Well, I might have to clarify what they could be contemplating. To illustrate:
If someone is accused of committing a murder, and the police finds evidence, in this case a knife with fingerprints, the prosecutor will initiate criminal investigation/procedures.
Criminal offenses are marked as such, based on the sentence the accused faces, in case he is found guilty. From that perspective, fair trial guarantees are necessitated, so that the accused has basic protections against being put away indefinitely, a common practice in dictatorships.
If a third party, not (even remotely) involved in the case, for example in the murder case above, has (gotten) access to certain evidence, the knife with the fingerprints, the evidence that incriminates the accused, could have been tampered with. For example, the third party, for whatever reason, could have removed, or 'added' fingerprints, so that the accused will be found guilty.
Therefore, since an impartial and fair trial has not been guaranteed, due to interference of a third party, and especially during a criminal process, I believe the court will have to remove the evidence from consideration, or the prosecutor might even have to drop the charges entirely.
Perhaps the UCI is painfully slow in contemplating such a scenario, and if it wants to associate its name with it the CONI investigation...
But again, since they initially accused Michael Schumacher of use of CERA, instead of Stefan, they are probably trying to spell his name right...