Evidence In Criminal Proceedings Research Articles

Forensic evidence has become indispensable in modern criminal proceedings, offering scientific methods to establish guilt or innocence. Its significance lies in enhancing the accuracy of fact-finding, strengthening prosecutorial strategies, and providing courts with reliable bases for judgment. However, concerns regarding its reliability, misuse, and susceptibility to human error and systemic deficiencies have led to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. This paper critically examines the reliability of forensic evidence in criminal trials, with a particular focus on Pakistan’s criminal justice system, while drawing comparative insights from other jurisdictions. It argues that although forensic evidence plays a pivotal role, reforms are urgently needed to ensure its consistent, transparent, and scientifically valid application.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the organizational aspects of working with digital evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The argument is made that the organizational readiness of criminal justice actors to work with digital evidence is comprised of three elements: material and technical resources, human resources, and a regulatory framework. It has been determined that there is a necessity for enhancement of the material and technical support provided to pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecution service and the courts. It has also been highlighted that the human resources of law enforcement agencies and the courts represent a considerable challenge. The absence of clearly defined qualification requirements for individuals engaging with electronic data storage devices, the paucity of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills, and the variability in the level of training across different units give rise to the risk of evidence being misplaced or deemed inadmissible. Addressing this issue necessitates the harmonization of training methodologies, the establishment of specialized IT forensic units, and the execution of inter-agency professional training programs. It has been determined that the regulatory framework governing the handling of digital evidence is characterized by a state of fragmentation. The methodological recommendations examined in the article contain important provisions, but there is no single standard that is mandatory for all pre-trial investigation bodies, which makes it impossible to develop consistent law enforcement practices. The author emphasizes the particular importance of implementing the provisions of DSTU (Ukrainian State Standard) ISO/ IEC 27037:2017 and developing standard operating procedures. It is imperative to acknowledge that effective interaction between criminal justice actors is a prerequisite for ensuring the proper handling of digital evidence. The necessity for standardization of approaches and the augmentation of interagency cooperation practices is indicated. The importance of proper storage of digital evidence and control of access to it is noted, which requires regulatory regulation and technological support. It is imperative to acknowledge that frequent cases of degradation of electronic data storage devices on which evidence in the form under investigation is stored, the absence of centralized storage facilities and the imperfection of mechanisms for the division of powers give rise to risks of loss or distortion of evidence. The author emphasizes the need to introduce backup practices using hashing technologies, the use of reliable electronic data storage devices capable of ensuring long-term storage of digital data, and the creation of departmental digital data storage facilities.

The article examines the problematic aspects of confirming the legal status of a prisoner of war during a pre-trial investigation. The relevance of the topic is stipulated by the need to ensure proper and effective pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings on the facts of ill-treatment of prisoners of war, especially in cases where such actions resulted in their death. One of the main complications of the pre-trial investigation in such proceedings is the ongoing armed conflict (in fact, war) in which the events of the criminal offense occurred. Due to the impossibility of conducting a full range of investigative (detective) measures due to force majeure circumstances, the events of the crime may remain insufficiently investigated. These reasons are objective, but they have a significant impact on the collection and recording of evidence in criminal proceedings on war crimes. The article applies a comprehensive methodological approach, including legal analysis, comparative legal method, and practical application of data obtained during the pre-trial investigation. The author emphasizes that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CPC of Ukraine) does not contain a separate definition of the status of a prisoner of war within the framework of pre-trial investigation. Therefore, the investigator is forced to refer to the norms of international humanitarian law. Undoubtedly, in case of death of a prisoner of war, he is considered a victim of a criminal offense, but due to physical inability to defend his interests, his representatives in criminal proceedings are relatives or other persons designated in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 55 of the CPC of Ukraine. It is emphasized that confirmation of the fact that a serviceman or other person recognized as a prisoner of war under international humanitarian law was held in captivity at the time of death, as well as the existence of a causal link between these facts, is the basis for changing the criminal law qualification during the pre-trial investigation. In contrast, the death of a combatant during hostilities does not entail a change in qualification. The author substantiates the need for a comprehensive verification – confirmation or refutation of the fact that a serviceman was in captivity at the time of his death, given the legal consequences of such a status. It is proved that in most cases, confirmation of the legal status of a prisoner of war is the basis for bringing the perpetrators to criminal liability not only under national law, but also within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

