The present proposal addresses the development of an integrated solution that will aid the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division to
i. Acquire a state of the art automated solution for faster processing crime scene evidence, leading to more accurate DNA profile and fingerprint identification
ii. Contribute to the augmentation of the National DNA profile and fingerprints databases that will be directly compatible and linked to existing related European databases.
iii. Perform training of the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division personnel to fully exploit the advanced capabilities of the proposed solutions and
iv. Provide an EU added value to the project, through a series of specific activities including focused workshops and targeted visits to exchange know-how and expertise to related EU Laboratories
The completed outcome of the proposed action will contribute to the capacity building of the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division through the multiplication of existing DNA profiling and fingerprint identification processing capabilities and at the same time reduction of the uncertainties in the analysis. Furthermore, the linkage of the Hellenic National DNA database with European will significantly expand the criminal investigation of Hellenic Police in combating multinational. Finally the proposed activity will be a major step for the compliance of Greece with the objectives determined under the PRUM Council
Decision, given the present financial situation.
The participating entities of this action are the MoCP's Center for Security Studies, European and Development Programmes Division acting for the Crime Investigation Division of Hellenic Police which by constitutional law is responsible for the implementation of the PRUM directive in Greece.
The implementation of the proposal will be implemented through a following set of activities focused on the following phases:
The general project idea is very important for the Prüm Decision implementation. All presented results are relevant for ISEC programme. Presented results could have a European impact only if the innovative analysis prototype for the collection and analysis of DNA material and fingerprints will be set-up in several EU Countries in the same time. However, some EU countries have already established their own innovative analysis certified and validated by relevant bodies (national laboratories and European Network of Forensic Sciences Institutes) and have procured the similar fully automatic infrastructure by their own national budgets. So, it is necessary to deeply explain what concretely will be the innovative aspect of the project. Some countries are still using the semi-automatic infrastructure as Greece and need to purchase new, more efficient solutions in order to implement the Prüm Decision.
The project main results are well presented. However, it would be suitable to better define the outputs indicators and deliverables in order to be easily evaluated. The proposed methodology can reach foreseen results. All activities are designed in connection with project and programme. The impact on ISEC programme is identifiable form application form, however it could be stronger if the applicant explained better the multiplication strategy and if more activities related to staff capacities building with international exchanges are foreseen or if clear transferability to other EU countries is demonstrated. In any case, the project can support the international cooperation of law-enforcement agencies in revealing the international organized criminal groups and can meet the EU policy defined in the Prüm Decision. Beneficiaries and target groups can gain from the project an efficient tool for DNA and fingerprints identification, unfortunately only in Greece without any strong definition of future follow-up (like for ex.: future international project on fully automatic DNA analysis progress – comparative study in some EU countries with already existing fully automatic system and in some EU countries with semi-automatic system). The dissemination strategy is set-up and addresses a relevant public.
2. What are the strengths of the proposal:
- The project is fully in line with EU priorities in this area.
- The target groups are well identified by applicant and largely represent all important actors in the relevant field.
- The applicant based his proposal on real previous experiences in the field.
- The time frame is well developed.
- Project staff is very qualified and able to carry out all duties related to project implementation.
- Project manager and financial manager are well experienced.
- Unclear description of the intended outcome and lack of results indicators.
- Risk of not adequately follow-up this project.
- Budget calculation is not well balanced in connection to project results and ISEC objectives.
- Applicant did not explain sufficiently the innovation of project.
4. Comments on the Budget:
The purchase of the infrastructure and relevant certification costs represent more than 67 % of the budget. The infrastructure is necessary for the implementation of foreseen activities, however within a very limited impact on EU territory. There is no market research or offers submitted within the application package in order to evaluate the relevancy of the price. Depreciation of the infrastructure is calculated on the basis of 18 months; however it must to be checked if the national legislation in Greece allows depreciating this kind of equipment with this price during only 18 months.
The level of detail of the budget is not always convincing. Some details are not sufficiently clear: e.g. where is the personnel responsible for training reflected in the budget? Under 2.1.9 it is not described as part of dissemination, in the budget, in turn, it does seem to be included under dissemination. Is the same person responsible for DNA and FP training measures?
It seems a bit over the top that dissemination represents the single biggest staff amount. In addition to that it seems that the dissemination tasks will actually be subcontracted. If this is the case, the item should be moved to heading E.
It is positive that some tasks are carried out as normal business by members of the involved authorities.
In general the calculated number of trips and respective prices are reasonable. The travel costs for Workshop 1 only cover the Greek participants. Who will pay the travel costs for the experts from other MS? Or is it planned to invite only one foreign expert? This remains unclear. The Workshop 3 listed in the budget does not appear in the technical annex. In the project proposal the workshop issue is also kind of confusing: "1 focused workshop with 50 participants each" (?)
The equipment does not appear to be very expensive compared with other projects. However, it is not really clear to what extent this equipment allows Greece to exchange DNA and FP data under Prüm. Moreover, it is difficult to link the equipment listed in the forecast budget and under point 220.127.116.11 of the application with the activities and steps under 2.1.9 and the technical annex.
The amount of 40.000 and 12.000 € for "Financing" (line 57 and 58) are unclear.