The Admissibility of Earth Observation Data in Legal Proceedings: A Closer Look Towards Data Imaging

Alif Nurfakhri Muhammad

Full Text: PDF



Space capabilities utilization, specifically Earth observation capabilities is not just limited to environmental protection and disaster mitigation, as was shown in the UN Principles on Remote Sensing. It is also can be used to support law enforcement and legal proceedings in court. However, the technology of Earth observation is very complex and the process from primary earth observation data to analyzed information requires a degree of manipulation to create a comprehensive data. Because of this, there is an issue of admissibility of Earth observation data in court. This paper would like to answer the fundamental question on how can this data be admissible, beginning with the procedure to obtain it, and to ensure the authenticity of the data, and finds that there are methods of Data Imaging and Digital Audit that may ensure its authenticity. It will also find that to obtain these data for evidence requires a process of special agreement that needs to be looked more in the future.


Earth Observation, Evidence, Legal Proceedings, Data Imaging



Atsuyo Ito, Legal Aspects of Satellite Remote Sensing (2011).

Caroline S. Wagner, International Agreements on Cooperation in Remote Sensing and Earth Observation (1998).

C.H. van Rhee, Evidence in Civil Law – The Netherlands (2012).

Ray Purdy and Denis Leung (Eds.), Evidence from Earth Observation Satellites: Emerging Legal Issues (2013).

Susan Rae Wolfinbarger, People Make the Pixels: Remote Sensing Analysis for Human Rights-Based Litigation (2012).

Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Mahulena Hofmann, Introduction to Space Law (2019).

Articles in Academic Journals

Arianna Vettorel, Global Positioning System Evidence in Court Proceedings and Privacy: The Case of Italy, 42 Air and Space Law 295 (2017).

Clemens Arzt, Use of Satellite Imagery in Legal Proceedings, 24 Air and Space Law 195 (1999).

Els de Busser, The Digital Unfitness of Mutual Legal Assistance, 28 Security and Human Rights 161-179 (2017).

Joshua I. James, Pavel Gladyshev, A Survey of Mutual Legal Assistance Involving Digital Evidence, 18 Digital Investigations 23-32 (2016).

J.P. Mifsud Bonnici, Et al., The European Legal Framework on Electronic Evidence: Complex and in Need of Reform, in M. A. Biasiotti, J. P. Mifsud Bonnici, J. Cannataci, & F. Turchi (Eds.), Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe 189-235 (2018).

Kenneth J. Markowitz, Legal Challenges and Market Rewards to the Use and Acceptance of Remote Sensing and Digital Information as Evidence, 12 Duke Environmental. Law & Policy Forum 219 (2002).

Kristopher R. Hufstetler, The Admissibility of Aerial Photographs - Evidentiary Foundations, 47 St. Mary's Law Journal 857 (2016).

Leah Voigt Romano, Electronic Evidence and the Federal Rules, 38 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1745 (2005).

Ningna Wang, Rujun yang, The Application of Chinese High-Spatial-Resolution Remote Sensing Satellite Image in Land Law Enforcement Information Extraction, 42 International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 1751 (2018).

Rodney Mckemmish, When is Digital Evidence Forensically Sound?, in Indrajit Ray, Sujeet Shenoi (eds.), Advances in Digital Forensics IV 3 (2008).

International Documents, Rules, Regulations, Case Laws, and National Documents

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, UN Treaty Series 610 no. 8843. (1967)

UN Principles on Remote Sensing, UN Res 41/65 of 3 December 1986.

European Council, Guidelines for Electronic Evidence in Civil and Administrative Proceedings (2019).

Indonesia, Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transaction (State Gazette 2008 No. 58).

Indonesia, Law No. 19 of 2016 amending the Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transaction (State Gazette 2016 No. 251).

Indonesia, Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019 on the Administration of Electronic System and Transaction (State Gazette 2019 No. 185).

District Court of Dumai, “Decision No. 27/Pdt.G/2012/PN.DUM”.

District Court of Dumai, “Decision No. 9/Pdt.G/2017PN.DUM”

District Court of Kendari, “Decision No. 14/Pdt.G/2019/PN.KDI”

District Court of Muara Teweh, “Decision No. 148/Pid.B/LH/2019/PN. MTW”

District Court of Padang, “Decision No. 642/Pid.Sus-LH/PN.PDG”

District Court of Tanjung Selor, “Decision No. 15/Pdt.G/2019/PN.TJS”.

UK Association of Chief Police Officers, Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence (2012)

UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Digital Forensics and Crime, 520 Postnote (2016)

Cheng Swee Tiang v PP, MLJ 291 (1964)

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 113 (S.Ct. 2786 1992).

Frye v U.S., 293 F. 1013 ( D.C. Cir 1923)

U.S. v Bennett 363 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2004).

Online Resources

Carl A. Aveni, New Federal Evidence Rule Changes Reflect Modern World,

E.D. Macauley, The Role Satellites Should Play in the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, Including the Use of Earth Observation Satellites in Evidential Matters,

ISSN: 2356-2129