Satellite imagery as a means of evidence in judicial proceedings: the case of Western Sahara
Maria Eduarda Brandão[1]
Nowadays, it is possible to obtain a wide range of data, from images related to Earth observation, to position and navigation data and satellite positioning, namely through the Global Positioning System (GPS): while the former help, among others , understanding the spatial distribution of populations, the latter provide the most accurate position and location possible on the Earth’s surface[2].
Such data can provide important technical evidence about facts and damages, especially in disputes concerning war zones or scenarios where access is difficult, which would otherwise be difficult to prove. However, the technical nature of the data sometimes clashes with a certain degree of inflexibility in judicial systems when attempts are made to use it as formal evidence, whether due to resistance from judicial systems or the associated costs, for example.
A case that helps to illustrate the relevance of this type of evidence is the European Commission (EC) and Council of the European Union (CUE) v. Front Polisario (FP)[3], brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), concerning Moroccan agricultural plantations in Western Sahara (a non-autonomous and disputed territory). The relevance of this case to the matter at stake here concerns the admissibility and usefulness as evidence of the satellite images made public to prove the expansion of these plantation fields.
Therefore, what we intend to analyse is the potential value of satellite data, especially satellite images, as evidence in court, that is, whether they are admissible and how they should be legally framed.
The EC and CUE v. FP case as a case study – the potential role of satellite evidence
In 2012, a free trade agreement on agricultural and livestock products was signed between the European Union (EU) and Morocco, aimed at reducing customs duties[4][5]. In November of the same year, the Front Polisario[6] brought a case against the Council of the European Union before the EU General Court, requesting partial annulment of Council Decision 2012/497/EU[7], which approved the agreement, on the grounds that it is being applied in the territory of Western Sahara[8]. Specifically, the CJEU recognized in its most recent judgment on the case, dated October, 4, 2024[9], that the controversial agreement recognised “legal effects, in EU law, of acts carried out in that non-self-governing territory by the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Morocco, including the customs authorities, such as those concerning the grant of certificates of origin for products originating in Western Sahara”[10]. These products were transported from plantations in Western Sahara, in Dakhla, to the Moroccan city of Agadir, where they were mixed with products produced in Morocco and then labelled and sold as ‘Made in Morocco’[11].
One of the means used by Western Sahara Resource Watch (WSRW) in its campaign to publicly confirm the existence of these plantations run by Moroccan authorities/companies in the disputed territory was satellite images obtained by Google Maps, which show the development of such plantations between 2005 and 2016. Those images, documented by WSRW, showed how, over the years, the plantations had spread over approximately 1,000 hectares[12].
What we intend to analyse in this case is the relevance of images generated from satellites, since they are sometimes the only means of evidence available to the parties. In most cases, human rights violations occur in remote and difficult-to-access areas, especially in war zones[13]. Images are therefore used to identify objects in a macro analysis of the defined area, such as the terrain relief or the movement of equipment, vehicles, or people, and allow for the verification of changes in those locations in terms of position or condition[14]. Depending on the process used to obtain the data, images obtained through Earth observation can be of high resolution, with a high level of detail, highlighting features that would not be as visible in other images[15].
However, the use of this type of evidence also presents challenges. In addition to being limited in availability, if higher resolution and quality images are required, this might involve high costs. Meanwhile, at the European level, Copernicus – the Earth observation system that is part of the EU Space Programme[16] – is based on a policy of free, full and open access to data[17], if higher resolution images are required, this entails additional costs: it demands greater computing power, greater data knowledge, or more time for processing, etc.[18].
High-resolution images are, in many cases, obtained by companies whose incentive for obtaining them at the right time is simply their potential value for later sale. The images are only are only admissible as evidence if they cover the correct area, at the exact moment of the event, with sufficient resolution and without atmospheric interference. Once the critical moment for obtaining them has passed, it becomes increasingly difficult or even impossible to access them, particularly in cases involving illegal pollution or war crimes. Another problem is the unfamiliarity– or lack of knowledge – of judges with this type of data, which is obtained using complex techniques and processes. Only after understanding the acquisition process and the characteristics of the images obtained, can the courts determine the admissibility of the evidence and at what level[19].
Therefore, the present case serves to analyse how and in what way such data can be useful as evidence and even what challenges must be faced to integrate these images into the evidentiary system, in terms of its intrinsic value and the requirements for their use.
The legal bridge: Space Law as the basis for the validity of evidence
For such data to have evidential value, we must first establish its legitimacy. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states in Article 1(1) that “the exploration and use of outer space (…) shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries (…)”, and that “outer space (…) shall free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law”.
