Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 73
Julio
Diciembre
2022
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 72 (2022), 726-740
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 15/01/2022 Aceptado el 12/03/2022
Electronic Evidence in
Administrative Proceedings
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4073.41
Viktoriia V. Samonova
1
*
Abstract
The study established the role of electronic evidence in
the system of administrative procedures in Ukraine and in the
member states of the Council of Europe. Direct observation,
comparison and analysis of the content of the documents were
used. The key results of the study were the peculiarities identied
from the use of electronic evidence in administrative procedures
among the 47 member states of the Council of Europe; established
sources of creation, origin of electronic evidence to be used in
administrative procedures; the resolute attitude of the European
Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe towards electronic evidence in administrative
proceedings. Unlike paper documents, electronic documents require special
attention to their review, search and involvement in the case. It is concluded
that the study of electronic evidence should be approached from the point
of view of the knowledge and skills of specialists, experts and interpreters
who have the appropriate license and experience. The prospects for further
investigations are establishing the importance of law enforcement agencies
in the eld of cybersecurity in ensuring the integrity of electronic evidence
used in administrative proceedings.
Keywords: administrative proceedings; administrative court; electronic
evidence; electronic documents; digital law.
* Postgraduate Student, Department of Administrative and Customs Law, University of Customs and
Finance, 49047, Dnipro, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2569-3742
727
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
Prueba Electrónica en Procedimientos Administrativos
Resumen
El estudio estableció el papel de las pruebas electrónicas en el sistema
de procedimientos administrativos en Ucrania y en los estados miembros
del Consejo de Europa. Se utilizó la observación directa, la comparación y el
análisis del contenido de los documentos. Los resultados clave del estudio
fueron las peculiaridades identicadas del uso de evidencia electrónica en
procedimientos administrativos entre los 47 estados miembros del Consejo
de Europa; fuentes establecidas de creación, origen de pruebas electrónicas
para ser utilizadas en procedimientos administrativos; actitud decidida
del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y del Comité de ministros
del Consejo de Europa hacia la prueba electrónica en los procedimientos
administrativos. A diferencia de los documentos en papel, los documentos
electrónicos requieren especial atención a su revisión, búsqueda e
implicación en el caso. Se concluye que el estudio de la evidencia electrónica
debe abordarse desde el punto de vista del conocimiento y las habilidades
de especialistas, expertos e intérpretes que tengan la licencia y experiencia
adecuadas. Las perspectivas de nuevas investigaciones están estableciendo
la importancia de los organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley en el
campo de la ciberseguridad para garantizar la integridad de las pruebas
electrónicas utilizadas en los procedimientos administrativos.
Palabras clave: trámite administrativo; juzgado administrativo; prueba
electrónica; documentos electrónicos; derecho digital.
Introduction
The issue of their role of electronic communication technologies in the
relationship between government and society is acute in the age of their
rapid development. At the same time, there is a rapid comprehensive
transformation of the results of governmental activity into electronic form.
The opposing parties in the administrative proceedings are public
authorities and local self-government bodies, on the one part, and
individuals and legal entities — on the other. The parties use a variety of
evidence, including electronic, to protect their interests. In this regard, the
public need has prompted to enshrine electronic evidence in the legislation.
It is expected that electronic evidence in judicial proceedings will soon
become the only type of evidence (Polishchuk, 2019).
Electronic evidence is a relatively recent addition to the instruments
of evidence in judicial proceedings. After all, one should know their
distinctive features and characteristics to properly assess the possibility of
728
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
using electronic evidence. Most electronic gadgets are now permanently or
intermittently connected to other digital devices or networks (internal or
Internet). Traces of created les and history logs can form a large volume of
electronic evidence (Weir and Mason, 2017).
