graduate student from 01.01.2021 until now
Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk, Russian Federation
UDK 343.13 Уголовно-процессуальное право
With the advent of the phenomenon of electronic evidence in the science of criminal procedure, a new stage in the development of the theory of evidence and proof was marked. Particular attention was paid to issues related to the evaluation of electronic evidence – the applicability of existing criteria or the need to develop new unique criteria. The solution of the urgent problem of determining the criteria for evaluating electronic evidence requires conceptually new views, one can even say the need to develop a modern theory of evaluating electronic evidence, which would encompass the entire spectrum of available knowledge about this phenomenon and would allow solving the tasks of criminal proceedings more effectively and efficiently. Within the framework of this article, the author attempts to determine the applicability of the admissibility criterion in the evaluation of electronic evidence. The belief has been formed that the criterion of the admissibility of electronic evidence is a legal requirement, compliance with which means the possibility of using specific electronic evidence in proving a criminal case. In order to understand the content and specifics of the criterion for the admissibility of electronic evidence, this article analyzes the judicial and investigative practice, as well as the analysis of the opinions of representatives of the scientific community, defines specific requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and also offers a unique definition of the criterion for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
electronic evidence, criminal proceedings, evaluation of evidence, evaluation criteria, admissibility
1. Kipnis N. M. Dopustimost' dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve / otv. red. P. A. Lupinskaya. - Moskva: Yurist, 1995. - 127 s.
2. Voronin M. I. Nedopustimaya dopustimost' elektronnyh dokazatel'stv. Sudebnaya praktika i probely v UPK // Ugolovnyy process. - 2020. - № 10. - S. 46-55.
3. Klevcov K. K. Perepiska v messendzherah kak dokazatel'stvo. Sposoby polucheniya i oformleniya // Ugolovnyy process. - 2020. - № 10. - S. 42-45.
4. Yanin M. G., Kochedykova K. M. Problemy sbora, proverki i ocenki elektronnyh dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Upravlenie v sovremennyh sistemah. - 2019. - № 2 (22). - S. 28-31.
5. Zheleva O. V. K voprosu o ponyatii elektronnyh dokazatel'stv i kriteriyah dopustimosti ih ispol'zovaniya // Ugolovnaya yusticiya. - 2021. - № 17. - S. 44-49.
6. Zuev S. V. O sovremennoy koncepcii razvitiya informacionnyh tehnologiy v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve (RITVUS) // Permskiy yuridicheskiy al'manah. - 2019. - № 2. - S. 618-629.
7. Hismatullin I. G. Problemnye voprosy dopustimosti elektronnyh dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom processe Rossii // Tendencii razvitiya nauki i obrazovaniya. - 2020. - № 65-2.- S. 136-139.
8. Haydarov A. A. Nezakonnaya praktika fiksacii lichnoy perepiski grazhdan na mobil'nyh ustroystvah // Ugolovnyy process. - 2017. - № 5. - S. 36-41.
9. Gaas N. N. Osmotr iz'yatogo mobil'nogo ustroystva: problemy pravoprimeneniya // Vestnik Ural'skogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. - 2019. - № 4. - S. 28-32.
10. Polyakov M. P. Dokazatel'stva i cifropis' v ugolovnom processe: ozhidanie volshebstva // Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii. - 2020. - № 1 (49). - S. 229-231.
