El agente digital encubierto en la legislación penal de Mendoza J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2024) 2(2): 7-11 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15243213 ISSN: XXXX-XXXX LEGISLATIVE COMMENTARY The undercover digital agent in Mendoza’s criminal legislation  Patricia A. Cozzo pcv.abog@gmail.com Universidad Nacional Tres de Febrero, Argentina. Received: 11 April 2024 / Accepted: 07 June 2024 / Published online: 07 July 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Patricia A. Cozzo 1 · Jesús C. Salas 2 Abstract This paper examined the incorporation of the un- dercover digital agent into the criminal process of the Prov- ince of Mendoza, Argentina, following the reform introduced by Law 9510 to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The objec- tive was to analyze this concept’s normative, procedural, and constitutional aspects in the context of combating organized crime and complex crimes committed in digital environ- ments. The scope of the new legal articles regulating the role of the undercover digital agent was studied, along with other digital investigation tools such as data security and computer systems analysis. This concept’s risks to fundamental rights such as privacy and the right to freedom from self-incrimina- tion were also assessed. The methodology critically analyzed current regulations, specialized doctrine, and relevant juris- prudence. Among the main ﬁndings, a tension was identi- ﬁed between the need for investigative eﬀectiveness and the protection of constitutional guarantees. In conclusion, it was argued that the legitimacy of the use of digital undercover agents depends on their rigorous implementation, with strict judicial oversight, deﬁned time limits, and safeguards that ensure respect for due process and fundamental rights. Keywords digital undercover agent, criminal proceedings, organized crime, fundamental rights, non-self-incrimination. Resumen Este trabajo examinó la incorporación del agente digital encubierto al proceso penal de la Provincia de Men- doza, Argentina, a partir de la reforma introducida por la Ley 9510 al Código Procesal Penal. El objetivo fue analizar los aspectos normativos, procesales y constitucionales de esta ﬁ- gura en el contexto del combate a la criminalidad organizada y los delitos complejos cometidos en entornos digitales. Se estudió el alcance de los nuevos artículos legales que regu- lan la actuación del agente encubierto digital, junto con otras herramientas de investigación digital como el aseguramiento de datos y el análisis de sistemas informáticos. Asimismo, se evaluaron los riesgos que esta ﬁgura representa para de- rechos fundamentales como la intimidad y la no autoincri- minación. La metodología consistió en el análisis crítico de la normativa vigente, la doctrina especializada y la jurispru- dencia relevante. Entre los principales hallazgos se identiﬁcó una tensión entre la necesidad de eﬁcacia investigativa y la protección de garantías constitucionales. Como conclusión, se sostuvo que la legitimidad del uso del agente encubierto digital depende de su implementación rigurosa, con control judicial estricto, límites temporales deﬁnidos y salvaguardas que aseguren el respeto al debido proceso y a los derechos fundamentales. Palabras clave agente encubierto digital, proceso penal, criminalidad organizada, derechos fundamentales, no au- toincriminación. How to cite Cozzo, P. A., & Salas, C. J. (2024). The undercover digital agent in Mendoza’s criminal legislation. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies, 2(2), 13-17. https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14868646 1 Universidad Nacional Tres de Febrero, Argentina. 2 Instituto Universitario de Tecnología Los Andes y FUJA, Venezuela.

