Ever since the first application of DNA analysis in criminal casework in 1992, the conditions under which forensic DNA analysis is performed within the Hungarian law have been developed and subsequently approved, in parallel with the establishment of a national database report of forensic DNA. Act XLVII of 2009 (on the Criminal Records System, on the Records of EU Member State Court Rulings against Hungarian Citizens as well as on the Records of Biometric Criminal and Law Enforcement Data) constituted the legal framework for this. Moreover, Act XXIX of 2016 (on Judicial Experts), Act CXII of 2011 (on the Right of Informational Self-Determination and on Freedom of Information), as well as Regulation 12/2016. (V.4.) of the Minister of Interior (on Rules of Taking Fingerprints, Palm prints, Photographs and DNA samples), as well as the Provisions of 31/2008. (XII. 31.) of the Minister of Local Government (on the work of forensic experts, respectively) went on to specify the professional requirements necessary for forensic DNA analysis. The regulations of the EU must also be taken into consideration. Of particular significance, are the escalations undertaken by the EU for the purpose of combating transnational crime as developed in the Prüm Treaty, and, under Council Decision 2008/615/JHA and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA, became ratified into its partial transformation into an EU-wide tool for cooperation. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has also introduced a new and seemingly far-reaching exemption to the general prohibitive conditions applied to the processing of genetic data. The question of whether, and which kind of, consent is required remains left to other applicable EU and national laws. The aim of this study is to provide an overview on how Hungarian legislation of forensic DNA has changed over the past 27 years, to illustrate the current legal context in addition to providing a conceptual theoretical framework for future legislation, including the rules of forensic DNA typing and legal regulation connected to DNA-databases.

As 2020 is approaching, various stakeholders and EU Member States are currently implementing some elements of the EFSA2020 concept. EFSA2020 offers Europe the chance to raise the quality level of its forensic science and in doing so, improve the public's confidence in the administration of justice. However, there is plenty of opportunity for further progress in creating the common forensic area. The paper will focus on accreditation of forensic DNA laboratories in V4 countries.

Traditional DNA forensics uses short tandem repeats (STRs) to match a DNA sample to a suspect or a database. However, when no suspect has been identified and there is a lack of database hits, these markers cannot help the investigators to solve a crime. A considerable amount of literature has been published on DNA phenotyping in the past few years. Not surprisingly, some ethical and legal aspects are needed to be discussed about FDP since this technology provides a greater number of details about the proprietary ownership of samples, their family members, even as about their larger community (ethnical group).

Forensic sciences are facing radical changes. Cognitive technologies are one of the main efforts in forming these changes which can fulfill cognitive procedures that were once exclusively the scope of forensic experts. However, the acquisition of a cognitive structure that makes experts more effectual, can also lead them to erroneous identifications. Therefore, one must fully examine and interpret how information transfer occurs between two cognitive beings. Our focus in this paper is to lay the basis and to inspire further research on the development of Forensic Cognitive Infocommunications.

As demonstrated by the misidentification of Brandon Mayfield in the Madrid Train Bombing case, and a growing body of scientific research, it is clear that forensic examiners are prime candidates for cognitive biases. In this article, we overview latent fingerprint identification and methodology including the utilization of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems. Then we consider recent empirical work on cognitive biases that can taint fingerprint examiners' conclusions. Finally we provide methods that would minimize such impacts in latent fingerprint identification.