The collection of digital evidence is relevant in all types of judicial
proceedings. Public authorities have powerful legal opportunities to collect
the necessary evidence, including digital (Kasper and Laurits, 2016). The
functioning of the national system of administrative justice has certain
features that distinguish it from other judicial proceedings. The purpose
of administrative proceedings is to eectively protect the rights, freedoms
and interests of individuals, the rights and interests of legal entities from
violations by power entities (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 2005). Therefore,
individuals and legal entities are not on an equal footing with the state in
obtaining and using the necessary electronic evidence to protect their rights
and interests.
Besides, the case law is ambiguous in deciding which electronic evidence
(in what form or on what medium) to consider admissible instruments of
evidence. The issue of electronic evidence research is becoming increasingly
important in view of the frequent controversial debate among lawyers and
the ambiguous case law on the relevance and admissibility of electronic
evidence in administrative proceedings. The procedure for registration,
submission and examination of electronic evidence remains unregulated
(Manzhula, 2020).
In judicial proceedings in general, electronic evidence means a proof
that is stored in electronic form by the service provider or on their behalf
at the time of its request and consists of: data on the signatory, access
data, transaction data and content data (Tosza, 2020). In this regard,
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe emphasizes on the
necessity of appropriate and secure manner of collecting the electronic
evidence as the risk of destruction or loss of this type of evidence is much
higher than of non-electronic ones, so the specic procedure of collecting
and seizing the electronic evidence must be developed.
Evidence in electronic or printed form is a dierent type of independent
complete evidence that can be used in administrative proceedings (Alian
Geraldi Fauzi et al., 2021).
However, electronic evidence can be found in emails, digital photos,
ATM transaction logs, in text documents, messenger histories, les saved in
accounting programmes, spreadsheets, in the history of Internet browsers,
on a computer hard drive, in tracks of the global positioning system (GPS),
logs of hotel electronic door locks, video or audio les. However, digital
evidence has no physical weight, but it is dicult to destroy it without
leaving electronic traces. At the same time, they are easy to change, copy
and easier to access (Dubey, 2017).
729
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
The aim of the article is to establish the signicance and features of the
use of electronic evidence in the administrative proceedings at the national
level and in the member States of the Council of Europe. The aim involved
a number of objectives: study the features and characteristics of the use
of electronic evidence in courts during administrative proceedings; analyse
probable sources of origin and creation of electronic evidence; identify
possible forms of electronic evidence and their features that enable them to
be appropriate and admissible evidence.
1. Methods and Materials
The study was conducted by studying modern scientic thought
and position on the peculiarities of the use of electronic evidence in
administrative proceedings in the world and at the national level. The
legislative regulation of the procedure for submission and examination of
electronic evidence in the administrative courts of the member States of the
Council of Europe was compared.
To achieve the aim of the article, the concept of electronic proof was
studied, the typical structure of an electronic document and the role of a
digital signature in it were claried. The author developed types of electronic
evidence in administrative proceedings by source of origin and source of
creation, and distinguished the features of electronic evidence among other
types of evidence.
The study was conducted using the following methods: direct observation
established the opinion of modern scholars and researchers in the eld of
administrative proceedings; the method of comparison helped to identify
common features and dierences that distinguish electronic evidence
among other types of evidence; the method of analysis of the content of
documents allowed determining the main forms of electronic evidence that
occur during administrative proceedings.
The means of obtaining the necessary sources of information were
the views and positions of scholars on the use of electronic evidence in
administrative proceedings. There were a total of about 30 sources and
references used.
2. Results
The growing need for the use of electronic evidence in administrative
proceedings indicates the rule-making development of the European
Union (hereinafter — the EU) legislation. In the internal market, the eIDAS
Regulation sets the standard for electronic signatures, electronic messages,
730
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
timestamps, electronic delivery services and website authentication
certicates. The fundamental principle of the eIDAS Regulation establishes
the presumption of legal force of electronic evidence. The eIDAS Regulation
is used in the interstate nancial transactions, one of the parties to which is
a European organization (Jokubauskas and Świerczyński, 2020).
Electronic evidence consists of three main elements: binary data (ones
and zeros); a storage device on which this data can be stored; software for
the proper reading, decoding and interpretation of this data. Evidence of
modern nancial transactions or documents can in fact only be in electronic
form.