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2024) 2(2): 13-17 14 Introduction This paper analyzes the concept of the undercover digital agent in the criminal legislation of the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, and its incorporation into the provincial Criminal Procedure Code (Law 6730) through Law 9510. The objec- tive is to examine the legal, procedural, and constitutional implications of this concept, particularly in combating or- ganized crime and using digital technologies for criminal investigation. The emergence of new forms of crime linked to technol- ogy has required States to adapt their investigative tools. In this context, the digital undercover agent emerges as a device that allows for covert inﬁltration into virtual environments, especially in networks where highly complex crimes are committed, such as the corruption of minors, sex tourism, or the distribution of child pornography. When carried out in virtual spaces, these criminal practices present particular challenges for criminal law, particularly regarding access to evidence, the preservation of fundamental rights, and the de- limitation of state actions. The ﬁgure of the undercover agent has traditionally been controversial, as their inherently secretive and deceptive ac- tions straddle a conﬂict zone between the eﬀectiveness of the criminal process and unrestricted respect for individu- al rights. The digitalization of this role sharpens the debate, introducing new dilemmas regarding legality, judicial over- sight, and the scope of state intervention in private life. The right to privacy protects individuals’ private spheres from arbitrary interference by the State. The ﬁgure of the undercover digital agent, by inﬁltrating closed virtual spac- es, even in environments that simulate personal or conﬁden- tial relationships, can imply access to extremely sensitive information without the aﬀected person’s knowledge or op- portunity to defend themselves, reproducing what Márquez (2004) describes as a surveillance architecture that threatens to dissolve the boundary between public and private. Finally, critical observations are included regarding the practical scope of this tool, its legitimacy in a state gov- erned by the rule of law, and its compatibility with a guaran- tee-based conception of the criminal process. Regulatory framework of the Mendoza reform Law 9510 of the Province of Mendoza modiﬁes and in- corporates various articles into the local Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 6730) to adapt criminal investigation tools to the new challenges of crimes committed in digital envi- ronments. This reform introduces the concept of the digital undercover agent and other mechanisms related to securing, accessing, and safeguarding computer data. The law establishes the incorporation of Articles 29 bis, 224 bis, 224 ter, and 228 bis and the amendment of Article 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 29 bis regu- lates the concept of the digital undercover agent for the ﬁrst time, establishing the formal requirements for their actions, the crimes in which they may be involved, the duration of the measure, and the guarantees to prevent abuse. The text provides that the prosecutor may, with justiﬁca- tion, request an agent’s undercover action on digital plat- forms before the Criminal Court when investigating com- plex crimes, especially those provided for in Articles 128 and 131 of the Criminal Code. Authorization will be granted by reasoned decree and for a maximum period of 180 days, extendable in justiﬁed cases. Furthermore, the law establishes that the digital proﬁles used may not include real images of individuals and must be created by qualiﬁed technical personnel under the prosecu- tor’s supervision. Information related to the proﬁle used and the authorized activities must be stored in a safe deposit box, ensuring traceability and judicial oversight. The law also provides an oﬃcer with an exemption from criminal liability when his or her actions are proportional, necessary, and do not constitute provocation to commit a crime. This seeks to strike a balance between investigative eﬀectiveness and respect for constitutional guarantees. Along with this provision, the reform regulates new powers for the prosecutor to order the seizure of computer data (Article 224 ter), the presentation of data by suppliers and third parties (Article 224 bis), the seizure and analysis of computer systems (Article 228 bis), and the disposal of seized devices (Article 226). These provisions form a system of tools for digital investigation and the ﬁght against cyber- crime and organized crime. It should be noted that these tools also contemplate the possibility of operating extraterritorially, under certain con- ditions, when the data is located in connected systems out- side the provincial jurisdiction. Mechanisms for rapid judi- cial authorization in urgent cases and criteria for preserving the chain of custody are included, which seek to grant evi- dentiary validity to the data obtained during the execution of these measures. Thus, the reform’s regulatory framework not only intro- duces an innovative concept, such as the undercover digital agent but also articulates a set of instruments designed to strengthen the Public Prosecutor’s Oﬃce’s capacity to pros- ecute complex crimes while ensuring certain controls and limits against potential excesses of punitive power (Barja et al., 2019). Organized crime and investigative tools Organized crime represents one of the most complex chal-

