Finnish Criminal Investigation Act · Legal Framework

Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), 4 luku 1 § — Tasapuolisuusperiaate

Alkuperäinen säädösteksti (suomeksi)

Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), 4 luku 1 § — Tasapuolisuusperiaate

Esitutkinnassa on selvitettävä ja otettava huomioon sekä rikoksesta epäiltyä vastaan että hänen puolestaan vaikuttavat seikat ja todisteet.

English translation — unofficial

Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 1 — The Principle of Impartiality

During a criminal investigation, circumstances and evidence both for and against the person suspected of an offence must be investigated and taken into account.

This English translation is unofficial and provided for informational purposes. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.

Säännöksen tarkoitus ja merkitys

Tasapuolisuusperiaate edellyttää, että esitutkinnassa selvitetään ja otetaan huomioon sekä rikoksesta epäiltyä vastaan että hänen puolestaan vaikuttavat seikat ja todisteet. Tutkinnan tarkoituksena ei ole ainoastaan vahvistaa alkuperäistä epäilyä tai etsiä aineistoa, joka tukee yhtä tapahtumakuvausta. Myös epäilyä heikentävät tiedot, vaihtoehtoisiin tapahtumankulkuihin viittaavat havainnot ja väitteitä vastaan puhuva aineisto on otettava asianmukaisesti huomioon. Periaate ei tarkoita, että jokaiselle väitteelle olisi annettava sama todistusarvo tai että kaikkia mahdollisia selityksiä olisi pidettävä yhtä todennäköisinä. Se edellyttää, että asian kannalta merkitykselliset seikat selvitetään ja arvioidaan tasapuolisesti eikä tutkintaa rajata perusteettomasti vain syyllisyyttä tukevaan aineistoon.

Legal context: What does the principle require in practice?

The principle of impartiality is relevant when assessing whether an investigation examined the available evidence comprehensively or focused predominantly on one interpretation of events. A procedural audit can examine whether potentially exculpatory material was identified, investigated where appropriate, documented, and taken into account. The existence of a conflict between two accounts does not, by itself, establish a breach. The relevant question is whether the investigation dealt adequately with material information that could affect the assessment of the allegation.

Practical examples

Example 1

Physical evidence that may contradict an allegation

Suppose a person alleges that an object was thrown from a particular position. Photographs taken at the scene appear to show obstructions or spatial constraints that may affect whether the described movement was possible. A balanced investigation would examine the photographs, the positions and dimensions of the relevant objects, and any other available evidence needed to assess the allegation. It should not simply disregard potentially contradictory physical evidence because a witness has given a particular account.

The audit question is: Was the physical evidence examined in a way that fairly tested the allegation, including evidence that might undermine it?

Example 2

A witness who did not directly observe the alleged act

Suppose a witness describes an incident but states that they did not actually see the moment when the alleged act occurred. Their account may still contain relevant information about what happened before and after the incident. However, the distinction between direct observation and inference matters. An investigation should accurately record what the witness observed, what they inferred, and what they learned from other sources. These categories should not be silently merged into a stronger claim of direct observation.

The audit question is: Does the record preserve the distinction between what the witness actually saw and what they concluded had happened?

Example 3

Medical evidence and competing explanations

Suppose a photograph documents a bruise or other injury, while the parties disagree about how it occurred. The injury may be relevant evidence, but its existence does not automatically establish the identity of the person responsible or the precise mechanism that caused it. A balanced investigation should consider what the medical or photographic evidence can establish, what it cannot establish on its own, and whether other available evidence supports or contradicts the competing accounts.

The audit question is: Was the injury evidence assessed within its actual evidential limits, alongside the other relevant material?

Example 4

Evidence that supports an alternative account

Suppose a suspect identifies a message, photograph, witness, location record, or other material that could support an alternative account of the events. The investigation should assess the relevance and availability of that material rather than dismissing it solely because it conflicts with the initial suspicion. Whether a particular investigative step is required depends on the circumstances and the significance of the information.

The audit question is: Was potentially relevant material supporting the alternative account properly considered and, where appropriate, investigated?

Applying the principle in a procedural audit

When reviewing a pre-trial investigation, the following questions can help identify issues requiring closer examination:

Evidence identification: What evidence supported the allegation, and what available evidence potentially contradicted it?
Investigative completeness: Were material inconsistencies, physical constraints, alternative explanations, and relevant leads examined?
Accuracy of the record: Do interview records and other documents accurately distinguish direct observations from assumptions, interpretations, and second-hand information?
Treatment of contradictory material: Is there a documented explanation of how significant evidence that conflicts with the principal allegation was assessed?
Evidential limits: Do the conclusions drawn from photographs, medical records, recordings, or other evidence remain within what those materials can actually establish?
Traceability: Can a reader determine from the investigation record what material was considered and how significant contradictions were addressed?

These questions are an audit framework, not a substitute for examining the actual case file. A failure to mention a particular item in one document does not necessarily prove that investigators ignored it. The wider record and the procedural context must also be considered.

Why this provision matters

A reliable investigation must be capable of testing an allegation, not merely collecting material that appears to confirm it. Evidence that weakens an allegation can be just as important to a fair assessment as evidence that supports it. The principle of impartiality therefore provides a basis for examining whether an investigation considered the relevant material in both directions. Where significant contradictory evidence exists, the central issue is not simply whether it was mentioned, but whether it was adequately investigated and taken into account.

The key audit question is whether the investigation genuinely tested the allegation against the available evidence, including the evidence that might undermine it.

Virallinen lähde / Official source

Finlex — Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), ajantasainen säädös Relevant provision: Chapter 4, Section 1 — Tasapuolisuusperiaate (Principle of Impartiality).

The Finnish statutory text is the authoritative source. The English translation and practical examples above are provided for informational and analytical purposes.