The specics of the study of documentary evidence are that witnesses
are involved in this process. The evidence which contains factual data, not
indirect information is considered to be real (Staneld, 2016). The Law of
Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Circulation”
contains a denition of the term “electronic document”. In particular,
an electronic document is a type of document that is electronic data, the
mandatory part of which is the details and digital signature (Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine, 2003).
Besides, the evidentiary information recorded on a paper document
diers from that contained on an electronic medium. The hard copy (paper)
is inextricably linked physically with information and information cannot
exist by itself without it. On the contrary, electronic data can be moved
between dierent media without distortion. In addition, the environment
of electronic evidence can be many dierent media, where data reading
and interpreting requires software created by humans. Complex issues
may arise regarding the integrity and security of electronic evidence due to
their unique characteristics, although the authentication of complex forms
of electronic evidence will dier from less complex forms of electronic
evidence, such as emails or text messages.
The European Committee on Legal Co-operation conducted a study on
the use of electronic evidence in administrative proceedings among the 47
member States of the Council of Europe. It was established that none of
these states has normatively dened rules on the procedure for obtaining
electronic evidence. Polish law does not provide for the denition of any
type of “electronic evidence” in all types of proceedings. In Turkey, the Code
of Administrative Procedure also does not provide for separate rules on the
procedure for submitting electronic evidence. Croatia, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Romania and Serbia provide for the obligation to certify
electronic evidence with an electronic signature.
In France, a party may submit a copy of a website or a screenshot to prove
a legal fact, but the court may deem it necessary to request information to
clarify it. In Lithuania, court rules provide for the submission of original
731
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
documents, and if copies are provided — the notary or lawyer involved in the
case must certify them. An electronic digital signature is used to identify the
person who signed the electronic document, not its contents (Avramenko,
2019). Among the surveyed European countries, the use of a modern
electronic signature demonstrates the authenticity of electronic proof in
Belgium and Spain. In England and Wales, as well as in Montenegro, the law
on electronic signatures provides for the reliability of electronic evidence,
which is duly certied by an electronic signature.
If electronic evidence violates standards or special procedures, the court
will evaluate it in an ordinary way, taking into account all the technical
evidence provided. In turn, the court usually requires that copies of Internet
websites be provided in such a way as to preserve their authenticity (Mason
and Rasmussen, 2016) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Electronic evidence in dierent countries
Source: Authors.
However, the guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe on the use of electronic evidence in administrative proceedings
state a dierent position. Courts should not deny the legal force of
electronic evidence just because it does not contain a digital signature.
It should also be noted that the probative value of electronic evidence is
determined exclusively by the court, taking into account national law.
Courts should also be aware of the probative value of metadata and the
possible consequences of not using it. Besides, electronic evidence must be
submitted in its original electronic format without the need to submit it in
732
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
hard copy. As for their admissibility and reliability, there are no priorities
for other types of evidence.
In our opinion, the adoption of the Guidelines by the Council of Europe
is of great importance for improving the process of using electronic
evidence in administrative proceedings. These principles must be adopted
and put into practice by lawyers, judges and IT professionals. Moreover, the
eciency of the modern justice system be signicantly increased only with
the help of electronic evidence (Oręziak and Świerczyński, 2019).
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly recognized
electronic documents as appropriate evidence for the protection of citizens’
rights in the course of administrative proceedings. The examples are as
follows.
• The case of Catt v. The United Kingdom. The Court held that there
had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life)
of the Convention. It found, in particular, that the personal data
stored in the police database were of a political nature and that such
information needed special protection;
• The case of Gaughran v. The United Kingdom. The court ruled that
there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention. The Court found that the United Kingdom’s
actions constituted a disproportionate interference with the
applicant’s right to respect for his private life, which could not be
considered necessary in a democratic society. The court also noted
that the decisive factor was not the duration of storage of the man’s
personal data (DNA prole, ngerprints and photograph), but
the lack of certain measures to preserve them (European Court of
Human Rights, 2021).
