Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), 4 luku 4 § — Suhteellisuusperiaate
Esitutkintatoimenpiteen ja siitä aiheutuvan henkilön oikeuksiin puuttumisen on oltava puolustettavia suhteessa selvitettävään rikokseen, selvitettävän asian selvittämistarpeeseen sekä toimenpiteen kohteena olevan henkilön ikään, terveyteen ja muihin vastaaviin häneen liittyviin seikkoihin ja muihin asiaan vaikuttaviin seikkoihin nähden.
Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 4 — Principle of Proportionality
An investigative measure, and the resulting interference with a person’s rights, must be justifiable in relation to the offence under investigation, the need to investigate the matter, the age, health and other comparable personal circumstances of the person subject to the measure, and other relevant circumstances.
This English translation is unofficial. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.
Suhteellisuusperiaate edellyttää, että esitutkintatoimenpiteen tarpeellisuutta ja siitä aiheutuvaa oikeuksiin puuttumista arvioidaan suhteessa tutkittavan rikoksen laatuun, asian selvittämistarpeeseen sekä toimenpiteen kohteena olevan henkilön yksilöllisiin olosuhteisiin.
Tutkinnallinen tavoite ei yksin ratkaise sitä, onko käytetty toimenpide hyväksyttävä. Arvioinnissa on otettava huomioon myös toimenpiteen voimakkuus, sen vaikutukset henkilöön ja se, ovatko kyseiset vaikutukset puolustettavissa tutkinnan tarpeisiin nähden.
Periaate ei tarkoita, että tutkintatoimenpiteen pitäisi olla henkilölle haitaton tai että jokainen haittaa aiheuttava toimenpide olisi lainvastainen. Ratkaisevaa on kokonaisarviointi sovellettavan lain ja dokumentoitujen olosuhteiden perusteella.
The principle of proportionality requires investigative measures and their impact on individual rights to be justified in light of the offence under investigation, the actual needs of the investigation, the personal circumstances of the affected individual, and other relevant factors.
A procedural audit can examine not only whether investigators had a legitimate objective, but also whether the measure used and the degree of interference with rights were justified in the circumstances. The analysis must remain fact-specific: a measure that is justified in one investigation may not be justified to the same extent in another.
Investigators seek evidence of a relatively limited offence and propose a search that would substantially intrude into a person’s private life.
The audit should examine the legal basis for the search, the evidence sought, the scope of the measure, and the reasons why that scope was considered necessary. The seriousness of the allegation and the likely evidential value of the search are relevant to the proportionality assessment.
Audit question: Was the scope of the search justified by the investigative need and the circumstances of the case?
Investigators seize a device that may contain relevant evidence, but it also holds extensive personal, family, professional, or unrelated information.
The existence of potentially relevant evidence does not by itself answer every question about the scope or duration of the interference. The audit may examine the legal basis for seizure, the connection between the device and the investigation, the extent of the material examined, and whether the applicable rules support the measures taken.
Audit question: Was the interference with the person’s private information justified by the specific evidential purpose and the applicable legal requirements?
A person subject to questioning or another investigative measure has a documented health condition, disability, or other personal circumstance that may affect the burden imposed.
Section 4 expressly identifies age and health among the circumstances relevant to proportionality. An audit should therefore examine whether relevant personal circumstances were known or reasonably apparent, whether they were taken into account, and whether the manner or intensity of the measure was justified in the circumstances.
Audit question: Were the person’s relevant health and personal circumstances considered when deciding how the investigative measure would be carried out?
A suspect is questioned repeatedly about the same matters, with significant cumulative effects on the person.
Repeated questioning is not automatically disproportionate. Its justification depends on the purpose of each session, the need to clarify relevant matters, the manner in which questioning was conducted, and the circumstances of the person being questioned.
Audit question: Is there a documented investigative reason for the extent and repetition of the questioning, assessed in light of the circumstances?
Investigators have more than one possible way to pursue a relevant evidential lead, and the options differ in their impact on a person’s rights.
Where the law and the circumstances permit alternatives, a proportionality audit can examine why the chosen measure was considered justified and whether its impact was defensible in relation to the investigative need. The existence of a less intrusive option does not automatically make the selected measure unlawful, but it may be relevant to the assessment.
Audit question: Does the record explain why the chosen measure and its impact were justified in the circumstances?
When reviewing an investigative measure, the following questions can help structure the analysis:
These questions provide an analytical framework. They do not establish that a violation occurred merely because a measure caused inconvenience, distress, or another adverse effect.
The proportionality principle requires a relationship between the investigative objective and the interference with the rights of the person affected. The fact that investigators are pursuing a legitimate purpose does not remove the need to justify the particular measure used.
The central audit question is whether the nature, scope, and impact of an investigative measure were defensible in relation to the offence, the investigative need, the person’s circumstances, and the other relevant facts.
Finlex — Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), ajantasainen säädös
Relevant provision: Chapter 4, Section 4 — Suhteellisuusperiaate (Principle of Proportionality).
The Finnish statutory text is authoritative. The English translation and practical examples above are provided for informational and analytical purposes.
Alkuperäinen säädösteksti (suomeksi)
Esitutkintatoimenpiteen ja siitä aiheutuvan henkilön oikeuksiin puuttumisen on oltava puolustettavia suhteessa selvitettävään rikokseen, selvitettävän asian selvittämistarpeeseen sekä toimenpiteen kohteena olevan henkilön ikään, terveyteen ja muihin vastaaviin häneen liittyviin seikkoihin ja muihin asiaan vaikuttaviin seikkoihin nähden.
Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 4 — Principle of Proportionality
An investigative measure, and the resulting interference with a person’s rights, must be justifiable in relation to the offence under investigation, the need to investigate the matter, the age, health and other comparable personal circumstances of the person subject to the measure, and other relevant circumstances.
This English translation is unofficial. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.
Esitutkintatoimenpiteiden ja niistä aiheutuvien oikeuksiin puuttumisten tulee olla oikeassa suhteessa tutkittavaan rikokseen, tutkinnan tarpeisiin ja asianomaisen henkilön olosuhteisiin.
The provision requires investigative measures and their impact on rights to be proportionate to the offence, investigative needs and relevant personal circumstances. Whether a specific measure satisfies this standard requires a fact-specific assessment.
Finlex — Esitutkintalaki 805/2011
Kohta: 4 luku 4 §.
LawBeat Radio
Independent legal media platform focusing on structural judicial monitoring and criminal case analysis. We examine international standards of justice, from the presumption of innocence to the rigorous evaluation of the standard of proof and in dubio pro reo principles.
Legal Disclaimer:
All analytical materials and legal case reviews on this website are published for informational and educational purposes only under freedom of expression. Content does not constitute professional legal advice.
© 2026 LawBeatRadio. All rights reserved.