In the context of digital transformation, electronic evidence plays an extraordinarily important role in criminal proceedings. The development of information technologies and the widespread use of digital communications have significantly altered the nature of evidence that can be used in legal proceedings. Electronic evidence encompasses a wide range of digital information, including emails, mobile device data, computer files, video recordings, surveillance camera footage, social media data, and other forms of electronic information. These pieces of evidence are crucial for establishing facts of a crime, as well as identifying the subject, circumstances, and consequences of a criminal offense. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the concept of electronic evidence, its classification, and the peculiarities of legal regulation in various countries around the world. Special attention is given to countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, and Japan. A comparative analysis of legal norms regulating the use of electronic evidence in these countries is conducted, allowing for an examination of different approaches to the collection, preservation, authentication, and use of digital evidence. Each of the countries analyzed has its own specific requirements and procedures related to electronic evidence, but a common trend is observed—the need to ensure the reliability and authenticity of data. The study addresses key issues related to the use of electronic evidence, such as ensuring its procedural admissibility, protecting human rights during the collection and use of data, and addressing issues of confidentiality and data security. Specifically, the article analyzes the authentication of electronic evidence, as well as its compliance with procedural requirements established by national and international norms. The article also provides a detailed examination of legislative approaches to electronic evidence in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence play a key role in defining procedures for establishing the credibility of digital data, while in the United Kingdom, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regulates the admissibility of electronic evidence in court. Canadian legislation, including PIPEDA and the Criminal Code of Canada, establishes strict requirements for the collection and processing of electronic evidence. In Australia, important provisions are contained in the Electronic Transactions Act 1999, which regulates the use of electronic documents in legal proceedings. In Germany, the Strafprozessordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure) provides rules for electronic evidence, while in Japan, laws related to confidentiality and information security in the digital environment play a significant role. The article also highlights issues related to international cooperation and the harmonization of legal norms between countries, particularly in terms of exchanging electronic evidence and recognizing its validity within international legal frameworks. The balance between ensuring the security and confidentiality of information and the rights of individuals affected by such evidence is also discussed. Recommendations are made for improving the legal framework, adapting national legislation to the challenges of the digital age, enhancing the effectiveness of international cooperation in this field, andcreating universal standards for the collection and analysis of electronic evidence.

The subject of the research is electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. The object of the research consists of legal relationships arising in the course of using electronic evidence in the proof of a criminal case. The author examines such aspects of the topic as the definition and characteristics of electronic evidence, as well as ways to confirm their authenticity. The analysis is conducted both in the context of the Russian legal system, where electronic evidence does not yet have an independent regulation, and in foreign legal systems that have already developed specific norms. A comparative aspect examines the approaches of China, India, Brazil, the USA, and other countries, which allows for the identification of development trends and the proposal of directions for improving Russian legislation. The work aims to form a holistic understanding of the place and role of electronic evidence in modern criminal proceedings. The methodology of the research is based on the use of general scientific and specific scientific methods of cognition. The legal-dogmatic method is applied to interpret the content of legal norms. The formal-logical method was used to identify and study the characteristics of electronic evidence. The method of comparative legal studies allowed for the examination of foreign experience in regulating electronic evidence. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the study of relevant foreign approaches to electronic evidence and their authenticity. Various approaches have been identified that are used to ensure the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence applied in global practice. It has been established that in most countries, considerable attention is paid to verifying the integrity of electronic evidence, and special procedural rules are introduced that allow for the objective confirmation of the preservation of evidence through digital means (electronic signatures, checksums). Based on the research results, the author formulated a definition of electronic evidence that takes into account approaches to ensuring their integrity and authenticity. A classification of electronic evidence is proposed concerning the extent to which their equivalence to original information is confirmed by digital verification means. The obtained results can be used to develop approaches to ensuring the authenticity of electronic evidence in the Russian criminal process through digital technologies.