The collection of electronic evidence has its peculiarities. In particular,
digital evidence is stored on servers owned by service providers. Most
providers are foreign entities of American descent: Google (which owns
YouTube), Facebook (which owns Instagram and WhatsApp), Microsoft
(Skype); Apple and Amazon. However, such data can be managed by their
Europe-based branches. In this case, the servers can be kept in large data
centres in another country. For example, a huge Facebook data centre is
located in Sweden (Sverdlik, 2018).
According to the source of origin, electronic evidence in administrative
proceedings is divided into three groups (Figure 2).
733
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
Figure 2: Types of electronic evidence in administrative
proceedings by source of origin
Source: Authors.
Depending on the type of source from which the electronic evidence was
subsequently obtained, they should be divided into digital and analogue
data (Chvankin, 2020) (Figure 3). The main feature of digital data is that
they can be considered as electronic evidence directly in the form in which
they are created. Analogue data are characterized by the fact that they
must be digitalised to be considered in digital format on modern electronic
devices. Besides, the sources of electronic evidence should include data or
things that were created without the use of electronic devices manually or
mechanically, but were then digitalised.
Figure 3: Sources of electronic evidence in administrative
proceedings
Source: Authors.
Electronic documents are a particularly important form of electronic
evidence. However, the best form of electronic evidence is the original
(primary) data, not a digital or digitalised copy (Institute of Advanced Legal
Studies, 2019).
In turn, we propose to single out the following forms of electronic
evidence that are accepted in administrative proceedings: electronic
734
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
document; media data; databases; digital traces of activity on electronic
devices.
Electronic evidence is equivalent to other types of evidence, in particular:
physical evidence, witness statements, expert opinions, etc. (Zlenko et al.,
2019). The Supreme Court ruled that judges should not consider printed
e-mails to be improper evidence because all types of evidence have the
same legal force (Supreme Court of Ukraine, 2018). However, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights imposes certain restrictions. Personal
correspondence through electronic devices can be used as evidence either
with the consent of the addressee and the addresser of the messages or by
court decision, if the content of the messages contains relevant evidence
(United Nations, n. d.)
An electronic document is a document that is created in electronic
form without its prior setting out on paper, and signed with an electronic
signature in accordance with the law (Karasev et al., 2021).
In this case,
metadata (le information) is part of the electronic document.
Any evidence, electronic or material, if collected in violation of the
law will be considered inadmissible by the court (Leroux, 2004).
For
the admissibility of electronic evidence in court, two conditions must be
met simultaneously: 1) they must be obtained with the permission of the
competent authorities; 2) they must be validated by information technology
experts (Moussa, 2021).
The rules on the admissibility of electronic evidence generally do not
depend on the complexity of such evidence. However, the amount of
evidence to establish the reliability of digital data may vary depending
on the complexity of the evidence. The use of digital evidence can create
additional tools to establish the truth during litigation. At the same time, if
we responsibly collect, store and use them, they can retain their authenticity
and provability for a long time (Global Rights Compliance, 2017).
In this regard, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
emphasizes that electronic evidence should be collected in a proper and
secure manner. Given the higher risk of potential destruction or loss of
electronic evidence compared to non-electronic evidence, Member States
should establish procedures for the safe caption and collection of electronic
evidence.
Traditional methods of storing electronic data — printing, blocking cloud
or server storage — are largely dependent on the operator or administrator.
So, traditional methods are not eective in the age of big data. They should
be replaced by cybersecurity agencies, timestamp certication and a
blockchain system (Shang and Qiang, 2020). A blockchain is an electronic
structure in which individual network nodes record shared data to their
storage. In other words, each network node has a repository that stores data
735
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
hosted on multiple nodes (Kim et al., 2021). Besides, the imposition of large
nes on those who destroy electronic evidence is a well-established case
law in the United States to prevent the destruction or damage of electronic
evidence (Nechyporuk, 2020).
