Considering the fragile nature of the computer evidence, subjected to easy modifications, alterations and damages, the Third Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, with ruling n. 9684 of February 28^th 2017, addressed the problem, left unresolved by the Law n. 48 of March 18^th 2008, of the secure data acquisition and the repeatability of the related operations.

Indeed, the aforementioned law - ratifying and implementing the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime – while on the one hand has regulated the limits and the requirements underlying the computer investigation activities - such as the preservation of the original data and the compliance of the copies with the same – on the other hand did not provide a protocol for collecting evidence, aimed at regulating the legal framework and the modus operandi of the individual acquisitive activities.

In the case described in the aforementioned ruling, the police had taken copies of images from the videos that, once acquired for the trial, have founded the first and second degree conviction, for the crime - ex art. 600 quater c.p. - possession of pornographic materials against the accused; who had appealed the decision stating the illegitimate acquisition of the technical investigation reports, considering the articles 431 and 191 c.p.p..

The Supreme Court, in declaring the grounds for censorship unfounded, was able to ascertain that the activities of the police authorities, far from executing the technical activities or evaluations of the same nature, consisted of simple extraction of images that, because of their ''ability to illustrate'', were qualified as legitimately acquired evidence ex art. 234 c.p.p..

The Supreme Court therefore reinforced the following principle: ''the extraction of data stored in a computer does not constitute unrepeatable technical verification even after the entry into force of the Law n. 48 of March 18^th 2008, which only introduced the obligation to adopt acquisition methods suitable to guarantee the compliance of the acquired data with the originals; the failure to adopt these methods does not imply the uselessness of the acquired results, but the need to evaluate the existence of possible alterations of the original data and the compliance with those extracted''.

This ruling must certainly be acknowledged for having reaffirmed the equality – pursuant to the art. 234 c.p.p - between the digital evidence and traditional documents, clarifying how the digital data can contribute to making a decision during the court hearing.