In this context, remote sensing data is collected from a distance using sensor-based technologies on satellites, relying on the use of electromagnetic radiation reflected from the objects observed. Space infrastructure has the advantage of being easily controllable because it is located in a specific place, and it is possible to view the image of the location more than once, which is not the case with aerial images[20]. In fact, courts already frequently use several types of recordings or even images as evidence, whether aerial images, security camera images or images from automatic cameras for road traffic control[21].
Remote sensing data has been increasingly used in legal proceedings in EU Member States, but is rarely mentioned, and when it is, it tends to be data collected from Google Earth or Google Maps[22]. Moreover, this data has helped to confirm proven facts that were difficult to prove, as was the case with an illegal landfill in the United Kingdom, where satellite images provided essential evidence that the landfill had been operating beyond the period stated at the beginning of the proceedings[23].
The International Court of Justice itself has already accepted satellite and aerial images as evidence, for example, in the 2015 case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua concerning activities conducted by Nicaragua close to the border[24] [25].
It is important to note that new legal frameworks have been created, such as Resolution41/65 of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly of 1986[26], which enshrined the principles of cooperation and access to satellite data. The adoption of Resolution41/65 was the result of complex negotiations, as many of its members, particularly developing countries, advocated greater control over access to information relating to natural resources under their sovereignty, in addition to expressing concerns about security and defence[27]. This Resolution adopted a set of principles that do not apply to all categories of remote sensing data, but only to those obtained from space, in this case satellites, and without military use, for the sole purpose of natural resource management, land use and environmental protection[28].
Despite its limited scope, it was agreed that satellite images can be obtained without the consent of the observed State, since principle XII of Resolution 41/65 recognises the right of access to data relating to its territory, and not a right of control. The same Resolution also establishes an international regime that promotes access to such data at a “reasonable cost” and on a “non-discriminatory” basis, whether such data is primary, processed, or analysed[29].
However, there is still some hesitation by the courts to accept such data as evidence, due to technical issues such as calibration, which is essential to the integrity of satellite data, or legal issues such as privacy, intellectual property or restrictions on access for reasons of national security[30].
Indeed, one of the problems with using satellite images is the potential violation of privacy rights[31]. In 2013, the UN General Assembly had already expressed concerns about the rapid development of new technologies capable of monitoring or collecting data by governments, companies, or individuals. It was also pointed out that governments and companies already use new technologies that violate privacy rights.
One such technology is satellites, which, in addition to being able to track the movements and schedule of a particular individual, can also monitor groups of people, where and when political demonstrations may take place, obtain facial recognition, and even capture someone’s habits and associations. But even though they are criticised by human rights groups, they rely heavily on the public disclosure of data or its acquisition[32].
Conclusion
The Western Sahara case is a paradigmatic scenario for testing the application of this legal-theoretical framework. In this context, it is no longer a question of privacy rights, but rather one of sovereignty, self-determination, and occupied territory, illustrating the challenges presented to the data frameworks, which take on political dimensions in conflict situations.
Satellite images are uniquely valuable for proving facts in restricted access areas. Applying this framework to the case, the images used by WSRW obtained from Google Maps, although not mentioned in the final decision, demonstrate their potential for resolving disputes and the possible problems to be faced. Nevertheless, there are challenges to be faced, whether due to the possibility of procedural obstacles (authentication, costs, etc.) or the gap between this technical evidence and the practice and knowledge of the courts and other judicial operators.
It is necessary to adapt judicial proceedings, ensuring access to technical training (or, at least, ensuring the support of experts and specialists) for judges, so that these new technologies are not so “foreign” and can thus be used to their full potential, thereby making fact-finding more effective. For litigation to function properly, it is essential to ensure that technological innovation is accompanied by both the professional body and the legal system.
[1] Maria Eduarda Brandão holds a degree in Law from the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Law and Security at the NOVA School of Law – Faculdade de Direito da Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Maria Eduarda has completed internships at the Portuguese Embassy in Rabat and at the Julgados de Paz of Lisbon.
[2] Migration Data Portal, “Satellite Data”, Migration Data Portal, available at https://www.migrationdataportal.org/data-sources/satellite-data(consulted on 18.02.2026).
[3] Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), 4 October 2024, European Commission (C-779/21 P) and Council of the European Union (C-799/21 P) c. Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario), Joined Cases C-779/21 P and C-799/21 P, ECLI:EU:C:2024:835.
[4] European Union and Kingdom of Morocco, Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes, OFEU L 90, 28.03.2012, CELEX 22012A0328(01), negotiated by the European Commission and approved by the Council under Article 218 TFEU, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:83d1f43c-20c7-42d1-b7bd-57407e02c934.0012.01/DOC_2&format=PDF (consulted on 17.01.2026).
[5] HAUKELID, Grete, Report: Conflict Tomatoes – The Moroccan Agriculture Industry in Occupied Western Saara and the Controversial Exports to the EU Market, Western Saara Resource Watch, 2012, available at https://wsrw.org/files/dated/2012-02-13/conflict_tomatoes_14.02.2012.pdf (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[6] A political-revolutionary movement, created in 1973, advocating for the autonomy of the Western Sahara territory and the self-determination of the Sahrawi people.