The use of articial intelligence at the stage of analysis and evaluation
of evidence is unacceptable, as it violates the main principles of justice:
legality and fairness. Interpreters should be involved to establish the true
meaning of evidence and legal norms (Karasev et al., 2021).
The main features of electronic evidence in administrative proceedings,
which distinguish them from other types of evidence, are: the amount of
electronic evidence is larger because they are faster and cheaper to create;
it is more dicult to get rid of electronic evidence, because traces remain
on electronic devices after their removal; the content of electronic evidence
can change (be distorted) even without human intervention; electronic
evidence requires special protection against damage; unlike paper evidence,
they can be copied from one device (media) to another; electronic evidence
is faster to nd; the court should involve specially trained experts for a fair
assessment of electronic evidence.
3. Discussion
In scientic sources, electronic evidence in administrative proceedings
is understood as evidence that is stored in electronic form, which reects
the results of the activities of authorities or persons and contains: data on
signatories, access data, transaction data and content data (Tosza, 2020).
We partially agree with this denition. Digital evidence must have four
mandatory features to be legally admitted to trial: they must be reliable,
accurate, comprehensive, and convincing (Yeboah-Ofori and Brown, 2020).
Admissibility of evidence is such a sign that provides the legitimacy of their
involvement in the case (Edward and Ojeniyi, 2019).
It is considered that evidence in the form of electronic information and
electronic documents, as well as documents printed on paper are the types of
equivalent and independent evidence that can be submitted in the proving
process to the state administrative court (Alian Geraldi Fauzi et al., 2021).
At the same time, digitally signed electronic documents may be modied
by a third party. Verication of documents and digital signatures allows
nding out whether the electronic document was changed after signing.
Research shows that there is no special law or procedure for evaluating
electronic evidence in many countries. However, judges can do this in
two ways: either with the help of experts or digital evidence specialists; or
draw conclusions based on simple electronic evidence that is accurately
considered (Chaudhry et al., 2020).
736
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
In turn, a specialist who examines electronic evidence must have certain
knowledge and skills, in particular: be able to investigate the case; have
sucient knowledge of a specic problem; sucient legal knowledge;
appropriate communication skills (for oral and written explanations);
sucient knowledge of the language contained in the electronic evidence.
As a rule, the ISP provides the requested electronic data directly to the
requesting authority. However, sometimes coercive state intervention in
such a process is necessary. At the same time, the combination of the results
of all possible tools used to extract evidence and study all data sources,
electronic or not, will signicantly improve the eectiveness of establishing
the truth in the case (Reedy, 2020).
All the advantages and possibilities of electronic evidence in
administrative proceedings are promising and inevitable. Video
conferencing is an important means of simplifying and speeding up
the collection of electronic evidence, however, it is not widely used. The
diversity of administrative cases and people’s capacity to access electronic
evidence and electronic devices on which they can be attached to the case
reects the principle of access to justice in the country. To this end, the
government must propose and provide ways for society to access e-justice
(Putrijanti and Wibawa, 2021).
Conclusions
Electronic evidence is important in administrative proceedings, as it
is the main evidence of the activities of public authorities. It is proposed
that administrative courts make extensive use of electronic evidence, as
it will become the main type of evidence in the near future. Unlike paper
documents, electronic documents require special attention to their study,
search and involvement in the case. To ensure the admissibility of electronic
evidence, courts must pay special attention, as they are easy to destroy,
damage or modify. They are easier to access and easier to nd the necessary
proof.
Not all member States of the Council of Europe have ways to ensure
the authenticity of copies of electronic evidence or legal provisions on the
procedure for presenting evidence. Not all countries also require a specic
form of electronic signature to establish the admissibility of electronic
evidence. In this regard, there must be a presumption of admissibility of
electronic evidence in administrative proceedings. At the same time, the
study of electronic evidence should be approached from the perspective of
knowledge and skills of specialists, experts and interpreters who have the
appropriate license and experience.