The main task of a specialist is to assist the investigator, inquirer, prosecutor, and court in identifying and removing traces of a criminal offense, things, objects, or documents that may be material evidence in criminal proceedings. The author's research into the legal status of a specialist as a participant in criminal proceedings prompted the identification of certain problematic issues, the resolution of which will ensure legal certainty and effective use of the special knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by specialists. Based on the analysis of the provisions of criminal procedural legislation, the author of this article proposes to make amendments and additions to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the improvement of the rights of a specialist as a participant in criminal proceedings, namely: regarding the conditions for asking questions by a specialist to participants in a procedural action, the limits of comments that may be submitted by a specialist when reviewing the protocols of procedural actions. Regarding the duties of a specialist as a participant in criminal proceedings, the author proposed to supplement the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the provision by a specialist of answers to questions related to the scope of his activities and explanations within the limits of his competence. The implementation of the changes and additions proposed by the author in this article to the provisions of criminal procedural legislation regarding the legal status of a specialist as a participant in criminal proceedings will increase the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation and trial.

The article addresses the challenge of assessing evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly regarding the use of information obtained through a polygraph as evidence. The authors explain the concept of a polygraph as a technical device capable of recording observable physiological responses to specific stimuli and display these responses graphically. Important characteristics in the use of polygraphs include their accuracy levels and the formal basis for conducting polygraph tests in the form of relevant examination. The authors evaluate whether the comprehensive information gathered from a polygraph meets essential criteria for evidences, such as relevance, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency. At the same time, several challenges have been identified raising doubts about the evidentiary value of such information, highlighting the need for improving the regulatory framework. First, the expert’s conclusions drawn from psychophysiological examinations using a polygraph must adhere to a specific methodology that is currently not defined by existing legislation. Second, the current laws do not allow for the classification of a forensic expert qualified to conduct these psychophysiological examinations. The authors propose certain prerequisites that could enhance the acceptance of polygraph-derived information as evidence. These include conducting forensic psychological examinations according to established methods found in the Register of Forensic Experts, ensuring that the polygraph used aligns with the standards set by State Standards of Ukraine 8692:2016 “Polygraphs. Technical Requirements”, and providing a valid certificate confirming the examiner’s qualification as a forensic expert. Additionally, a documented proof of the polygraph examiner’s education is needed as well as obtaining voluntary consent from the examined individual after a thorough discussion of the examination procedure. The findings of the study underscore the urgent need for regulatory framework enhancements and the advancement of polygraph technology.

The article is devoted to clarifying the essence of the preliminary examination of evidence in criminal proceedings and highlighting the main procedural and forensic means of this activity. It is emphasized that the processing of sources (carriers) of evidentiary information and the extraction of relevant data from them is carried out by the parties to the proof both in the courtroom (judicial examination) and beyond it. A departure from the classical narrow approach to interpreting the concept of “preliminary examination” is proposed. It is argued that the totality of non-judicial, non-expert practical actions and cognitive operations performed by the parties to the proof, aimed at processing the sources (carriers) of evidentiary information, obtaining and clarifying the content of information about circumstances relevant to criminal proceedings, should be considered as a preliminary examination of evidence. The objects, subjects, and subject matter of the preliminary examination of evidence are defined, and this activity is classified according to several procedurally and forensically significant criteria. A distinction is drawn between preliminary, expert, and judicial examination of evidence. It is emphasized that direct preliminary examination of evidence is carried out through organoleptic perception of the characteristics of relevant primary sources (carriers) of evidentiary information, while indirect examination is conducted by reviewing derivative evidence that contains information about the original object. It is shown that the main procedural means of preliminary examination of physical objects, documents, corpses, and computer data is inspection; of a living person’s body – human body inspection, investigative experiment, and line-up. It is emphasized that ideal traces preserved in a person’s memory are examined simultaneously with their collection during interrogation and a range of mixed investigative (search) actions. It is substantiated that the parties to the proof may examine evidence in non-procedural forms as well (with certain exceptions). Forms of preliminary examination also include familiarization with evidence disclosed by the other party in accordance with Articles 184, 221, and 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The article emphasizes the prospects for the scientific development of procedural and forensic means of judicial examination of evidence.

