Problems of Using Digital Evidence in Criminal Justice of Ukraine and the USA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2023.07Keywords:
digital evidence; electronic evidence; electronic devices; admissibility of evidence; sources of evidence; digital information; criminal proceedings; recording evidence.Abstract
Current issues of using digital evidence in criminal justice of Ukraine and the USA have been considered and proposals have been provided for their resolution. For this purpose, methods of theoretical analysis and synthesis, formal legal analysis, comparative legal method, and special methods of cognition have been applied. The concepts of “electronic evidence” and “digital evidence” have been differentiated. Analysis of 64 decisions of Ukrainian courts of criminal jurisdiction and 31 decisions of the US Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has revealed certain challenges in recognizing information in digital format as admissible and veracious evidence. The experience of the US judiciary can be useful for reforming Ukrainian legislation and the development of methodological guidelines for digital evidence use. It has been proposed to amend the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine with regulations that would contain the definition for the digital evidence concept and its procedural media; differentiation of the concepts of “electronic evidence” and “digital evidence”; introduction of a detailed procedure for seizing digital information, its review, recording and storage (with indication of the list of mandatory information on digital evidence which must be procedurally established); an algorithm for assessing veracity of digital evidence and an expert conclusion relying on certain criteria. It has been proved that a rapid change in technologies for detecting, seizing, recording and researching digital information has presented certain challenges for investigators, judges, prosecutors and employees of investigative agencies of Ukraine. It is recommended to improve the efficiency of using digital evidence in court proceedings by developing guidelines for working with such evidence and correspondingly improving qualifications of employees in law enforcement agencies.
References
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Dec 1, 2020 /
Legal Informational Institute. URL: https:// www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre.
International Organization on Computer Evidence (IOCE) / UIA. Global Civil Society Database. URL: https://uia.org/s/or/ en/1100029648.
ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html.
Hagy, D. W. (2007). Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors. U. S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice. Washington. URL: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/ abstracts/digital-evidence-courtroom-guide-law-enforcement-and-prosecutors.
Kessler, G. C. (2011). Judges’ Awareness, Understanding, and Application of Digital Evidence. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. Vol. 6. No. 1. Art. 4. DOI: 10.15394/jdfsl.2011.1088.
Protokol Berkli z vedennia rozsliduvan z vykorystanniam vidkrytykh tsyfrovykh danykh (2020) [The Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations]/ Upravlin. Verkhovn. komisara OON z prav liudyny ta Tsentru z prav liudyny Kaliforn. un-tu v Berkli, Yuryd. shk. URL: https:// w w w. law. b e rkel ey.e du / w p - c o nt e nt /uploads/2022/03/Berkeley-Protocol-Ukrainian.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE). URL: https://www.swgde.org/.
Stefaniv, N. (2021). Materialnyi nosii — lyshe sposib zberezhennia informatsii, yakyi maie znachennia tilky todi, koly E-dokument vystupaie rechovym dokazom [Physical medium is only a way of storing information, which is important only when the E-document acts as physical evidence] / Informahentstvo «ADVOKAT POST». URL: https://advokatpost.com/materialnyj-nosij-lyshe-sposib-zberezhennia-informatsii-iakyj-maie-znachennia-tilky-todi-koly-e-dokument-vystupaie-rechovym-dokazom-suddia-stefaniv/ [in Ukrainian].
Tertyshnyk, V. M. (2014). Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy. Zahalna chastyna [Criminal Procedure in Ukraine. General Part]: pidruchnyk. Akademichne vydannia. Kyiv. URL: https://rd.ua/storage/lessons/434/512%D0 %A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8 8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%92.%20 %D0%9C.%20-%20%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8% D0%BC%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%-D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8%CC%86%20 %D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5 %D1%81%20%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%96%CC%88%D0%BD%D0%B8.%20 % D 0 % 9 7 % D 0 % B 0 % D 0 % B 3 % D 0 % B 0 % D 0 -%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%87% D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0 %B0,%20%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%B4%D1%80% D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA.%20 %D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5% D0%BC%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B5%20 %D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D 0%BD%D1%8F.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Tsekhan, D. M. (2013). Tsyfrovi dokazy: poniattia, osoblyvosti ta mistse u systemi dokazuvannia [Digital evidence: concepts, characteristics and place in the proof system]. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Yurysprudentsiia. Vyp. 5. URL: http://nbuv. gov.ua/UJRN/Nvmgu_jur_2013_5_58 [in Ukrainian].
Zozulia, N. (2018). Elektronni chy tsyfrovi dokazy: udoskonalennia zmin do protsesualnoho zakonodavstva [Electronic or digital evidence: improving amendments in procedural legislation]. Ukrainske pravo. URL: https://www.bitlex. ua/uk/blog/news/post/elektronni_chy_ tsyfrovi_dokazy__udoskonalennya_zmin_ do_protsesualnogo_zakonodavstva [in Ukrainian].
