Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.
Sign in

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Proposal to regulate taking biological samples in criminal investigations

Admitted step 2 of 7 · Rejected

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 10 April 2012. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.

Official title: Private member's bill for an Organic Law on the regulation of investigative acts when they involve samples and fluids whose collection requires a bodily intervention act.

Follow this law

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000056· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The bill would amend Article 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and add nine new articles governing how biological samples and DNA profiles are collected and analyzed during a criminal investigation.
  2. Minor bodily interventions, such as taking hair, nails or saliva, could be done with authorization from the judge or the public prosecutor if the person does not consent. Serious interventions, which affect intimate areas or cause pain, could only be ordered by a judge and performed by qualified medical staff.
  3. The person under investigation would have to undergo the intervention if ordered by the judge, who could enforce it if the person refuses. Obtaining samples by deception or secretly would be banned.
  4. The analyses would be limited to identifying DNA data, with no health information. Once the data is entered in the police database, the sample would be destroyed.

Who it affects

  • People under criminal investigation, who could be forced to undergo the taking of biological samples.: directo
  • Minors and people whose capacity to act has been modified by a court, who would need their own consent or that of their legal representative.: directo
  • Other people who are not under investigation, from whom samples could also be taken with their consent or by court order.: directo
  • The Judicial Police and medical and forensic staff, who would carry out these procedures.: directo

Words worth knowing

Frotis bucal
A sample taken by rubbing a swab inside the mouth.
Ministerio Fiscal
The public body that defends legality and the general interest in court proceedings; in practice, the public prosecutors.
Juez de Instrucción
The judge who oversees the investigation of a crime before trial.
Sentencia firme
A court ruling that can no longer be appealed.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.

  1. Introduced10 April 2012Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted17 April 2012The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
Dec 2012Dec 201311. 10 April 2012: Presentación22. 17 April 2012: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 17/04/2012 hasta 20/04/201233. 17 April 2012: Calificación44. 20 April 2012: Gobierno Contestación desde 20/04/2012 hasta 30/05/201255. 30 May 2012: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 30/05/2012 hasta 09/12/201466. 9 December 2014: Concluido - (Rechazado) desde 09/12/2014 hasta 12/12/2014

9 December 2014

How did the plenary vote?

More votes against 138 yes · 170 no · 12 abst.

Voted on: Private member's Organic bill by the Socialista Parliamentary Group, on the regulation of investigative acts when they involve samples and fluids whose collection requires a bodily intervention act.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 231· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, GC-CiU and GUPyD. Against, most of Popular en el Congreso. 5 deputies voted differently from their group.

By province: in 10 most voted in favour; in 39, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 10
  • Against: 39
  • Tie: 3
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Socialista110
101 in favour · 9 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
5 in favour
Mixto18
11 in favour · 1 against · 3 abst. · 3 did not vote
GC-CiU16
15 in favour · 1 did not vote
GIP11
9 abst. · 2 did not vote
GUPyD5
5 in favour
Popular en el Congreso184
1 in favour · 169 against · 14 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.

Read the full method · Report an error