Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |