Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

The rapid digitalisation of criminal proceedings has increased the evidentiary importance of electronically stored information and has created new challenges for admissibility, reliability, data integrity, and the protection of fair-trial rights. This study evaluates the regulatory framework governing digital information in criminal proceedings, with particular attention to the collection, preservation, verification, and use of digital evidence in national and transnational investigations. The research applies comparative legal analysis, black-letter legal analysis, and content analysis of scholarly literature, international standards, and selected criminal justice practices from 2018 to 2025. The study examines procedural and technical requirements, including the legality of acquisition, documentation of all stages of handling, chain of custody, source identification, secure storage, audit mechanisms, and the use of verified forensic tools. The findings show that the legal validity of digital evidence depends on the coordinated interaction of procedural safeguards and technical standards. Jurisdictions with more developed regulatory systems demonstrate stronger mechanisms of automated logging, multi-level access control, certification, and regular verification. At the same time, states with less formalised procedures face higher risks of evidentiary challenges, loss of integrity, and violations of participants' rights. The study argues that national regulation should be harmonised with international standards, including ISO/IEC 27037:2012 and Council of Europe approaches to electronic evidence. It recommends adopting clear admissibility criteria, mandatory documentation rules, regular procedural audits, professional training, and methodological guidelines for investigators, forensic experts, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges. These measures can strengthen evidentiary reliability, procedural fairness, and cross-border cooperation in digital criminal justice.

digital evidence; criminal proceedings; legal regulation; admissibility of materials; international standards; electronic information; procedural rules; chain of custody; digital forensics; evidence integrity; fair trial; cross-border data exchange

1. Abdullah, H. O., Maqsood, M., & Nadeem, A. (2025). Digital evidence in criminal proceedings: legal standards, chain of custody, and evidentiary reliability in the digital era. Research Journal for Social Affairs, 3(5), 795–805. doi: 10.71317/rjsa.003.05.0375

2. Politova, A., & Chekhlai, T. (2025). Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of Case Law. Vìsnik Marìupolʹsʹkogo Deržavnogo Unìversitetu Serìâ Pravo, 15(29), 104–115. doi: 10.34079/2518-1319-2025-15-29-104-115

3. Romaniuk, V. V., & Ablamskyi, S. Y. (2024). Criteria for the admissibility of digital (electronic) evidence in criminal proceedings. Law And Safety, 93(2), 140–150. doi: 10.32631/pb.2024.2.13

4. Stoykova, R., & Franke, K. (2023). Reliability validation enabling framework (RVEF) for digital forensics in criminal investigations. Forensic Science International Digital Investigation, 45, 301554. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301554

5. 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 (Part 2)), 207–220. doi: 10.32631/v.2023.3.43

6. Lasagni, G. (2025). Admissibility of digital evidence. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 126–152). doi: 10.1017/9781009049771.007

7. Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1). doi: 10.1093/cybsec/tyac014

8. Brayne, S. (2018). The criminal law and law enforcement implications of big data. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 293–308. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030839

9. Brown, E. K. (2022). Digital forensic and distributed evidence. Advances in Multidisciplinary & Scientific Research Journal Publication, 1(1), 357–362. doi: 10.22624/aims/crp-bk3-p57

10. Kattan, M. S. A. (2024). Digital Justice "Model of the United Arab Emirates". Revista De Gestão Social E Ambiental, 18(1), 04945. doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n1-091

11. Peake, J. (2024). Challenges of using digital evidence for war crimes prosecutions: availability, reliability, admissibility. AJIL Unbound, 118, 57–61. doi: 10.1017/aju.2024.5

12. Figursky, V. M. (2023). E-Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Galician Studies Law Sciences, 4, 97–105. doi: 10.32782/galician_studies/law-2023-4-14 (in Ukrainian).

13. Juszczak, A., & Sason, E. (2023). The use of electronic evidence in the European area of freedom, security, and Justice: An introduction to the new EU Package on e-Evidence. Eucrim – the European Criminal Law Associations Forum, 18(2), 182–200. doi: 10.30709/eucrim-2023-014

14. Kostenko, & Ghaziani. (2024). Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights/Ammissibilità delle prove elettroniche ottenute illegalmente: uno studio critico del diritto dell’UE. European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, 2, 205–220. doi: 10.57230/ejplt242ovkvag

15. Kozytska, O. (2020). On the Concept of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Juridical Scientific and Electronic Journal, 8, 418–421. doi: 10.32782/2524-0374/2020-8/103

16. Kvashuk, O. D. (2025). The Use of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Central Ukrainian Journal of Law and Public Administration, 2, 50–56. doi: 10.32782/cuj-2025-2-5 (in Ukrainian).

17. Vedwal, A. (2023). Admissibility of digital evidence in cybercrime investigations. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4443356

18. Bagus, R. (2025). Analysing the Legal Frameworks Governing Digital Evidence Collection in Cross-Border Cybercrime Investigations. International Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Ijclcj), 3(2), 1-7

19. Council of Europe. (n. d.). Second Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence (CETS No. 224). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/second-additional-protocol

20. Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY). (2021). Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence. Explanatory Report. Retrieved from https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%220900001680a48e4b%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]}

21. Elsharkawy, M. H. (2025). Digital Evidence before the International Criminal Court. Journal of Law and Emerging Technologies, 4(1), 323–426.

