We have published a series of short animations on our YouTube channel in which we explain, in a clear and accessible manner, why the current practice of certifying copies of documents in the Czech Republic represents a serious systemic risk.

This is not a set of instructions. It is a simplified, popular explanation of a mechanism that may allow a fabricated compilation to become an officially certified document and subsequently operate in legal proceedings as evidence of the existence of an alleged “original”.

The findings are extremely alarming.

We tested public authorities and other institutions authorised to certify copies on two occasions. The first experiment was conducted in 2017; its findings were made public and published in an academic journal in 2019. The second, follow-up experiment was conducted in 2024; its findings were released in 2025 and published academically in 2026. Further details are available here.

In both cases, the findings revealed an exceptionally high error rate, rendering the certification of copies effectively dysfunctional as a public service.

In 2017, 77% of manifestly unreliable documents or compilations produced using a colour printer were certified. In 2024, 60% of such documents were still being certified, despite many years of media coverage and what proved to be entirely futile negotiations with the supervisory authorities.

In other words: EVEN AFTER SEVEN YEARS, THE SYSTEM REMAINS EXTREMELY ERROR-PRONE.

Since the findings of the first experiment were published in 2019, THE RESPONSE OF THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY FORMALISTIC. The only institution that approached the matter professionally was the Ministry of Justice, which necessarily delegated the subsequent steps to the Notarial Chamber of the Czech Republic.

Although certain measures were declared by the supervisory authorities, the unannounced follow-up experiment conducted in 2024 demonstrated only a truly marginal improvement. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEGAL RISK, WE CONSIDER THE CURRENT SITUATION UNACCEPTABLE.

Some of the responses from the supervisory authorities surprised us in an exceptionally negative way.

On the basis of what we have established so far, the Notarial Chamber adopted an approach that we regard as passive and self-exculpatory. Although the findings were referred to the Chamber and the problem directly concerns notarial practice in certifying copies, we have not observed any corresponding activity that could reasonably be regarded as a systemic response to the identified risk. After the Ministry of Justice forwarded the findings of our 2024 follow-up experiment to the Notarial Chamber, the Chamber remained entirely passive, as though the matter were of no concern to it whatsoever. (Sic!)

The Ministry of the Interior surprised us by DEFENDING ITSELF IN PUBLIC MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS BY MAKING FALSE CLAIMS. Its spokesperson falsely informed the public that the officials participating in our experiment had been presented with highly convincing forgeries.

This is directly contrary to the very nature of our experiment. The design and materials used in the experiment were documented in our academic publications. Furthermore, in February 2025, representatives of the Ministry of the Interior were demonstrably given detailed information about both the compilations submitted for certification and the resulting certified forgeries.

Our experiments were deliberately based on a crude and manifestly obvious compilation that could be detected with the naked eye, as the printing raster was clearly visible.

We were, of course, testing the basic level of caution required when certifying copies, as established by the relevant case law—not an expert ability to detect sophisticated forgeries.

WHAT DISAPPOINTED US MOST, HOWEVER, WAS THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF RIGHTS AND THE CHILDREN’S OMBUDSMAN, SPECIFICALLY JANA GREGOROVÁ ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF RIGHTS.

In our view, the Ombudsman had an ideal opportunity to examine whether, between 2017 and 2025, the supervisory authorities had adopted specific—and, above all, effective and verifiable—measures to reduce the systemic error rate.

Instead, our submission was set aside on the grounds that we, as a private organisation using private funds, should once again approach and reactivate the supervisory authorities ourselves.

WE CONSIDER THIS POSITION ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE.

We firmly believe that a private research institute should not be expected indefinitely to perform the functions of public administration at its own expense.

We identified the problem, verified it empirically, described it academically—an article on the subject has been accepted for publication this year in an impact-factor journal—brought it to public attention, referred it to the supervisory authorities and, after seven years, conducted a follow-up test.

We did so because we found the supervisory authorities’ initial response in 2019 unconvincing and therefore expected that the problem would not actually be addressed.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE RIGHT.

It is now for the state to demonstrate what specific measures it has adopted, how it has evaluated their effectiveness and why the system continues to fail on such a large scale.

In six short animations, we therefore illustrate the MODUS OPERANDI:

• from the fraudster’s perspective;

• from the certifying official’s perspective;

• from the injured party’s perspective;

• from the perspective of the injured party’s lawyer;

• from the forensic expert’s perspective;

• and, in a bonus episode, from the perspective of a judge.

Surprisingly, even lawyers sometimes find it difficult to appreciate both the modus operandi and the consequences of errors committed by public authorities when certifying copies. This is primarily because the issue involves specialist questions relating to forensic document examination and the identification of a writer.

It resembles a game of chess in which checkmate occurs unexpectedly at the point when a forensic expert specialising in the technical examination of handwriting is asked to resolve an irresolvable question: to determine from a copy whether the document originally presented for certification was itself an original.

A second expert specialising in writer identification may then be able to determine only whether the signature is a copy of that particular person’s signature.

That is the essence of the problem.

The mechanism can be fully understood only by considering the perspectives of all five participants.