Table 1.
Defined objectives to be measured by the specialists.
| Dimension | Criteria | Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Validity | Meets the principles of robust evidence management and chain of custody. |
| Environment | Consistency with organization / utility | Provide ICC with a clear and easy to identify chain of custody of evidence. |
| Environment | Consistency with technology / harnessing of recent technologies | Makes use of blockchain technology capabilities to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and the fairness of judicial proceedings. |
| Structure | Completeness | It is a solution that could meet at least 80% of the current requirements with regards to evidence management, from collection to disclosure. |
| Activity | Accuracy | Meets the requirements it was intended to fulfil. |
| Evolution | Robustness | Can resist outages, and attacks to the integrity, availability and confidentiality of data. |
Figure 1.
Strategy Canvas for current Evidence Management solutions and MTB
Figure 2.
PRIMA instance of the literature review for this research
Figure 3.
Number of eligible articles published per year
Table 2.
Literature review overview and comparison with this research
| Group | Blockchain Framework | Chain of Custody | Evidence Management | Multi-Level-Trust | Public Sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A – Research solely on blockchain and chain of custody attributes | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| B – Research addresses evidence management with chain of custody on blockchain, but not multilevel trust nor the public sector | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| C – Research covering all attributes except 5., the public sector | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| D – Research covering all attributes except 4., multi-level trust | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| E - [47] | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| E - [48] | Y | Y | N | N | Y |
| E - [49] | Y | N | Y | N | N |
Table 3.
MultiTrusBloc identified roles
| Role | Description | High level view of permissions |
|---|---|---|
| Prosecution team | Determines the data deemed as evidence and submitted to the Court chamber. | Until evidence disclosure, the team can view and control any artifact within the MTC. |
| Accredited entity | The entity cooperates with the prosecution team to identify and gather information, either directly or through trusted partners. | it can create and submit evidence records in the MTC, accessing the artifact until the prosecution team takes ownership. |
| Non-accredited entity | May include civil organizations or citizens seeking to expose committed crimes. | Submits potential evidence to an accredited entity or the prosecution team for evaluation. |
| Court chamber | Assesses submitted evidence and delivers judgement accordingly. | Receives and takes control of the evidence once handed over by the prosecution team. |
| Involved third parties | Have different objectives and could represent different people or groups in the specific case | Parties such as the defense or victims’ representatives may require evidence disclosure to participate in the proceedings. |
Figure 4.
Evidence acquisition process
Figure 5.
Evidence usage and disclosure process
Figure 6.
High level view of MTB
Figure 7.
Evidence Lifecycle stages
Table 4.
Results of panel evaluation survey
| Dimension | Criteria | Average score |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Validity | 5,00 |
| Environment | Consistency with organization / utility | 4,33 |
| Environment | Consistency with technology / harnessing of recent technologies | 4,33 |
| Structure | Completeness | 4,67 |
| Activity | Accuracy | 4,33 |
| Evolution | Robustness | 4,33 |
Table 5.
Results of user sample evaluation survey
| Dimension | Criteria | Average score |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Validity | 4,59 |
| Environment | Consistency with organization / utility | 4,59 |
| Environment | Consistency with technology / harnessing of recent technologies | 4,06 |
| Structure | Completeness | 4,71 |
| Activity | Accuracy | 4,47 |
| Evolution | Robustness | 4,47 |
Figure 8.
Evaluation comparison per criteria