ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ПОДХОДЫ К ЦИФРОВЫМ (ЭЛЕКТРОННЫМ) ДОКАЗАТЕЛЬСТВАМ В УГОЛОВНОМ ПРОЦЕССЕ
Keywords:
digital evidence, electronic evidence, authentication, integrity, chain of custody, admissibility, metadata, hash valueAbstract
This article examines the concept and legal nature of digital (electronic) evidence in criminal proceedings and proposes criteria for its assessment during the investigation stage. Digital data differs from traditional physical and documentary evidence because it is replicable, metadata‑dependent, technically mediated, and vulnerable to alteration; therefore, its procedural handling requires specific safeguards. Beyond general admissibility requirements (relevance, reliability, and lawfulness), the paper focuses on integrity, authentication, and chain of custody as core standards for evaluating digital evidence. Drawing on U.S. case law, the article illustrates authentication challenges involving screenshots, social‑media content, and mobile‑device data, and highlights the role of judicial oversight. The study concludes that national criminal procedure should clarify the status of digital evidence and adopt rules for fixation, hashing, preservation, and evaluative standards.
References
Воронин М. И. Особенности оценки электронных (цифровых) доказательств // Актуальные проблемы российского права. – 2021. – Т. 16, № 8 (129). – С. 118–128 (Voronin M. I. Features of the assessment of electronic (digital) evidence // Actual problems of Russian law. - 2021. - Vol. 16, No. 8 (129). - P. 118-128).
Шушеначев А. В. Правовое регулирование сбора цифровой информации с целью ее представления как доказательства в расследовании преступлений // Юридическая наука. – 2023. – № 1. – С. 122–126 (Shushenachev A. V. Legal regulation of the collection of digital information for its presentation as evidence in criminal investigations // Legal Science. – 2023. – No. 1. – P. 122–126.).
Количенко А. А. Проблемы проверки и оценки электронных доказательств в современном уголовном процессе: автореф. дис. … канд. юрид. наук (5.1.4). – Нижний Новгород, 2024. – 34 с (Kolichenko A. A. Problems of verification and evaluation of electronic evidence in modern criminal proceedings: abstract of PhD thesis in law (5.1.4). – Nizhny Novgorod, 2024. – 34 p.).
Таджиев А. А. Жиноят процессида рақамли далиллар мақбуллигининг назарий ва амалий жиҳатлари: магистрлик диссертация иши. – Тошкент, 2025 (Tadjiyev A. A. Theoretical and practical aspects of the admissibility of digital evidence in criminal proceedings: Master’s thesis. – Tashkent, 2025).
Астанов И. Р., Каримов Б. З. Рақамли экспертиза имкониятлари: миллий ва хорижий тажриба: ўқув қўлланма. – Тошкент, 2019 (Astanov I. R., Karimov B. Z. Possibilities of digital forensics: national and foreign experience: учебное пособие (study guide). – Tashkent, 2019.).
Kyei K., Zavarsky P., Lindskog D., Ruhl R. A Review and Comparative Study of Digital Forensic Investigation Models // ICDF2C 2012. LNICST 114. – 2013. – P. 314–327.
Angus-Anderson W. Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts // Duke Law & Technology Review. – 2015. – Vol. 14. – P. 33–51. – URL: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=dltr (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007). – URL: https://www.jenner.com/a/web/wwashvLFr57td3SAKeKQpH/4HRMZQ/Lorraine_v._Markel.pdf (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Riley v. California. 573 U.S. 373 (2014). – URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-132/case.pdf (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Carpenter v. United States. 585 U.S. ___ (2018). – URL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Griffin v. State, 19 A.3d 415 (Md. 2011). – URL: https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/coa/2011/74a10.pdf (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014). – URL: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f5e2add7b0493498cb46 (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016). – URL: https://www2.law.temple.edu/events/excelling-in-evidence/wp-content/uploads/sites/106/2020/06/United-States-v.-Browne_-834-F.3d-403.pdf (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 902 (Self-authentication). – URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902 (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention), ETS No.185 (23.XI.2001). – URL: https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026).
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Қонуни: 21.11.2024 й., ЎРҚ-1003-сон “Ўзбекистон Республикасининг айрим қонун ҳужжатларига рақамли далиллар билан ишлаш тизимини такомиллаштиришга қаратилган ўзгартириш ва қўшимчалар киритиш тўғрисида”. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/7228758 (мурожаат санаси: 05.03.2026) (Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan: No. ZRU-1003 dated November 21, 2024 “On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan aimed at improving the system of working with digital evidence”. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/7228758 (accessed: March 5, 2026).).
