Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), 4 luku 5 § — Vähimmän haitan periaate
Esitutkinnassa ei kenenkään oikeuksiin saa puuttua enempää kuin on välttämätöntä esitutkinnan tarkoituksen saavuttamiseksi.
Esitutkintatoimenpiteellä ei saa aiheuttaa kenellekään tarpeettomasti vahinkoa tai haittaa.
Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 5 — Principle of Minimum Harm
During a criminal investigation, no one’s rights may be interfered with more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of the investigation.
An investigative measure must not cause anyone unnecessary damage or harm.
This English translation is unofficial and provided for informational purposes. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.
Vähimmän haitan periaate rajoittaa esitutkinnassa käytettävien toimenpiteiden vaikutuksia ihmisten oikeuksiin ja muihin suojattuihin etuihin. Tutkinnallinen tavoite ei oikeuta puuttumaan oikeuksiin laajemmin kuin on välttämätöntä eikä aiheuttamaan tarpeetonta vahinkoa tai haittaa.
Periaatteessa on kaksi toisiinsa liittyvää vaatimusta. Ensinnäkin oikeuksiin puuttumisen on pysyttävä siinä laajuudessa, joka on tarpeen esitutkinnan tarkoituksen saavuttamiseksi. Toiseksi itse tutkintatoimenpide ei saa aiheuttaa tarpeetonta vahinkoa tai haittaa kenellekään.
Arvioinnissa on siksi tarkasteltava sekä toimenpiteen tarkoitusta että sen tosiasiallisia vaikutuksia. Merkitystä voi olla esimerkiksi toimenpiteen laajuudella, kestolla, kohdentamisella, vaikutuksilla yksityiselämään tai omaisuuteen sekä sillä, olisiko tutkinnan tavoite voitu saavuttaa ilman tarpeetonta lisähaittaa.
Säännös ei tarkoita, että kaikki haitalliset seuraukset olisivat kiellettyjä. Esitutkinta voi edellyttää laissa sallittuja toimenpiteitä, jotka vaikuttavat henkilön oikeuksiin. Kysymys on siitä, ovatko puuttumisen laajuus ja siitä aiheutuvat seuraukset perusteltavissa tutkinnan tarkoituksen kannalta.
The principle of minimum harm requires investigative authorities to limit interference with rights to what is necessary to achieve the purpose of the investigation and to avoid causing unnecessary damage or harm.
The provision is relevant when examining not only whether an investigative measure had a lawful purpose, but also how it was carried out and what consequences it produced. A measure may pursue a legitimate investigative objective while still raising questions about whether its scope, duration, or practical effects went beyond what was necessary.
The principle should be assessed in conjunction with the legal rules governing the specific measure. It does not independently determine whether a search, seizure, interview, or other investigative action was lawful in a particular case. That assessment requires the documented facts, the applicable legal authority, and the circumstances in which the measure was taken.
Investigators are looking for a particular item connected with an alleged offence. The search extends to areas or belongings with no apparent connection to the item or the purpose of the investigation.
The audit should examine the legal basis and scope of the search, the object of the search, the areas examined, and the reasons for any extension beyond the initially identified investigative need.
Audit question: Was the extent of the search necessary for its stated purpose, or did it create an avoidable intrusion into privacy?
A phone or computer is seized because it may contain relevant evidence. The seizure or restriction on access continues for a substantial period, affecting the person’s ability to communicate, work, or manage ordinary affairs.
The duration of a seizure is not automatically unlawful merely because it causes inconvenience. The relevant questions include the applicable legal basis, the continuing need for the measure, the handling of the device, and the actual consequences for the affected person.
Audit question: Was the continuing interference justified by the investigative need, and was unnecessary harm avoided?
A person’s documented health condition makes a particular investigative measure especially burdensome. The manner, timing, or duration of the measure may intensify that burden.
The audit should establish what was known about the person’s circumstances, how the measure was conducted, and whether its effects were necessary to achieve the investigative purpose. The provision does not automatically prohibit a measure that causes discomfort, but it requires attention to unnecessary harm.
