The\nCybercrime Convention created in the year 2001; was ratified by the\nParaguayan state at the end of 2017. This international convention\naddresses criminal behaviors that are committed through the internet\nand in turn the cross-border criminal prosecution of them and thus\nreduce the incidence of \u201csafe shelters\u201d for cybercrime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on these advances in the Paraguayan criminal system, an investigation is conducted led by attorney Maricarmen Sequera<\/strong> and attorney Marlene Samaniego<\/strong>, both of the TEDIC Organization of Paraguay. It proposes a critical analysis of the Convention and its harmonization in the Paraguayan criminal system, based on a legal analysis and interviews with those responsible for the application of the criminal code and procedure in Paraguay. The authors present the Convention as a legal instrument that regulates the international efforts in the prosecution of criminal conduct by digital means, but in turn contains failures of form and substance, although at first sight it is observed as a proposal that guarantees the protection of human rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\nis, the investigation states that the Convention generates\nsignificant conflicts of proportionality in relation to the\nprotection of the right to privacy. Therefore, for the harmonization\nof this international instrument to the internal criminal system,\nprecautions should be taken in the design of research to access\nelectronic evidence, seizure of evidence through computer systems,\ntraffic data retention among others because many of these procedural\nactions entail the violation of the Paraguayan National Constitution\nand human rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And\nfinally the authors conclude that the Convention should be taken as a\nmodel standard to follow, not as something to apply: on one hand\nbecause it does not take into account the cultural, political and\neconomic diversity of countries, and on the other hand because it\ndecreases National security barriers, conflicts with the public\ninterest and human rights. It is necessary to make exemptions to not\ngive up jurisdiction and privacy disproportionately. In addition,\nknowledge about its content and scope should be prioritized. There\nshould be a calm and serene debate between all sectors of society\nwith full citizen participation at national and regional levels, to\njointly develop an effective harmonization that respects human\nrights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\nwill also be necessary to strengthen criminal institutions for a\nbetter interpretation of national and international communications\nsurveillance laws, given the progress of surveillance techniques and\ntechnologies. For Judges of the Judiciary to perform an analysis of\nproportionality of law or the use of malicious software such as\nFinFisher or any form of interpretation of communications including\nmetadata, they must be trained to know and justify its use, and thus\navoid negligence or abuse by part of the other institutions of the\ncriminal system such as SENAD, National Police or Public Ministry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And\nabove all to develop areas that allow counting means of academic\nresearch and training to offer answers to crimes with and in ICT.\nLikewise, the promotion of technical meetings that allow different\nactors to interact and exchange experiences and opinions. This is\nalso a necessity for the design of public policies in this area, due\nto the technical requirements that it implies.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAmong\nothers points of interest, the main findings that should be taken\ninto account for the harmonization of the Convention are:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n