causes under Article 55 and as provided for when it is carried out in breach of fundamental rights and public freedoms. The classification of unlawful evidence does not, in itself, determine a classification of nullity.”
One of the most complex points addressed was the delimitation of so-called “reserved spaces”.
The magistrate gave as a recent example the case law that deems unlawful any recordings made of the worker’s private environment, even if captured from the outside, when they affect their sphere of privacy.
This criterion introduces an element of operational uncertainty, since it requires a case-by-case assessment of the scope of the right to privacy.
The risk of the “agent provocateur”, being a relevant limit, is the prohibition on inducing conduct.
The detective cannot provoke conduct that the worker would not have carried out of their own accord. Otherwise, the evidence loses validity for lack of spontaneity.
David Checa highlighted practical problems in the report that should be avoided, as they can affect the coherence and credibility of the evidence from an operational standpoint.
• Failure of the detective who authored the report to appear.
• Inconsistencies between the report and the testimony.
• Deficiencies in the identification of the person investigated.
These elements, although formal, can significantly weaken the evidence.
The lawyer Javier de la Cruz provided the practical perspective of the corporate defence.
He championed the usefulness of the private detective as a highly effective evidentiary tool, especially compared with other, more questionable expert means.
Nevertheless, he focused on a structural problem: the lack of protection for the detective in court. He recounted a specific case in which the professional was subjected to coercion during the proceedings, without any effective institutional response.
The same case revealed another key tension: the restrictive interpretation of the principle of proportionality. The ruling deemed the evidence unlawful because the worker had not been informed in advance of the possibility of investigation, which led to the nullity of the evidentiary material.
This kind of ruling, according to the lawyer, creates legal uncertainty and hinders the use of this tool.
Magistrate Raquel Vicente set the debate in the context of a growing phenomenon: the increase in workplace absenteeism. Because, looking at the statistics on absenteeism and sick leave, we can see how between 2016 and 2026 it has risen by more than 200%… which has intensified litigiousness and the need for control mechanisms.
In this scenario, the private detective consolidates their position as a key tool to detect fraud, provide objective evidence and facilitate the work of the courts.
Raquel identified the main obstacle: the lack of uniform criteria in interpreting the limits between the right to privacy and the employer’s powers of control. This divergence creates legal uncertainty and hampers the work of professionals.
She also highlighted an expanding area: internal investigations within the framework of whistleblowing channels. In companies required to have compliance systems, the private detective is configured as an essential instrument for verifying possible wrongdoing.
Traditionally, the lawfulness of private investigation was linked to the existence of prior indications of non-compliance. However, as the magistrate points out, the development of case law has shifted this approach.
“This hyper-regulation, this protection of the worker, is all very well, but if we have a certain wishful thinking, we also see how there is abusive use and fraud, in that we often see that these periods of sick leave have the sole intention of obtaining a declaration of nullity of the dismissal from the courts. I want to convey a message of reassurance: we in the courts do not believe absolutely everything the claimant tells us either.”
In the face of certain tendencies within the sector towards brief or overly concise reports, the magistrate was especially clear:
“Do not be afraid to detail absolutely everything you see… on the contrary, we ask you to be a nuisance about it.”
This statement has a precise technical justification: the judge, in many cases, does not have all the relevant information at the time of assessing the evidence, especially following the recent regulatory changes that limit the employer’s access to the worker’s medical diagnosis.
“Only at the trial itself will we learn what the cause of the sick leave was.”
This creates a structural problem: the judge must assess observed conduct without initially knowing the real clinical context. This information deficit decisively conditions the judicial assessment. The magistrate illustrated the problem with a clear example.
Sick leave for a headache is not the same as for a broken shoulder; the same conduct (for example, activity at the gym) may be compatible or incompatible depending on the specific diagnosis. Hence the importance of the description.
“We need to know exactly what that person was doing.”
Without that level of detail, the judge may be forced to interpret the conduct as compatible, not out of conviction, but for lack of sufficient elements.
As regards the limits of the investigation, the magistrate introduced a deliberately practical criterion:
“Common sense must prevail here.”