According to Art. 1311 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the prosecutor in criminal proceedings supervises compliance with the laws during the pre-trial investigation in the form of procedural guidance. In essence, this means that it is the prosecutor who is responsible for organizing the pre-trial investigation process, determining its directions, coordinating the conduct of procedural actions, and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the laws of Ukraine during criminal proceedings. When carrying out procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor has constant access to procedural information, is aware of all key decisions made by the investigator, is obliged to promptly eliminate violations of the law, and on the basis of the evidence collected under his leadership, subsequently supports the public prosecution in court. The prosecutor is the official who takes part throughout the entire criminal proceedings. Of course, at each separate stage, the functions and powers are different and reflect the peculiarities of a particular stage of criminal proceedings. The article examines the features of the prosecutor’s participation in the process of providing evidence during the pre-trial investigation. This stage is regulated by criminal procedural law and is aimed at the rapid, complete and impartial establishment of the circumstances of the criminal offense committed, so that everyone who committed it was held accountable to the extent of their guilt, no innocent person was accused, no person was subjected to unjustified procedural coercion and that due legal procedure was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Evidence in criminal proceedings has always been one of the most discussed problems among scientists and practitioners. This situation is primarily explained by the importance of evidence and the process of providing evidence. In general, it can be noted that the main purpose of criminal proceedings is the establishment of circumstances stipulated in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this article that determines the actual direction of criminal procedural activity, because in order to achieve the goal of the investigation and a fair trial, it is necessary to establish the event of a criminal offense, the person who committed it, the causal relationship between the act and this person. In fact, the process of proving determines the essence of the entire criminal proceedings, because it is aimed at achieving the main objectives of the criminal process. Its authorized participants play a key role in this activity. This especially applies to the investigator (investigator) and the prosecutor, who are charged with the duty of proof by law. Accordingly, it is these participants in the criminal process, by collecting, verifying and evaluating evidence, form the vector of criminal proceedings, which will determine the course of both the pre-trial investigation and the trial. And although the subject authorized to conduct the pre-trial investigation is the investigator, it is the prosecutor who has a more significant influence on the process of proving in criminal proceedings. He, as the procedural leader, must control the course of the pre-trial investigation, and at the time of drawing up suspicion and approving the indictment, objectively assess all the collected evidence, primarily from the point of view of its relevance, admissibility, reliability and sufficiency. Therefore, this article is devoted to the study of the prosecutor’s activities as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation. The work analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine, scientific research on the evidentiary activities of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The materials of the article are of both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research of the features of domestic criminal procedural evidence, as well as for proper understanding and implementation of its law-enforcement criminal procedural activity.

