SIRVEC — Evidence Tracking & Chain of Custody Platform

Context

  • Product: SIRVEC
  • Client: Guardia Civil
  • Market / Industry: Law Enforcement, Justice, Public Sector
  • Product Type: Web platform + Mobile App
  • Product Stage: Delivery (MVP)

Problem Statement

The Guardia Civil needed a secure and reliable way to register crime scenes, track evidence, and guarantee the chain of custody from the moment evidence is collected until it is presented in court.

While technology could clearly improve accuracy and traceability, the core risk was not technical.

The real problem was:

If judges and the justice system do not legally accept the platform and its technology, the product has no value.

In particular, the use of blockchain for evidence tracking raised strong concerns in a system historically based on paper documentation and manual signatures.

Goals & Success Criteria

User Outcomes

  • Officers can register crime scenes digitally
  • Evidence can be tracked end-to-end with full traceability
  • Chain of custody is clear, immutable, and auditable

Legal & Institutional Outcomes

  • Evidence registered through the platform is legally admissible
  • Judges can trust the integrity of the custody chain
  • Compliance with Ministry of Justice guidelines

Business Outcomes

  • MVP accepted by the client
  • Platform positioned as a reliable foundation for future expansion

Constraints

Legal & Regulatory

  • Blockchain adoption in justice systems is still emerging
  • Strong legal scrutiny from judges and prosecutors
  • Strict compliance with Spanish and European law
  • Ministry of Justice acceptance was mandatory

Institutional

  • Evidence handling is the core mission of criminal investigation
  • Zero tolerance for legal ambiguity
  • High reputational and operational risk

Product

  • MVP already in delivery
  • Limited room for experimentation in production
  • Technology choices had to be justified, not just implemented

Discovery & Validation Work

Key Insight

The biggest risk was legal legitimacy, not usability or performance.

Without legal acceptance:

  • Officers would not use the platform
  • Evidence could be challenged in court
  • The entire system would be invalidated

Validation Approach

Instead of user discovery, the focus was on legal discovery:

  • Understanding how evidence is evaluated by judges
  • Mapping existing legal precedents
  • Translating technical guarantees into legal language

Options Considered

Option A: Traditional Digital System (No Blockchain)

  • Pros: Easier legal acceptance
  • Cons: Lower guarantees of immutability and traceability
  • Pros: Strong technical guarantees
  • Cons: High risk of rejection in court

Option C: Blockchain + Formal Legal Justification

  • Pros: Strong technical and legal foundation
  • Cons: Longer validation process

Decision & Rationale

We chose Option C:
Using blockchain only after proving its legal admissibility.

The decision was based on:

  • Long-term trust over short-term delivery
  • Legal certainty as a core product requirement
  • Alignment with existing European and Spanish precedents

Actions Taken

  • Engaged a legal specialist (lawyer) with expertise in:
    • European law
    • Spanish case law
    • Blockchain-related legal precedents
  • Produced a formal legal report addressing:
    • Blockchain as a valid mechanism for evidence integrity
    • Compliance with European regulations
    • Spanish judicial cases where blockchain was accepted

Outcome

  • Demonstrated that blockchain can be legally used to:
    • Guarantee integrity
    • Ensure immutability
    • Strengthen chain-of-custody evidence

This report became a key artifact for client and institutional approval.

Delivery Summary

What Was Built

  • Web platform for evidence registration
  • Mobile app for on-site crime scene usage
  • Blockchain-based custody chain tracking
  • Audit-ready evidence history

What Was Critical Beyond Code

  • Legal documentation
  • Clear explanation of technology to non-technical stakeholders
  • Alignment between technical design and legal language

Results

Qualitative

  • Increased client confidence in the platform
  • Reduced resistance to blockchain usage
  • Stronger trust in the integrity of the custody chain

Strategic

  • MVP positioned as legally viable
  • Foundation established for broader institutional adoption

What Worked Well

  • Treating legal validation as a product requirement
  • Early involvement of legal expertise
  • Translating technical concepts into judicial language

What Didn’t Work

  • Initial underestimation of legal resistance
  • Complexity of aligning legal and technical timelines
  • Need for deeper early engagement with judicial perspectives

Key Learnings

  • In regulated environments, legality is a feature
  • Technical truth is not enough without institutional trust
  • Blockchain value must be explained in legal, not technical, terms

What I’d Do Differently

  • Involve legal experts even earlier
  • Formalize legal discovery as part of product discovery
  • Create legal-facing documentation in parallel with development

Final Takeaway

In justice systems, trust is the product.

Technology only creates value when it is legally accepted, institutionally trusted, and clearly understood by those who ultimately decide its validity: the judges.