For justice system professionals
Guide for prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys on evaluating, admitting and using technology-facilitated abuse (TFA-IDDS) and directed energy threat evidence in court.
The challenge
Evidence of technological interference, directed energy and cognitive warfare does not fit traditional evidentiary categories. This creates three concrete problems for the legal professional.
How does a prosecutor evaluate acoustic weapon evidence without precedent? What admissibility standard applies to EMF measurements?
Without technical guidance, the natural tendency is to dismiss what is not understood. TFA-IDDS evidence is scientifically sound — but needs to be presented correctly.
Chile has the Neurorights Law and the Data Protection Law, but applicable TFA-IDDS jurisprudence is scarce. PLEA fills that gap with international normative anchors.
PLEA — Progressive Legal Evidence Architecture
Inspired by the ICC situation/case distinction. PLEA allows documenting a phenomenon as a situation before asserting a perpetrator — protecting the prosecutor from early evidentiary overreach.
Instrumentally documented phenomenon. Measurable anomalies without attribution. For the prosecutor: sufficient basis to open preliminary investigation without committing to a liability hypothesis.
Temporal and spatial correlation established. Demonstrable recurrence. For the prosecutor: supports requests for investigative measures and protective orders.
Mechanistic plausibility demonstrated with scientific literature. For the judge: meets expert admissibility standards — documented methodology, reproducibility and falsifiability.
Source identification. Probabilistic geolocation. For the prosecutor: basis for filing charges with defendant identification.
Individual responsibility. Complete expert report. For the court: full evidentiary value with chain of custody and formal argumentation protocol meeting international standards.
Practical guide
A PEM report has a specific structure designed to facilitate judicial evaluation.
Each report explicitly states which PLEA level it reaches. An L2 report documents pattern, not responsibility. This delimits what can and cannot be concluded.
The report details which validated instruments were applied, with calibrated thresholds. Each instrument has documented and reproducible methodology.
Every conclusion is supported by three sources: normative (UN — Melzer, Advisory Committee), technical (NATO STO-MP-SCI-356), and jurisprudential (CAJAR v. Colombia, IACtHR).
Every report statement includes explicit conditions under which it would be false. This meets falsifiability criteria and facilitates cross-examination.
Admissibility
Expertise issued by judicial experts registered with Chile's Supreme Court, with verifiable training in AI, neuroscience and technology.
The Progressive Evidence Model is published as an academic working paper (SSRN 6403298). Reproducible methodology subject to peer review.
Instrumental data with SHA-256 hash, verifiable timestamps, geolocation and documented chain of custody from capture to report.
Formal argumentation structure with explicit warrant, backing, qualifiers, and refutation conditions — meeting standards recognized in both common-law and civil-law jurisdictions.
Service for legal professionals
Not expert testimony — it is procedural knowledge transfer. Designed so legal professionals can work with PEM evidence autonomously.
Individual session explaining what PEM evidence is, how to read a report, what standards it meets and how to present it in court. For prosecutors receiving their first TFA-IDDS case.
1 session · 60 min · remoteSpecific analysis of an ongoing case. We review available evidence, identify achievable PLEA level, and suggest evidentiary strategy and complementary proceedings.
2 sessions · specific case · remoteTraining for prosecution, defense or court teams. Theoretical framework, exercises with anonymized case types and TFA-IDDS evidence evaluation protocol.
4 sessions · team · in-person or remoteThe PLEA Legal Briefing transfers knowledge — you learn to evaluate evidence yourself. Expert testimony produces the evidence. They are complementary: the briefing helps you better use any expert report you receive, not just ours.
Quick reference
Before presenting PEM evidence in court, a strong prosecutor confirms these five points. Each check strengthens the evidentiary position and anticipates objections.
Each level has a defined evidentiary scope. Presenting evidence within its correct level prevents overreach objections and protects the credibility of the entire case.
Scores with documented thresholds and reproducible methodology are the foundation of admissibility. Confirming this before the hearing closes the door to methodological challenges.
SHA-256 hash, timestamps and geolocation in primary data guarantee integrity. This check turns instrumental data into admissible evidence.
A report that anticipates its own falsifiability conditions is stronger, not weaker. This transparency demonstrates scientific rigor and disarms bias objections.
Normative (UN), technical (NATO) and jurisprudential (IACtHR) — three independent sources supporting each conclusion. Verifying this shields against lack-of-support arguments.
Need guidance?
Confidential. For prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys and legal teams working with technology abuse evidence.