Along with the difficulty in documenting and proving the pre-trial investigation into war crimes committed by the occupying country, a significant challenge for National Police investigators was the issue of promptly establishing (identifying) the person who died as a result of their commission. Identification of such persons is associated with generally accepted norms of morality, respect for national memory, heroism and respect for fallen patriots, but is not regulated by the current criminal procedure legislation as a separate procedure, and therefore causes a lot of discussion, misunderstanding of the sequence of investigative (search) actions and procedural decision-making. We have investigated a number of problematic issues related to rapid identification of a person, taking into account the changes in criminal procedure legislation which took place in October 2024. It is determined that the process of identification of a person who died as a result of a war crime is directly related to the documentation of the crime itself and may be one of the key ways to form an evidence base. The author outlines the main issues which should be taken into account when planning the sequence of investigative (search) actions during identification of a person, up to the adoption of a procedural decision in the form of a resolution on identification. The author emphasizes the need to fill in the unified DNA database - the Electronic Register of Genomic Information. The author outlines the problematic issues that may arise in the course of rapid identification of a person and suggests ways to solve them. It is emphasized that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine introduced by the Law of 09.10.2024 No. 4009-IX, expected by the investigative community, did not simplify, but even complicated the process of identification of unidentified corpses. There are contradictions between the new rules and the current, adapted provisions of criminal procedure law, as well as the definitions and powers of the subjects and parties to criminal proceedings, which require immediate resolution. An unclear distinction between the concepts of “specialist”, ‘criminalist’ and “expert”, as well as an ambiguous interpretation of their powers, may lead to significant procedural consequences that will affect the effectiveness of evidence in criminal proceedings. Therefore, we will try not only to consider the terminology and organizational issues, but also to propose a set of investigative (detective) actions adapted to the needs of practice, which are necessary for the prompt identification of the unidentified corpse of a person killed as a result of a war crime.

The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the fundamental importance of the institute of evidence in criminal proceedings. In every criminal proceeding, evidence is the basis on which the factual circumstances of the case are established, the guilt or innocence of a person is determined, and a reasonable, lawful and fair court decision is made. Among the numerous aspects of evidence law, the concept of a proper procedural source as one of the fundamental criteria for the admissibility of evidence deserves special attention. Given the trends in law enforcement, it is relevant to both theorize this criterion and study its implementation in the practice of pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. The purpose of the article is to provide a thorough analysis of the institute of a proper procedural source of evidence in the context of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, and to reveal its essence. Particular attention is paid to the statutory definition of procedural sources in accordance with the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as to the scientific approach to understanding this category. The author analyzes certain problematic aspects of law enforcement practice related to determining the admissibility of testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions. Based on the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and law enforcement practice, the author examines the peculiarities of each of the procedural sources provided for by law: testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the legal nature of hearsay evidence, the justification of its admissibility, and the case law confirming the need for a thorough assessment of each piece of evidence. The theoretical generalization and practical comprehension presented in this article allow us to conclude that the criterion of due process of law is a systemic guarantee of the reliability of evidence. Its observance ensures not only the legitimacy of the evidence obtained, but also maintains the balance between the State’s right to prosecute criminals and the individual’s right to a fair trial. The purpose of the article is to make a comprehensive analysis of the institution of a proper procedural source of evidence in the context of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, and to reveal its essence. Particular attention is paid to the statutory definition of procedural sources in accordance with the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and also to the scientific approach to understanding this category. The author analyzes certain problematic aspects of law enforcement practice related to determining the admissibility of testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions.

It is noted that, as of today, issues related to the conduct of searches, particularly concerning the involvement of specialists, are regulated by Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. According to this provision, an investigator or prosecutor, in order to obtain assistance in matters requiring special knowledge, has the right to involve specialists in the conduct of a search. Despite this right being clearly enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, scholarly debate continues regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of involving specialists in the execution of this investigative action. As established in the article, which is devoted to the analysis of understanding, regarding the conduct of an investigation in the present conditions on the facts of a search, an important investigative activity, the conduct of which will contribute to the fulfillment of the tasks of criminal proceedings, is a search. The legislator has fixed the legal basis for conducting a search in Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which states that a search is carried out in order to identify and record information about the circumstances of the commission of a criminal offense, to find an instrument of a criminal offense or property that was obtained as a result of its commission, as well as to establish the location of the wanted persons. From this procedural direction, a search is one of the means of evidence at the initial stage of the investigation of this category of criminal offenses. That is why organizing and conducting a search, the results of which may yield valuable information, items, and objects that will serve as evidence in criminal proceedings, is of key importance. It has been found that the most important conditions for a successful search are the availability of complete and accurate information about the objects being searched, as well as thorough preliminary preparation for the search (collection of orientation information about the objects of the future search and the persons who will be searched, the correct selection of search participants and the preparation of the necessary technical means. It has been proven that during the investigation of criminal proceedings, the procedural order and organizational and tactical principles of conducting a search have been thoroughly studied by scientists in this area. Therefore, given the subject of our study, we propose to highlight the issue of involving a specialist during a search for official forgery, which will contribute to the professional receipt of criminally and forensically significant information data that meet legislative requirements.

