The report presents a comparative analysis of irregularities in cybercrime criminal proceedings, focusing on the case of Alberto Daniel Hill, a Uruguayan cybersecurity expert. It argues that his judicial process was plagued by systemic failures, including technical incompetence of the authorities, critical flaws in the chain of custody of digital evidence, and serious violations of his fundamental rights, exacerbated by a media trial. To contextualize these shortcomings, the study compares Hill's experiences with chain of custody precedents in Argentina and the judicial persecutions of digital activists such as Aaron Swartz and Julian Assange. The main objective is to validate Hill's legal defense and emphasize the urgent need to reform the judicial system to face the challenges of the digital age and the criminalization of technology.Furthermore, the economic and moral damages suffered by Hill are quantified, laying the groundwork for a potential lawsuit against the Uruguayan State.