This criterion applies to the classic conflict between the right to privacy and the employer’s powers of control. The dividing line is formulated in a simple but effective way: what belongs to the strictly private sphere (the home) is off-limits; what has a public projection or a certain degree of exposure may be the subject of investigation.
After this intervention, David Sanmartín added a particularly interesting element: ignorance of the medical diagnosis affects not only the judge, but all legal operators. “Sometimes neither the judge, nor the lawyer, nor the detective knows the cause of the sick leave.”
This fact forces a rethink of the investigation’s approach. Instead of focusing on what the worker cannot do, a more operational criterion is proposed: “Focus on what they can do; if it coincides with their job, that is enough.” This approach connects with recent rulings that compare the observed activity with the functional requirements of the job, even using technical parameters such as the physical or psychological load of each activity.
The debate moved towards one of the most complex areas: sick leave for anxiety, stress or psychological conditions.
The lawyer Javier Cruz was emphatic in describing the situation as a structural problem of the system: a high percentage of sick leave for psychological causes, high financial cover (up to 100% of salary) and the systematic prolongation of disability periods.
He also highlighted the evidentiary difficulty inherent in these conditions, since pain or discomfort is subjective, the doctor acts with caution in the face of serious risks, and it is complex to discredit the clinical situation.
Magistrate Purificación reinforced this idea with a particularly illustrative practical case: a worker on sick leave for anxiety who was carrying out intense activity on social media as an influencer. Her
activity included public images, constant activity and apparent normality. The medical expert opinion held that such activities were compatible and even beneficial for her condition.
“It is not what it seems, but what it really is.”
This example shows a key limitation of the detective’s report: without a connection to the medical diagnosis, its evidentiary force can be diluted.
The debate advanced towards one of the most controversial points in practice: the real effectiveness of detective evidence in situations of temporary disability for psychological causes.
This questioning reveals the core of the problem: in the absence of a clear diagnosis, the same conduct can be interpreted in opposite ways.
This introduces a critical uncertainty: an apparently incompatible activity may in fact be medically recommended—conduct such as going out, socialising or exercising may be part of the treatment.
But when alcohol consumption contradicts the medication or hinders the healing process, it may constitute a relevant element. All actions contrary to the recovery process will be taken into account, but an isolated piece of conduct is not enough; a real impact on recovery must be demonstrated.
From here, Agustín Ruiz shifted the debate towards the concept of habituality, as a possible element reinforcing the evidence.
However, even this criterion has limits: in certain cases (for example, chronic alcoholism), habitual conduct does not necessarily imply observable functional impairment, and the assessment still depends on the clinical context.
Cementing an idea repeated throughout the debate: “the more detailed, the clearer, the more information we provide, the better framework the judge will have to understand and consider the report.”
Finally, the debate shifted to a more structural level: the role of the detective in internal investigations arising from whistleblowing channels.
“Who better, or who else, than a private detective to carry out these investigations?”
A growing phenomenon was highlighted: the entry of law firms into this area, traditionally reserved for private investigation. Under the Private Security Act (Ley de Seguridad Privada), obtaining information about facts and conduct is the exclusive remit of detectives.
Magistrate Raquel responded from a technical standpoint, framing these investigations within a broader phenomenon: “It represents a transfer from the public to the private sphere in the investigative phase.”
In other words, internal investigations function as an anticipation of the criminal investigative phase, transferred to the corporate sphere. This introduces an obvious risk. There is a risk of infringing fundamental rights. For this reason, the key lies not so much in who investigates, but in how the investigation is carried out.
“When the investigation is placed in the hands of someone who knows how things should be done, the risk decreases.”
Without stating it categorically, it is suggested that the intervention of specialised professionals, such as the private detective, increases the guarantees of lawfulness.
Nevertheless, a relevant nuance was introduced: the final decision rests with the company. It must assess how it wants to manage the investigation, what level of guarantees it wants, and what risks it is prepared to assume.
“Begin the investigation when the whistleblowing channel is activated.”
But the manner of execution is not fully defined, which shows that we are facing a framework that is still under development.