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2024) 2(2): 13-17 15 lenges for contemporary criminal justice systems. Its hierar- chical structure, transnational nature, intensive use of tech- nology, and capacity for institutional corruption often make traditional criminal prosecution tools insuﬃcient (Anarte & Ferré, 1999; Hefendehl, 2004). Faced with this reality, States have been compelled to provide the Public Prosecutor’s Oﬃce with more eﬀective mechanisms to address highly complex crimes, such as hu- man traﬃcking, money laundering, drug traﬃcking, corrup- tion, smuggling, and cybercrimes (Granados, 2001; Arcinie- gas, 2020). Within this framework, Argentine legislation has devel- oped a set of special procedural mechanisms, such as the undercover agent, the revealing agent, the informant, the controlled delivery, the repentant, and the extension of ju- risdiction. These tools have been recognized in reforms such as Law 27,304 and allow for overcoming the obstacles im- posed by the secrecy inherent to organized crime. They fa- cilitate access to evidence, the internal structures of criminal organizations, and the location of their prominent leaders (González, 2007). The digital undercover agent, in particular, represents an evolution of these tools by adapting to the virtual environ- ments where many criminal networks operate today. En- crypted platforms, closed social networks, instant messag- ing services, and illegal markets on the deep web are used to commit crimes without leaving easily detectable traces. Therefore, the possibility of a public oﬃcial inﬁltrating a website with judicial authorization represents an institutional response to these new criminal scenarios (Guariglia, 2007). Law 9510, in line with international trends, incorporates this concept into the Mendoza criminal process and estab- lishes rigorous requirements for its application. It requires a reasoned judicial authorization, a time limit, a prohibition on inciting the crime, and the obligation to preserve the integri- ty of the evidence (Del Pozo, 2006). These types of tools, however, are not without their fair share of challenges. The use of false identities, the simula- tion of behavior, and the covert collection of information generate debates about the proportionality of the measure, its necessity in each speciﬁc case, and the risk of eroding fun- damental rights. Legal doctrine has warned of the need for these measures to be used exceptionally, preventing the State from acting with an “enemy” approach that undermines the guarantee-based criminal justice model (Guerrero, 2013). Therefore, its implementation must be accompanied by a system of institutional controls, accountability mechanisms, and a judicial culture that ensures its use is controlled and judicially supervised. Furthermore, it is essential to diﬀer- entiate between the diﬀerent types of agents: the disclosing agent acts without inducing a crime and only uncovers illicit activities; the informant transmits data without intervening; the repentant collaborates after being arrested. This classiﬁ- cation makes it possible to specify the scope of the under- cover digital agent and prevent regulatory and operational confusion. In short, the digital undercover agent is part of a modern- ization of investigative strategies against organized crime. However, its legitimacy will depend on its use of the prin- ciples of due process, respect for human rights, and the le- gitimate purpose of protecting society from complex and sophisticated threats. Fundamental rights compromised: privacy and non-self-incrimination Implementing the digital undercover agent poses serious constitutional challenges, particularly about the fundamen- tal rights to privacy and freedom from self-incrimination. Both are essential pillars of due process and are recognized in both domestic law and international human rights treaties (Martínez, 1994; Madrid-Malo, 2004). The right to privacy protects individuals’ private spheres against arbitrary interference by the State. The role of the un- dercover digital agent, by inﬁltrating closed virtual spaces, even in environments that simulate personal or conﬁdential relationships, can entail access to extremely sensitive infor- mation without the aﬀected party’s knowledge or opportunity to defend themselves. This intrusion can violate the principle of legality if it is not clearly deﬁned and justiﬁed by reasons of strict necessity and proportionality (Martínez, 2001). Article 19 of the National Constitution and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights establish the right to privacy, honor, and reputation. Likewise, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights en- shrines protection against arbitrary interference. The actions of undercover digital agents must be interpreted by these standards, which requires a case-by-case analysis to assess whether the means employed are appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate purpose pursued (Guerrero, 2013). On the other hand, the right against self-incrimination im- plies that no one is obligated to testify against themselves or contribute evidence that could lead to their conviction. The actions of the undercover oﬃcer can generate situa- tions where the subject of investigation, believing they are interacting with a trusted third party, reveals incriminating information without having been informed of their rights or having legal advice. This is particularly problematic when the undercover oﬃcer induces or encourages behavior that would not otherwise have occurred, raising doubts about the validity of the evidence obtained and the possible conﬁgura- tion of a case of instigation or provocation to commit a crime (Jauchen, 2005).