22. Ismail, I., & Ariffin, K. A. Z. (2025). The admissibility of digital evidence from open-source forensic tools: Development of a framework for legal acceptance. PLoS ONE, 20(9), 0331683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331683

23. Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE). (2026). SWGDE. Retrieved from https://www.swgde.org/documents/current-documents/

24. Franssen, V., Tosza, S., Erbežnik, A., Svantesson, D., Osula, A., Robinson, G., De Saint Guilhem, C. D., Lasagni, G., Tropina, T., Christakis, T., Aguinaldo, M. a. L., De Hert, P., Careel, S., Verbruggen, F., Kasper, A., Laurits, E., Sogomonjan, M., Brodowski, D., McIntyre, T. J., & Bilgiç, S. (2025). The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Investigations. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. doi: 10.1017/9781009049771

25. Congress.gov. (1975). 1926 Public Law 93-594-Jan. 2, 1975. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1926-2.pdf

26. Pertsova-Todorova, L. (2020). 'Electronic evidence' during a search. Entrepreneurship Economy and Law, 6, 243–247. doi: 10.32849/2663-5313/2020.6.41 (in Ukrainian).

27. Shulhan, I. (2023). Electronic evidence as an effective tool of proving in criminal proceedings. Lviv Politechnic Publishing House (in Ukrainian).

28. Ablamskyi, S. Y., Havryliuk, L. V., Drozd, V. G., & Nenia, O. V. (2021). Substantial violation of human rights and freedoms as a prerequisite for inadmissibility of evidence. Justicia, 26(39), 47–56. doi: 10.17081/just.26.39.4819

29. Avdeeva, G., & Żywucka-Kozlowska, E. (2023). Problems of using digital evidence in criminal justice of Ukraine and the USA. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 30(1), 126–143. doi: 10.32353/khrife.1.2023.07

30. Hossain, B. (2023). Digital Evidence in Foreign Jurisdiction and Quality of Justice. ELCOP Journal on Human Rights, 1, 143–159.

31. Matis, J. (2025). Digital evidence and its use for criminal proceedings. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 3(3), 121–126. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2025.03.3.19

32. Metelev, O. (2023). Digital Evidence in Criminal Procedure: Typological Characteristic. Herald of Criminal Justice, 1–2, 42–53. doi: 10.17721/2413-5372.2023.1-2/42-53

33. Nazir, S., Asif, M., & Khan, A. U. A. (2025). Digital Evidence in Pakistan: A doctrinal assessment of admissibility and reliability in criminal trials. Advance Social Science Archive Journal, 4(1), 1941–1951. doi: 10.55966/assaj.2025.4.1.0107

34. Selim, A., & Ali, İ. (2024). The role of digital forensic analysis in modern investigations. Journal of Emerging Computer Technologies, 4(1), 1–5. doi: 10.57020/ject.1445625

35. Prysiazhniuk, I. (2023). Use of digital evidence in the criminal process: some issues of privacy protection. Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, 5, 81–88. doi: 10.61345/1339-7915.2023.5.11

36. Singh, S., & Devi, L. (2025). Reliability and admissibility of AI-Generated Forensic Evidence in criminal trials. arXiv (Cornell University). doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2601.06048

37. Bharati, R., Khodke, P. G., Khadilkar, C. P., & Bawiskar, S. (2024). Forensic Bytes: Admissibility and challenges of digital evidence in legal proceedings. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4896874

38. ISO. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012. Information technology – Security techniques – Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html?__cf_chl_f_tk=YNTXaagfLzznnK1XurmErq7mlEVl2ubB3WDcHlMYHKU-1783076822-1.0.1.1-0kL_GqCj0y7MWugstgnUam8JMtl7P.LO5YLhMTXm08g

39. Yin, Z., Wang, Z., Xu, W., Zhuang, J., Mozumder, P., Smith, A., & Zhang, W. (2025). Digital Forensics in the Age of Large Language Models. arXiv:2504.02963

40. Global Civil Society Database. (n. d.). International Organisation on Computer Evidence (IOCE). Retrieved from https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100029648

41. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

42. Akhmetov, A. T., Bekisheva, S. D., Syrbu, A. V., & Kainazarova, D. B. (2018). Retrospective Review of Information Technologies in the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 9(5), 1545-1550,

43. Akhtyrska, N., & Kostiuchenko, O. (2022). Procedural and organisational aspects of electronic evidence collection during international cooperation. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 2(72), 192–198. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2022.72.64

44. Horsman, G. (2021). Digital evidence and the crime scene. Science & Justice, 61(6), 761–770. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2021.10.003

45. Miller, C. M. (2022). A survey of prosecutors and investigators using digital evidence: A starting point. Forensic Science International Synergy, 6, 100296. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100296

46. Fatiha Ressa, F. (2025). Digital evidence and its legitimacy in comparative systems. The International Tax Journal, 52(6), 4455–4465.

47. Mikayılov, A. S. O. (2023). Innovations in the Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Prospects for the implementation of modern methods and technologies in the work of specialists. Futurity Economics&Law, 190–208. doi: 10.57125/fel.2023.12.25.12

48. Stoykova, R. (2024). A new right to Procedural accuracy: a governance model for digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, 106040. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106040

49. Asgarova, M. P. (2025). AI in Big Data in Criminal Investigation: Procedural Safeguards and Human Rights Risks. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 13(3).