ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: CHALLENGES OF AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY
Keywords:
electronic evidence, criminal procedure, authenticity of evidence, admissibility of evidence, digital forensicsAbstract
This article studies the problems of authenticity and admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal justice. Because digital technology is now used everywhere, electronic data such as emails, social media messages, bank records and video surveillance footage are increasingly used as evidence in criminal cases. However, the special technical nature of this data creates new legal problems that traditional rules of evidence do not fully address. The study uses formal legal, comparative legal and historical legal methods to analyze the rules on electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, together with the Law “On Electronic Document Circulation” and the Law “On Cybersecurity”. These national rules are compared with the approach used in the United States and the European Union. The analysis shows that Uzbek law does not yet clearly define electronic evidence as an independent type of evidence, and it does not set clear criteria for checking the authenticity of such evidence or for conducting technical forensic examination. The article ends with practical recommendations for improving the law, including a clear legal definition of electronic evidence, mandatory digital forensic examination, use of hash based verification methods, and stronger international cooperation on cross border evidence requests
References
1. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (1994, current edition). National Legal Information Portal. https://lex.uz/docs/-111460
2. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan 'On Electronic Document Circulation', No. 611-II, 29 April 2004. National Legal Information Portal. https://lex.uz/docs/-165079
3. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan 'On Cybersecurity', No. O'RQ-764, 15 April 2022. National Legal Information Portal. https://lex.uz/uz/docs/-5960604
4. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan 'On Electronic Digital Signature', No. O'RQ-793, 12 October 2022. National Legal Information Portal. https://lex.uz/docs/-64467
5. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 24, 24 August 2018, 'On Certain Issues of Application of Criminal Procedure Law Norms Concerning Admissibility of Evidence'.
6. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 07, 23 May 2014, 'On the Court Verdict'.
7. Council of Europe (2001). Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention), ETS No. 185. Strasbourg.
8. Council of Europe (2024). Budapest Convention reaches 75 Parties. Strasbourg: Cybercrime Programme Office.
9. Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (eIDAS).
10. Federal Judicial Center (2017). Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Evidence 2017, Self-Authenticating Electronic Evidence. Washington, D.C.
11. United States Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901 and Rule 902(13) and 902(14), amendments effective 1 December 2017.
12. Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press.
13. Fomina, T. H., & Rachynskyi, O. O. (2023). Electronic evidence in criminal proceedings: problematic issues of theory and practice. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 102(3), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.32631/v.2023.3.43