When Procedural Finality Precedes Forensic Evidence: A Documentary Case Study on Reopening Criminal Proceedings, Property Interests and Effective Legal Protection in Latvia (2014–2026)

Abstract

This legal case study examines the treatment of post-termination forensic evidence in the context of criminal proceedings, property interests and effective legal protection in Latvia between 2014 and 2026. Based on a chronological documentary record, the study analyses the legal significance of forensic findings concerning disputed document authenticity and subsequent attempts to obtain renewed examination of previously terminated criminal proceedings. Particular attention is given to the distinction between evidence sufficient to establish criminal liability and evidence sufficient to justify further investigation, as well as to the relationship between procedural finality, effective investigation, reasoned decision-making and access to justice. The study does not determine individual criminal or civil liability. It examines the broader rule-of-law question of how materially significant forensic evidence should be assessed when it becomes available after procedural termination. The central proposition is that procedural finality is an essential component of legal certainty, but it should follow a substantive and intelligible assessment of materially significant evidence rather than substitute for such assessment.