Audit question: Were the foreseeable effects on the person considered, and could avoidable harm have been prevented without undermining the investigation?
Investigators repeatedly request the same material or information, although the record does not make clear why the repeated requests are needed. The repetition creates additional burden for the person involved.
Repeated requests may be justified when information is incomplete, new issues arise, or clarification is necessary. A procedural audit should therefore examine the purpose of each request and whether the cumulative burden was justified.
Audit question: Did each repeated measure serve a genuine investigative purpose, or did it impose avoidable additional burden?
Investigators obtain a broad collection of documents, images, or digital material when only a limited portion appears relevant to the investigation. The handling or retention of the material may create additional consequences for the people concerned.
The audit should examine the legal basis for obtaining and retaining the material, its relevance to the investigation, and the applicable rules governing access, preservation, and disposal. The existence of unrelated information does not by itself establish a violation, but unnecessary interference may require closer examination.
Audit question: Was the collection and continued handling of the material justified by the investigative purpose, and was unnecessary harm avoided?
An investigative measure requires access to premises or an object, and the manner in which it is carried out causes damage. The record does not explain why that degree of damage was necessary.
The relevant assessment depends on the circumstances, the urgency of the measure, the available lawful methods, and the nature of the damage. Not every instance of damage establishes a breach; the question is whether unnecessary harm was caused.
Audit question: Was the damage an unavoidable consequence of a justified measure, or could it reasonably have been avoided while achieving the same investigative purpose?
When reviewing an investigative measure, the following questions can help structure the analysis:
These questions provide a framework for examining the facts. They do not establish that a violation occurred merely because a measure was intrusive, inconvenient, or harmful in some respect.
The principle of proportionality in Chapter 4, Section 4, and the principle of minimum harm in Section 5 are closely related, but the provisions express distinct requirements.
Proportionality concerns whether an investigative measure and its interference with rights are defensible in relation to the offence, the investigative need, the person’s circumstances, and other relevant factors. The minimum-harm principle specifically emphasizes limiting interference to what is necessary and avoiding unnecessary damage or harm.
In a procedural audit, the provisions may therefore raise related but distinct questions: was the measure justified in the circumstances, and were its scope and consequences limited so that unnecessary harm was avoided?
A lawful investigative objective does not remove the obligation to consider how a measure is implemented and what effects it has. The investigation must pursue its purpose without unnecessary interference with rights or avoidable damage and harm.
For a procedural audit, the decisive issue is not simply whether an investigative measure occurred, but whether the extent of the interference and the resulting consequences were necessary for the stated purpose.
The key audit question is whether the investigative objective could be achieved without the unnecessary interference, damage, or harm documented in the case.
Finlex — Esitutkintalaki (805/2011), ajantasainen säädös
Relevant provision: Chapter 4, Section 5 — Vähimmän haitan periaate (Principle of Minimum Harm).
The Finnish statutory text is authoritative. The English translation and practical examples above are provided for informational and analytical purposes.
Alkuperäinen säädösteksti (suomeksi)
Esitutkinnassa ei kenenkään oikeuksiin saa puuttua enempää kuin on välttämätöntä esitutkinnan tarkoituksen saavuttamiseksi.
Esitutkintatoimenpiteellä ei saa aiheuttaa kenellekään tarpeettomasti vahinkoa tai haittaa.
Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011), Chapter 4, Section 5 — Principle of Minimum Harm
During a criminal investigation, no one’s rights may be interfered with more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of the investigation.
An investigative measure must not cause anyone unnecessary damage or harm.
This English translation is unofficial. The Finnish statutory text is authoritative.
Säännös rajoittaa tarpeetonta puuttumista henkilön oikeuksiin ja kieltää esitutkintatoimenpiteistä aiheutuvan tarpeettoman vahingon tai haitan.
The provision requires investigative authorities to avoid unnecessary interference with rights and unnecessary harm. Its relevance to a particular measure depends on what was done, why it was necessary and what effects it had.
Finlex — Esitutkintalaki 805/2011
Kohta: 4 luku 5 §.
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.