Artificial intelligence and digital (electronic) proofs in criminal proceedings

The modern development of digital technologies is taking place in a revolutionary way. Their types, methods and spheres of legal application are multiplying every day. In this regard, many previously stable legal spheres require their development [2, с. 15, 17].

Criminal proceedings are becoming more and more "digitized". The use of digital technologies provides a peculiar development of all its elements: the sphere of electronic communication is expanding in the form of the use of digital communication (videoconferencing, other remote presence technologies), filing electronic statements about a crime, sending complaints to the court via the Internet, obtaining digital evidence and their research, etc.

The two aspects of digitalization that raise the most questions in the science of criminal procedure are the introduction of artificial intelligence, its limits and the possibilities of digital proof. The field of artificial intelligence is particularly acutely debated by scientists [18]. The reason is clear: artificial intelligence technology opens up as yet unknown opportunities for the investigator, the court, and other participants in criminal proceedings. However, it seems to us that such discussions are mostly virtual in nature, aimed at accumulating information and so far have little practical significance. Although we share the desire of procedural scientists in this field to produce results that will allow using artificial intelligence technology practically effectively and in accordance with the purpose of criminal proceedings in the future.

Our attention is drawn to the use of electronic evidence, which is most directly related to artificial intelligence and the impact that they have on the proof procedure. The legislator has provided for a number of provisions aimed at regulating factual data of a digital nature. However, these measures do not seem to be sufficient to make the use of electronic evidence effective. It is necessary that the order of procedural treatment with them acquire the necessary, including systemic, character.

The lack of an established procedure for the collection, research, procedural consolidation and evaluation of electronic evidence creates difficult obstacles, and consequently causes the reluctance of the law enforcement officer to use promising information resources in his practice, which, among other things, creates a negative background with regard to artificial intelligence.

The purpose of the study is to propose ways to improve the procedures of criminal procedural evidence in pre–trial proceedings using electronic evidence and prospects for the development of artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings.

The objectives of the research are a theoretical analysis of the concept of "electronic evidence"; a synthetic representation of the concept of evidence; identification of special characteristics of electronic evidence affecting the procedure of criminal procedural proof in pre–trial proceedings; formulation of a problem in the field of determining possible ways to improve individual (most significant) elements of the proof process in connection with the use of electronic evidence; modeling of individual elements of criminal procedural evidence when using electronic evidence.

Research methods: dialectical, theoretical analysis, synthesis, hypothetical, generalization, modeling, sociological.

The results of the conducted research are the theoretical definition of the concepts of "electronic evidence" important for the science of criminal procedure, the author's proposals on ways to optimize the proof process in pre–trial proceedings using electronic evidence.

1. 1. Alexandrov A.S. [Russian criminal procedural dogmatism or the digital world: What will win? Legal truth in criminal law and process]: materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference / under the general editorship of K.B. Kalinovsky, L.A. Zashlyapina. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Petropolis"; 2018. (In Russ.)]

2. Antonova E.Yu. [Artificial intelligence technologies – the subject of a crime or an instrument/means of committing a crime]. Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2022;(1):31–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-14-1-31-39 (In Russ.)]

3. Afanasyev A.Yu. [Artificial intelligence systems in the mechanism of criminal procedural evidence]. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2020;49(1):89–95. (In Russ.)]

4. Voskobitova L.A. [Criminal proceedings and digital technologies: compatibility problems]. Lex Russica (Russian law). 2019;150(5):91–104. (In Russ.)]

5. Dmitrieva A.A., Pastukhov P.S. [The concept of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings]. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law. 2023;1(1):270–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.11 (In Russ.)]

6. Zaitsev O.A., Pastukhov P.S. [Formation of a new crime investigation strategy in the era of digital transformation]. Bulletin of the Perm University. Legal sciences. 2019;(46):752–777. (In Russ.)]

7. [The use of artificial intelligence in the identification, disclosure, investigation of crimes and consideration of criminal cases in court] / D.V. Bakhteev, E.A. Buglaeva, A.I. Zazulin [et al.]. M.: Yurlitinform; 2022. (In Russ.)]

8. McGinnis D.O., Pierce R.J. [The Great Explosion: how artificial intelligence is changing the role of lawyers in providing legal services]. Current problems of economics and law. 2019;13(2):1230–1250. (In Russ.)]

9. Ponkin I.V., Redkina A.I. [Artificial intelligence from the point of view of law. Bulletin of the RUDN]. Series: Legal Sciences. 2018;22(1):91–109. (In Russ.)]

10. Rahimov I.M.-ogly, Alikperov H.D.-ogly. ["Electronic scales of justice" (goals, opportunities, advantages)]. Criminal proceedings. 2019;(3):8–14. (In Russ.)]

11. Ramaldanov H.H. [Digital evidence obtained through the use of video conferencing systems]. Current problems of Russian law. 2022;(11):124–131. (In Russ.)]

12. Rossinsky S.B. [Evidence in a criminal case: is it necessary to make adjustments to Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation]. Criminology: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2023;26(2):166–167. (In Russ.)]

13. Rossinsky S.B. [On doctrinal approaches to understanding evidence in a criminal case: history and modernity]. Lex Russica. 2023;76(6):57–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2023.199.6.057-069 (In Russ.)]

14. Ryabova O.V. [Problems of improving the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation regarding the regulation of electronic evidence]. Legal technique. 2023;(17):657–658. (In Russ.)]

15. Sementsov V.A. [Digital technologies in domestic criminal proceedings]. Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2022;(4):97–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-14-4-97–105 (In Russ.)]

16. Sklyarenko M.V. [Artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings: the use of the latest computer developments in appeal and cassation]. Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2021;(3):190–102. (In Russ.)]

17. Khabrieva T.Ya. [Law before the challenges of digital reality]. Journal of Russian Law. 2018;9:5–16. (In Russ.)]

18. Sheremetyev I.I. [The use of digital technologies in the consideration of criminal cases in court: reality and prospects]. Lex Russica. 2019;150(5):117–132. (In Russ.)]

19. Big data is here to stay, as it should be. But let’s be realistic: It’s an important resource for anyone analyzing data, not a silver bullet: Marcus G., Davis E. Eight (No, Nine!) Problems with Big Data, N.Y. TIMES; 2014, Apr. 7.

20. Cherka P., Grigiene J. And Sirbikite G. (2015) Liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence. Computer Law & Security Review. 2015;31(3):376–389.