737
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
Electronic evidence in administrative proceedings is used ambiguously
and chaotically, without taking into account their features and characteristics.
Courts should involve relevant specialists for the examination of electronic
evidence in the course of administrative proceedings, and take into
account the sources of origin and creation of electronic evidence for their
comprehensive assessment.
An electronic document is a form of electronic evidence, and a digital
signature allows identifying the signatory of an electronic document. This
simplies the procedure for examining the appropriateness of electronic
evidence. In most Council of Europe member States, the absence of a
digital signature does not deny its legal force, as all types of evidence
are equivalent. In this case, the administrative court must adhere to the
principle of individual consideration of each case and verify electronic
evidence from the moment of their creation, transmission, reception,
storage and collection.
Electronic documents can also be encoded to prevent others from
viewing and modifying them. Electronic evidence is a broader concept than
an electronic document.
The prospect for further research may be the role of cybersecurity law
enforcement agencies in maintaining the integrity of electronic evidence in
administrative proceedings.
Bibliographic References
ALIFIAN GERALDI FAUZI, Muhammad; NURMAYANI; SYAMSU, Syamsir.
2021. “The position of electronic documents in the process of evidence
in the state administrative jurisdiction in Indonesia” In: International
Journal of Business. Economics and Law. Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 25-28.
AVRAMENKO, Oleksandr. 2019. “Electronic document as a source of evidence
in administrative judiciary” In: European Reforms Bulletin. Vol. 2, pp.
2-6.
CHAUDHRY, Rabail; DRANITSARIS, George; MUBASHIR, Talha;
BARTOSZKO, Justyna; RIAZI, Sheila. 2020. A country level analysis
measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness
and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related
health outcomes. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eclinm.2020.100464. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
738
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
CHVANKIN, Sergiy. 2020. “Types of electronic evidence in civil procedure” In:
Knowledge, Education, Law, Management. Vol. 3(31), No. 2, pp. 259-
265.
DUBEY, Vivek. 2017. “Admissibility of electronic evidence: an Indian
perspective” In: Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal.
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 58-63.
EDWARD, Elizabeth Ozioma; OJENIYI, Joseph A. 2019. A systematic literature
review on digital evidence admissibility: methodologies, challenges and
research directions. 2019 15th international conference on electronics,
computer and computation (ICECCO). Available online. In: https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICECCO48375.2019.9043250. Consultation date:
18/10/2021.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. 2021. New technologies. Electronic
data. Available online. In: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_
new_technologies_eng.pdf. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
GLOBAL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE. 2017. Standards of digital evidence.
Available online. In: https://www.globalrightscompliance.com/
uploads/84f9281491a3a444312a0fed594157df.pdf. Consultation date:
18/10/2021.
INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES. 2019. Electronic evidences.
LexisNexis Butterworths. Available online. In: http://ials.sas.ac.uk/
digital/humanities-digital-library/observing-law-ials-open-book-
service-law. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
JOKUBAUSKAS, Remigijus; ŚWIERCZYŃSKI, Marek. 2020 “Is revision of the
council of Europe guidelines on electronic evidence already needed?” In:
Utrecht Law Review. Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.13–20.
KARASEV, Anatoly Tikhanovich; SAVOSKIN, Alexander Vladimirovich;
MESHCHERYAGINA, Veronika Aleksandrovna. 2021. “On the
eectiveness of the digital legal proceedings model in Russia” In:
Mathematics. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 125.
KASPER, Agnes; LAURITS, Eneli. 2016. Challenges in collecting digital
evidence: a legal perspective. In: Tanel Kerikmäe and Addi Rull (eds.),
“The future of law and eTechnologies,” pp. 195-233. Cham, Springer.
KIM, Donghyo; IHM, Sun-Young; SON, Yunsik. 2021. “Two-level blockchain
system for digital crime evidence management” In: Sensors. Vol. 21, No.
9, Art. 3051.