[7] Council Decision 2012/497/EU, of 8 March 2012, on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, OFEU L 241, 07.09.2012, p. 2, CELEX 32012D0497, adopted by the Council under article 218 TFEU, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2012/497/oj (consulted on 20.01.2026).
[8] SUÁREZ-COLLADO, Ángela, CONTINI, Davide, “The European Court of Justice on the EU-Morocco Agricultural and Fisheries Agreements: An Analysis of the Legal Proceedings and Consequences for the Actors Involved”, The Journal of North African Studies, vol. 27, n.º 6, 2022, pp. 1165-1166, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13629387.2021.1917122#abstract (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[9] CJEU, Commission and Council / Front Polisario, C-779/21 P e C-799/21 P, 2024.
[10] CJEU, Commission and Council / Front Polisario, C-779/21 P e C-799/21 P, 2024, n. º 94.
[11] BLACK, Ian, “Western Saara’s ‘Conflict Tomatoes’ Highlight a Forgotten Occupation”, The Guardian, 2015, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/western-Saara-conflict-tomatoes-occupation-morocco-labelling-tax (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[12] Western Saara Resource Watch, “See how the controversial plantations boomed in the desert”, Western Saara Resource Watch, 18 July 2016, available at https://wsrw.org/en/archive/3538 (consulted on 25.01.2026).
[13] UNITAR – United Nations Institute for Training and Research, “Satellite Imagery as Evidence in International Justice Proceedings”, UNITAR – United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT), available at https://unitar.org/sustainable-development-goals/united-nations-satellite-centre-unosat/our-portfolio/satellite-imagery-evidence-international-justice-proceedings (consulted on 27.01.2026).
[14] HAK, Jonathan W.; REWALD, Sabrina K., “The Satellite Era: How Earth Observation Data Is Being Mobilized as Potential Digital Evidence”, Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 2024, available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-satellite-era-how-earth-observation-data-is-being-mobilized-as-potential-digital-evidence/ (consulted on 20.01.2026).
[15] FALIQ, Inshira, “From Space to the Courtroom: AI-Enhanced Satellite Imagery and the Future of Accountability”, Opinio Juris, 2025, available at https://opiniojuris.org/2025/01/14/from-space-to-the-courtroom-ai-enhanced-satellite-imagery-and-the-future-of-accountability/(consulted on 03.02.2026).
[16] Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council pf 28 April 2021 establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU, OJEU L 170/49, 12.05.2021.
[17] Cf., Article 3(1)(c).
[18] SANTOS, Cristiana; RAPP, Lucien, “Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR”, Air & Space Law, vol. 44, n.º 3, Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2019, pp. 275–296.
[19] KROKER, Patrick, “Satellite Imagery as Evidence for International Crimes”, International Justice Monitor, 2015, available at https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/news/20150423/satellite-imagery-evidence-international-crimes (consulted on 30.01.2026).
[20] Lyall, Francis; Larsen, Paul B., Space Law: A Treatise, 3.ª ed., 2025, pp. 335-339.
[21] MACRORY, Richard; PURDY, Ray, “The Use of Satellite Images as Evidence in Environmental Actions in Great Britain”, Droit et Ville, 2001, p. 73, available at https://www.persee.fr/doc/drevi_0396-4841_2001_num_51_1_1766 (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[22] BRUJIN, Mari-Claire, “The Use of Remote Sensing Data as Legal Evidence for Environmental Protection across Europe”, Space Generation Advisory Council, 2024, available at https://spacegeneration.org/the-use-of-remote-sensing-data-as-legal-evidence-for-environmental-protection-across-europe (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[23] BRUJIN, “The Use of Remote Sensing Data as Legal Evidence…”, 2024.
[24] International Court of Justice, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Caso 152, available at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/152 (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[25] LYALL, LARSEN, Space Law, 2025, pp. 334.
[26] United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 41/65, “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space”, adopted 3 December 1986, A/RES/41/65, available at: https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf (consulted on 18.02.2026).
[27] LYALL, LARSEN, Space Law, 2025, pp. 341.
[28] LYALL, LARSEN, Space Law, 2025, pp. 342.
[29] LYALL, LARSEN, Space Law, 2025, pp. 342-348.
[30] BRUJIN, “The Use of Remote Sensing Data as Legal Evidence…”, 2024.
[31] MACRORY, PURDY, “The Use of Satellite Images as Evidence…”, 2001, p. 7.
[32] KANNEIGIETER, Hannah, “Privacy and Veracity Implications of the Use of Satellite Imagery from Private Companies as Evidence in Human Rights Investigations”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 2023.