Sexual Violence, Judicial Seizures, and Forensic DNA Analyses: An Archive-Based Study in Milan (2016–2024)

Background/Objectives: Forensic DNA analysis is a key investigative resource in sexual-violence casework, but its recorded use depends on how cases move through clinical, custody, judicial, and laboratory pathways. In Italy, this transition is organizationally heterogeneous and poorly documented through linkable procedural data. This study aimed to describe archive-based trends in archived cases, documented judicial seizures, and recorded forensic DNA analyses within a Milan-based clinical-forensic custody pathway from 2016 to 2024. Methods: A retrospective, archive-based observational study was conducted using records from the institutional UNIMI forensic custody observatory linked to the SVSeD pathway. The primary dataset included annual counts of archived sexual-violence-related cases, cases with documented judicial seizure of biological evidence, and cases with recorded forensic DNA analysis. For contextual interpretation, aggregate centre-level indicators, namely total sexual-violence cases and ex officio reports, were also reviewed as non-linkable background data. Only descriptive analyses were performed, and no causal inference was attempted. Results: Over the study period, the archive recorded 2311 cases, 102 cases with documented judicial seizure of biological evidence, and 142 cases with recorded forensic DNA analysis. The temporal series showed marked variability, including a decline in 2020, followed by recovery in subsequent years. Most recorded forensic DNA analyses were documented as being performed by the Polizia Scientifica and Carabinieri (RIS/RaCIS), whereas smaller proportions involved the university laboratory and other external laboratories. Contextual indicators showed a progressive increase in total sexual-violence cases over time, while ex officio reports did not rise proportionally. Conclusions: The findings document pathway-level attrition between archived cases, documented seizure, and recorded forensic DNA analysis, but they do not identify the exact procedural stage at which attrition occurs. The absence of standardized case-level procedural variables precludes causal attribution for non-seizure or non-analysis of biological evidence. Future evaluation of forensic DNA utilization in sexual-violence casework will require standardized tracking across clinical, custody, judicial, and laboratory stages.