It is indicated that modern criminal investigations require deep expert knowledge that goes far beyond the standard legal training of investigators and prosecutors. The increasing complexity of financial and economic offenses, in particular the intricate mechanisms of embezzlement of public funds, improper financing and corruption, makes it critical to involve specialists with specialized competencies. As a result, the function of a specialist is transformed from secondary to key in modern criminal justice, as the evolution of crime directly dictates the use of highly specialized investigative methods. The article examines the procedural status of audits as a means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings. Particular attention is given to the role of auditors and specialists from the State Financial Control Authorities as holders of specialized knowledge necessary to uncover document falsification, destruction, and other methods of concealing economic crimes. The legal nature of audits, the ongoing debate regarding their procedural classification, and the lack of clear regulation of the investigative and prosecutorial powers in this context are analyzed. Special focus is placed on the interaction between investigative bodies and the State Audit Service of Ukraine, the procedure for involving specialists in inspections, and the legal grounds for conducting unscheduled audits. Through the analysis of a specific case, the practical importance of audits and inspections in criminal proceedings is demonstrated. The article highlights the need for the formal recognition of audits as a procedural action or a measure to ensure criminal proceedings, as well as the importance of systematically engaging financial and economic experts in the criminal justice process to ensure effective and impartial investigations. It is noted that the audit is an effective tool for identifying methods of concealing crimes under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, falsification of documents and concealment of information on financial and economic activities. The auditor, as a representative of the state financial control body, performs an important function of a specialist in criminal proceedings, detecting forged documentation, abuse of office and other actions with signs of criminal offenses during scheduled and unscheduled inspections. Possessing special knowledge in the field of finance, accounting, commodity science and documentary analysis skills, such a specialist is able to properly record the identified violations and provide qualified conclusions for the needs of the investigation.

Background: This paper addresses key issues related to the admissibility of digital evidence—a pivotal concern in modern legal proceedings. The use of such evidence is fraught with challenges, particularly due to the rapid technological changes and heightened concerns surrounding electronic data privacy. In the criminal justice system, these challenges can impact the admissibility of evidence, its presentation in trial, and the charging and resolution of cases. This study examines the difficulties of admitting digital proof before the UAE judiciary. Considering the trend towards the digital world as an alternative to the tangible world, interest is increasing in the extent of the authenticity and strength of the means of technical storage of information in proof, the importance of the authenticity of computer extracts, and the extent to which the legal system of proof can accommodate these new types of means of proving. The study concludes that, despite the difficulty in obtaining digital evidence and the necessity of providing certain conditions required for its acceptance, it often enjoys a higher degree of credibility than traditional forms of evidence due to its accuracy and scientific and technical nature. This article seeks to address these challenges and explore potential solutions. Methods: This paper adopts a legal-analytical methodology focused on the UAE's legal framework. It employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilising content analysis to analyse legal texts. Specifically, it reviews the position of the UAE legislator on the use of electronic evidence and analyses the perspectives of legal scholars and judicial rulings related to the validity of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. Results and Conclusions: The analysis and comparison of relevant legal frameworks yielded several findings. Foremost, among these is the need for the judiciary to adapt to digital and electronic evidence, recognising its standalone evidentiary value—provided that the conditions of certainty, legitimacy, and integrity are met. Such evidence must also be subject to oral examination and accessible to all parties. Particular attention is paid to the Federal Decree Law No. (34) of 2021 on Combating Rumours and Cybercrimes, which affirms the validity of digital evidence in criminal proof by explicitly defining and recognising its probative value under Article 65. The study concludes that digital evidence has characteristics that distinguish it from physical evidence, and current procedural rules do not adequately regulate its proper treatment; it is currently considered a form of documentary evidence.