The debate stressed that the private detective, by exercising public functions delegated by the State, provides a strengthened guarantee in internal investigations, giving them greater legal certainty, evidentiary reliability and resistance to challenges.
In this context, a clear delimitation of phases was established: an initial one, in which the company can carry out a preliminary assessment of the report, and an advanced phase, in which, when actions such as surveillance, recordings or identification of persons are required, the detective’s intervention is practically necessary to avoid the unlawfulness of the evidence.
Likewise, a relevant conceptual clarification was introduced by noting that what is termed an “internal investigation” actually functions as a preliminary investigative phase, without replacing the judicial process, which is ultimately responsible for assessing the facts.
The question-and-answer session introduced a critical debate on the limits and nature of the private detective’s work. Lola Murias’s intervention raised two substantive issues: on the one hand, the defence of the detective’s exclusivity in providing new facts, in the face of the emergence of expert reports that encroach on that area; and on the other, the need for judicial rulings to be more nuanced about responsibility for providing the evidence, avoiding implicitly placing it on the detective. The central question focused on the possible consideration of the detective as a “witness-expert”, arguing that, in certain cases, by virtue of training or experience, they could issue assessments. The judicial response was clear and consistent with the doctrine of the Supreme Court: the detective’s report is improper witness evidence based solely on perceived facts, with no room for technical assessments, even if the professional has additional training, since these fall solely within the expert domain.
The final stretch of the debate focused on practical matters of great procedural interest. First, Juan de Dios Vargas addressed the strategic use of the surprise factor, especially in relation to the submission of detective reports. Although labour regulations require evidence to be submitted ten days in advance, several participants—particularly from the judiciary—acknowledged that in practice this deadline is not always strictly applied, with a flexible interpretation prevailing based on the absence of any impairment to the defence. This makes it possible, in many cases, to submit the evidence at the trial itself, thus preserving its tactical effectiveness.
Finally, with regard to the use of content obtained from platforms such as OnlyFans, the dominant position was that its use can be valid as evidence provided that the access was lawful—that is, through the implicit consent of the user themselves when publishing or allowing access for payment—and that the authenticity of the digital evidence is guaranteed. In these cases, it is treated in the same way as other social networks, although with the added caution of the potentially sensitive nature of the content, which requires especially rigorous treatment from the standpoint of evidence and the protection of fundamental rights.
At the close of the question-and-answer session, the debate addressed especially technical issues that are revealing of everyday practice. First, an apparent contradiction was clarified regarding the investigation of offences by detectives: the law does not prohibit investigating facts that may be criminal, but rather being expressly hired to investigate offences prosecutable ex officio. The key, as was stressed, is that the detective investigates facts and regulatory compliance, and only when a possible offence becomes apparent does the duty arise to report it and cease the investigation.
Relevant operational questions were also resolved. On testimony in court, it was confirmed that, although it is essential to give the report evidentiary force, its admission depends on the judge’s discretion, which creates uncertainty in practice. As regards the content of the report, it was stressed that the detective must confine themselves to objective facts previously included in the document, without introducing new elements at trial or subjective assessments. With respect to situations that cannot be documented (such as conversations), caution was recommended: only incorporate what can be described objectively without infringing rights.
On data protection, it was clarified that including the reason for the sick leave does not infringe rights if it comes from information provided voluntarily, but it must not be obtained by invasive means. Finally, in relation to digital evidence such as WhatsApp, its consideration as documentary evidence was confirmed, the assessment of which falls to the trial judge under criteria of reasonableness and without review except in the case of manifest error.
The institutional closing reinforced an idea that ran across the whole day: the quality of the detective’s report—detailed, objective and exhaustive—is decisive. As a practical synthesis, a meticulous descriptive model was advocated, capable of accurately reconstructing the observed facts, thereby enhancing its effectiveness in court.
The event showed that the evidentiary effectiveness of the private detective depends not only on their intervention, but on their technical rigour, respect for legal limits and the precision with which they turn facts into solid judicial evidence. We will achieve results with descriptive, detailed, objective, thorough and relevant reports.