739
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 726-740
LEROUX, Olivier. 2004. “Legal admissibility of electronic evidence”
In: International Review of Law. Computers & Technology. Vol. 18, No.
2, pp. 193-220.
MANZHULA, Andriy. 2020. “The evidence in the administrative process
through the prism of innovative transformations and informatisation of
legal proceedings” In: Juridical Scientic and Electronic Journal. Vol. 1,
pp. 165-169.
MASON, Stephen; RASMUSSEN, Uwe. 2016. The use of electronic evidence
in civil and administrative law proceedings and its eect on the rules
of evidence and modes of proof. Available online. In: https://rm.coe.
int/1680700298. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
MOUSSA, Ahmad Fekry. 2021. “Electronic evidence and its authenticity in
forensic evidence” In: Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. Vol. 11, Art.
20.
NECHYPORUK, Yulia Mykhayllivna. 2020. “Responsibility for the destruction
of electronic evidence in administrative proceedings” In: State and
regions. Series: Law. Vol. 1, No. 67, pp. 138-141.
ORĘZIAK, Bartłomiej; ŚWIERCZYŃSKI, Marek. 2019. “Electronic evidence in
the light of the Council of Europe’s new guidelines” In: Comparative Law
Review. Vol. 25, pp. 257-275.
POLISHCHUK, Maryna. 2019. “The genesis of the legal regulation of the use of
electronic evidence in the judicial system of Ukraine” In: National Law
Journal: Theory and Practice. Vol. 6, No. 28, pp. 124-127.
PUTRIJANTI, Aju; WIBAWA, Kadek Cahya Susila. 2021. “The implementation
of e-court in administrative court to develop access to justice in
Indonesia” In: Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques. Vol. 9,
No. 1, pp. 105-109.
REEDY, Paul. 2020. “Digital evidence review 2016-2019” In: Forensic Science
International: Synergy. Vol. 2, pp. 489-520.
SHANG, Hua; QIANG, Hui. 2020. “Electronic data preservation and storage of
evidence by blockchain” In: Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine.
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 27-36.
STANFIELD, Allison Rebecca. 2016. The Authentication of Electronic Evidence.
PhD thesis. Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane, Australia.
SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE. 2018. The resolution of the Supreme Court
of Ukraine. Case № 2650/2070/18. Available online. In: http://www.
reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/28405874. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
740
Viktoriia V. Samonova
Electronic Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
SVERDLIK, Yevgeniy. 2018. Facebook data center investment in Sweden nears
US$1B. Social network plans third building on Luleå campus, home
to its rst European data center. Available online. In: https://www.
datacenterknowledge.com/facebook/facebook-data-center-investment-
sweden-nears-us1b. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
TOSZA, Stanislaw. 2020. “All evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is
more equal than any other: The relationship between the European
Investigation Order and the European Production Order” In: New
Journal of European Criminal Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 161-183.
UNITED NATIONS. n. d. Universal declaration of human rights. Available
online. In: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-
human-rights. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. 2003. The Law of Ukraine “On electronic
documents and electronic document circulation”. Available online. In:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/851-15#Text. Consultation date:
18/10/2021.
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. 2005. The code of the administrative legal
procedures of Ukraine. Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/
laws/show/2747-15/print. Consultation date: 18/10/2021.
WEIR, George; MASON, Stephen. 2017. The sources of electronic evidence. In:
Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng (eds.), “Electronic evidence”. University
of London, school of advanced study, institute of advanced legal studies.
London, UK.
YEBOAH-OFORI, Abel; BROWN, Akoto D. 2020. “Digital forensics
investigation jurisprudence: issues of admissibility of digital evidence”
In: Journal of Forensic Legal & Investigative Sciences. Vol. 6, Art. 045.
ZLENKO, Anna; MULIAR, Galyna; KHOVPUN, Oleksii. 2019. “Use of electronic
evidence in administrative proceedings” In: Sudova Apeliatsia. Vol. 3,
pp. 101-107.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en julio de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 73