The research, the results of which are presented in the proposed article, is devoted to the study and demonstration of the potential of judicial practice in promoting the optimization of the court’s activities in assessing evidence in criminal proceedings. Its relevance is determined by the ability of judicial practice to strengthen the advantages of such institutions as the rule of law and legal certainty, reduce the number of unfounded court decisions and delays in the consideration of criminal cases and, as a result, strengthen the authority of the judiciary. The article considers the role of judicial practice in ensuring the uniformity of the application of the law, the formation of standards for assessing evidence, resolving complex issues of evidence, and preventing errors in assessing evidence. Some approaches to working with precedents, including controversial court decisions, are given. The need to take into account the hierarchy of the judiciary is emphasized. The problem of deviation from the legal positions expressed in the Supreme Court’s decisions is discussed. It is concluded that in terms of evidence assessment, the Supreme Court’s approaches are used to support the court’s argumentation in the case under consideration. Attention is drawn to the role of appellate courts in the formation of case law. The issue of the accessibility of case law and the role of artificial intelligence in its use, the importance of training judges to work with case law are considered. As a result, it is stated that case law is an indispensable tool for assessing evidence, but its use requires a judge to be highly professional, creative thinking, and constantly improve their knowledge. It is also necessary to ensure the accessibility of case law and develop skills in interpreting it. Only then can case law effectively serve the purposes of administering justice and ensuring fairness. It is important to remember that case law is not a frozen dogma, but a living, developing organism that requires constant analysis and interpretation, as well as deep reflection taking into account modern social and legal realities. The use of modern technologies in the analysis of judicial practice should be conscious and critical, not replace qualified legal analysis, but only supplement it.

It is indicated that the digitalization of public administration is a key priority for the development of a modern state. Electronic document flow accelerates information exchange, simplifies data processing and reduces budget costs. The digital transformation of criminal justice bodies ensures effective control, compliance with the rule of law and human rights, and optimizes pre-trial investigation. The scientific publication is devoted to topical issues of the functioning of the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations as part of the information and telecommunication system of pre-trial investigation. The problematic issues of Unified register of pre-trial investigations interaction with other components of the information and telecommunication system of the pre-trial investigation are analyzed and the optimal ways of their solution are determined. It is proposed to systematically connect other databases to the information and communication system of the pre-trial investigation, as well as to include other participants in the criminal proceedings (except the investigator, prosecutor and their managers) in electronic procedural communication. Indicates the need for detailed legal regulation of electronic criminal proceedings in order to gradually abandon paper media, except when paper is evidence in criminal proceedings, or a participant in criminal proceedings does not have access to information and telecommunications system of pre-trial investigation. The conclusion on the need to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Regulations on the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, the procedure for its formation and maintenance, as well as the Regulations on the information and telecommunications system of pre-trial investigation «i-Case». Unified register of pre-trial investigations interaction should be defined as part of the information and telecommunication system of the pre-trial investigation. There is a need to adopt a joint order of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, the State Bureau of Investigation, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine and the High Council of Justice on approval of the new Regulation on the information and telecommunication system of the pre-trial investigation «i-Case».