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2024) 2(2): 13-17 16 National jurisprudence has addressed these issues with cri- teria ranging from strict respect for guarantees to a certain degree of ﬂexibility regarding investigations into organized crime. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation held, in the “Fernández, Víctor H.” case, that the use of undercover agents does not, in itself, violate the right to defense in court, provided that they act within the framework of the rule of law and do not induce a crime. Legal doctrine has warned of the risk that the State could legitimize practices that border on illegality if clear limits and eﬀective control mechanisms are not established (Ruiz, 2024; Guariglia, 2007). Ultimately, the use of digital undercover agents will only be legitimate to the extent that its application is framed with- in a model of criminal procedure that guarantees justice, in which fundamental rights are respected as a condition for the validity of state action. Prior judicial oversight, transparency in the authorization procedure, and subsequent review of the proportionality of the measure are essential to avoid devia- tions that compromise the legitimacy of the criminal justice system (Gimeno et al., 2020). Conclusions The introduction of digital undercover agents into Men- doza’s criminal justice system under Law 9510 reﬂects a legislative eﬀort to combat rising cybercrime, enabling the Public Prosecutor’s Oﬃce to more eﬀectively prevent and prosecute complex oﬀenses in digital spaces. While this me- asure enhances law enforcement’s ability to address organi- zed crime in virtual environments, its implementation must carefully balance eﬀectiveness with the principles of the rule of law, ensuring strict adherence to legality, proportionality, and necessity to prevent potential violations of fundamental rights. The Mendoza legislation includes safeguards—such as prior judicial authorization, time limits, and prohibitions on provocation—yet its success hinges on robust judicial oversight, specialized training for legal professionals, and strong institutional controls. Ultimately, the challenge is to strike a balance between leveraging digital undercover ope- rations as a legitimate investigative tool and upholding the ethical and constitutional safeguards that deﬁne a democratic justice system. References Anarte, E., & Ferré, J. C. (1999). Conjeturas sobre la cri- minalidad organizada. In Delincuencia organizada: aspectos penales, procesales y criminológicos. Univer- sidad de Huelva. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/arti- culo?codigo=589300 Arciniegas, G. A. (2020). Policía judicial y sistema acusa- torio. Ediciones Nueva Jurídica. https://libreriatemis. com/product/policia-judicial-y-sistema-acusatorio/?s- rsltid=AfmBOoptolnABV8qeZic4vB_esnKsMS2yU- TOqmjNsN9Rd0dnbnWd94Vm Barja, J., Granados, C., Martínez, A., Martínez-Arrieta, C., Villegas, M. Á., Barés, P., García-Comendador, L., Mo- reno, A., Sánchez, F. J., & Encinar, M. Á. (2019). Tra- tado de Derecho procesal penal. LIBRERÍAS MAR- CIAL PONS. https://www.marcialpons.es/libros/ tratado-de-derecho-procesal-penal/9788413094236/ Del Pozo, M. (2006). El agente encubierto como medio de investigación de la delincuencia organizada en la ley de enjuiciamiento criminal española. Criterio Jurídico, 6. https://revistas.javerianacali.edu.co/index.php/crite- riojuridico/article/view/1006 Gimeno, V., Calaza, M. S., & Díaz, M. (2020). Derecho Procesal Penal. LIBRERÍAS MARCIAL PONS. ht- tps://www.marcialpons.es/libros/derecho-procesal-pe- nal/9788413086293/ González, P. E. (2025). La policía judicial en el sistema penal acusatorio (2nd ed.). Doctrina y Ley. https:// www.doctrinayley.com/tienda/libreria/derecho-penal/ la-policia-judicial-en-el-sistema-penal-acusatorio/?sr- sltid=AfmBOorz0VYLisNEUJ_cUhdznKLfi0DdPT- GUAeO338SM8PFe90lGIq-g Granados, C. (2001). Instrumentos procesales en la lucha contra el crimen organizado: agente encubierto, entrega vigilada, el arrepentido, protección de testigos, posición de la jurisprudencia. Cuadernos de Derecho Judicial, 2. Consejo General del Poder Judicial. Guariglia, F. (1994). El agente encubierto ¿un nuevo prota- gonista en el procedimiento penal? Revista de Ciencias Penales, (23), 16-33. https://biblioteca.corteidh.or.cr/ documento/52051 Guerrero, O. J. (2013). Fundamentos teórico-constituciona- les del nuevo proceso penal (2nd ed.). Ediciones Nueva Jurídica. https://nuevajuridica.com/Products/218-FUN- DAMENTOS-TE%C3%93RICO-CONSTITUCIONA- LES-DEL-NUEVO-PROCESO-PENAL Hefendehl, R. (2004). ¿La criminalidad organizada como fundamento de un Derecho Penal de enemigo o de au- tor? Derecho Penal y Criminología, 25(75), 57–70. ht- tps://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/arti- cle/view/1040 Jauchen, E. (2005). Derechos del imputado. R. Culzo- ni. https://biblioteca.mpf.gov.ar/meran/opac-detail. pl?id1=719 Madrid-Malo, M. (2004). Derechos fundamentales. 3R Edi- tores Ltda. https://biblioteca.ucatolica.edu.co/cgi-bin/ koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=22780 Márquez, P. (2004). El ojo ve, el poder mira: la arquitectura para la vigilancia y el ﬁn de la privacidad. Pontiﬁcia Universidad Javeriana. Martínez, J. (1994). La conﬁguración constitucional del dere- cho a la intimidad. Derechos y Libertades. https://e-ar- chivo.uc3m.es/rest/api/core/bitstreams/95f37793-f655-

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2024) 2(2): 13-17 17 4bc2-ab39-c52f81201f04/content Martínez, R. (2001). Tecnologías de la información, po- licía y constitución. Tirant Lo Blanch. https://www. buscalibre.ec/libro-tecnologias-de-la-informacion-po- licia-y-constitucion/9788484423676/p/3307575?s- rsltid=AfmBOooAIr4XV19rR0BBv- s7eBr48f9mAUgY8x4TgEaV9JRHA_dtnzSPq Ruiz, W. (2024). La investigación en el proceso penal acusa- torio. Ediciones Olejnik. Conﬂicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conﬂicts of interest. Author contributions Patricia A. Cozzo and Jesús C. Salas: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, drafting the original manuscript and writing, review, and editing. Data availability statement Not applicable. Statement on the use of AI The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and con- tributors and not of Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or pro- perty resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or pro- ducts mentioned in the content.