The scientific article presents a comprehensive study of the current problems of criminal liability for violation of road safety rules or transport operation by persons driving vehicles. Based on the analysis of current legislation, judicial practice and scientific research, the theoretical and methodological principles of criminal liability for offenses in the field of road safety are revealed, the features of the qualification of crimes provided for in Articles 286 and 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are determined. Special attention is paid to the problems of distinguishing adjacent elements of crimes, in particular, violation of road safety rules and recklessly causing harm to the life or health of a person. The work examines the objective and subjective features of the elements of crimes against road safety, highlights the problems of establishing a causal relationship between the violation of the relevant rules and socially dangerous consequences. The article focuses on practical aspects of interpreting blanket norms of the criminal law and issues of criminal-legal assessment of driving while intoxicated. The problems of competition of criminal-legal norms and qualification of actions of a person under the set of crimes stipulated by Articles 286 and 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are analyzed. Based on the study of doctrinal approaches and judicial practice, gaps and conflicts in the legal regulation of criminal liability for violation of road safety rules are identified, and problems of proof in relevant criminal proceedings are revealed, in particular, the issues of relevance and admissibility of electronic evidence, methods of conducting automotive technical and forensic examinations, and evaluation of expert opinions as evidence in criminal proceedings. The features of sentencing for crimes against road safety have been analyzed, the problems of individualization of punishment and the application of exemption from serving a sentence with probation have been considered. Based on the research, proposals have been substantiated to improve the criminal legislation of Ukraine in the field of ensuring road safety, in particular in terms of differentiation of criminal liability for driving a vehicle while intoxicated, taking into account the degree of intoxication, type of vehicle, presence or absence of the right to drive it, etc.

The increasing reliance on forensic expertise in criminal proceedings is attributed to the inherent characteristics of scientific evidence, such as neutrality, objectivity and universality, which provide judges with greater certainty in their decisions. However, Act XXIX of 2016 restricts the role of forensic experts, emphasising that judges must assess cases independently, rather than simply adopting the conclusions of experts. This paper examines the delicate balance between the roles of judges and experts, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between issues of fact and law, and addressing concerns that judges may lose their discretion when faced complex technical issues. The evolving nature of expertise raises questions about its regulation and the implications for judicial decision-making. The relationship between judges and experts in legal proceedings is complex, as experts should provide objective assessments that complement but do not replace judges’ authority. Expert opinions, which combine scientific and subjective elements, can significantly influence judicial decisions, especially in bankruptcy cases. This study uses logistic regression modelling to show how judges tend to favour expert opinions over raw financial data, reflecting a reliance on qualitative factors in their decisions. Two models are proposed to analyze the influence of expert opinions on judicial decisions, with the second model incorporating the expert's opinion leading to a higher predictive power regarding the judge's decisions. The findings suggest that judges may place more trust in expert opinions than in raw financial data, indicating a preference for qualitative assessments over quantitative indicators. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for a clear distinction between the roles of the expert and the judge.

Algorithms on Trial: Does evaluative probabilistic reporting of forensic evidence infringe the presumption of innocence?☆

The article reveals the issue of the legal principles of the appointment and conduct of forensic examinations. It is noted that examinations are one of the most important means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings. During the investigation of illegal possession of vehicles committed by minors, the investigator appoints forensic examinations, which are carried out in order to study traces and objects that are evidence in criminal proceedings. It is proven that thanks to such examinations the investigator can establish the truth in criminal proceedings. It is found out that forensic examination makes it possible to establish the mechanism of certain traces at the scene of the crime, to identify criminals by the detected traces, as well as the tools and instruments used by them. It is shown that it can also be used to establish the presence of traces invisible to the naked eye on various obstacles and objects removed from the scene of the crime, and in the case of detection of such traces, to determine their suitability for identifying the person and the objects that left them. The peculiarities of the purpose and expediency of conducting forensic examinations in the investigation of illegal possession of vehicles committed by minors, such as: traceological, dactyloscopic, forensic, computer-technical, portrait, phonoscopic, are determined. It is concluded that the list of outlined forensic examinations that are assigned and conducted during the investigation of illegal possession of vehicles committed by minors is not exhaustive and depends on the specific situation that develops during the investigation. It is also undeniable that the capabilities of expertise are constantly growing due to the emergence of new objects of research, as well as the development of new methods of conducting expert research, which should be taken into account when investigating this category of crimes.