The article provides a comprehensive analysis of ensuring human rights in digital evidence as a key condition for the implementation of the rule of law and the delivery of a fair verdict. The study emphasizes that digital evidence, as a new phenomenon of evidence law, forms the foundation of modern justice, in which technological capabilities must be combined with inviolable procedural guarantees of the individual. The article clarifies the concept, features, and legal nature of digital evidence, determines its place within the structure of criminal evidentiary proceedings, and examines its relationship with the principles of legality, proportionality, adversarial proceedings, and fairness. Particular attention is paid to safeguarding the right to privacy, personal data protection, and effective judicial control during the collection, verification, and assessment of digital evidence.

It is demonstrated that the quality of digital evidence determines the real effectiveness of the guarantees of the rule of law, as adherence to procedural form, authenticity, and integrity of electronic data ensures both a fair verdict and public confidence in the justice system. The article analyzes international legal standards that constitute the axiological foundation of digital evidence: the standards of the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations, the guidelines of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) on proper practice in digital forensics, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Big Brother Watch and Others v. the UK, Roman Zakharov v. Russia, Glukhin v.

Russia). These documents are shown to form an international model for balancing the effectiveness of justice with the protection of human rights in the digital environment.

A critical analysis is conducted of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the regulation of digital evidence, identifying gaps in procedural form related to the absence of a legislative definition of “digital evidence” and mechanisms for documenting the chain of custody of electronic data. The article proposes directions for improving criminal procedure legislation aimed at strengthening procedural safeguards and ensuring effective judicial control over state interference in digital privacy.

It is substantiated that digital evidence must develop as an ethical, legal, and technological system in which the protection of human rights, adherence to the rule of law, and the guarantee of a fair trial are absolute priorities.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Starenkyi O, Kryminalni protsesualni harantii zakhysnyka yak sub’iekta dokazuvannia u dosudovomu rozsliduvanni: teoriia ta praktyka (Alerta 2016) (in Ukrainian).Journal articles

2. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Verkhovenstvo prava u kryminalnomu protsesualnomu dokazuvanni: metodolohiia ta praktyka zastosuvannia’ [2025] 32(3) Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 275–299 (in Ukrainian).

3. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Zastosuvannia novitnikh tekhnolohii u rozsliduvanni ta dokazuvanni voiennykh zlochyniv (problemni pytannia)’ [2023] 3–4 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 84–102 https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2023.3-4/84-102 (in Ukrainian).

4. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Nova kontseptsiia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia’ [2015] 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy 63–79 (in Ukrainian).

5. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Sudovyi kontrol u zabezpechenni spravedlyvoho ta dopustymoho dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy’ [2025] 4(3) Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo 269–279 https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.04.3.40 (in Ukrainian).

6. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Teoriia dokaziv – metodolohichna osnova operatyvno-rozshukovoho dokumentuvannia orhanizovanoi zlochynnoi diialnosti’ [2010] 22 Borotba z orhanizovanoiu zlochynnistiu i koruptsiieiu (teoriia i praktyka) 175–185 (in Ukrainian).

7. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Tsyfrovi tekhnolohii ta dokazy u rozsliduvanni zlochyniv proty osnov natsionalnoi bezpeky Ukrainy: protsesualni problemy ta yevropeiski standarty’ [2025] 5(3) Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo 239–256 (in Ukrainian).

8. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Shtuchnyi intelekt u dokazuvanni v dosudovomu ta sudovomu provadzhenniakh: doktrynalni zasady i praktyka zastosuvannia’ [2025] 91(4) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo 398–418 (in Ukrainian).

9. Pohoretskyi M, Serhieieva D, ‘Taktyka zakhysnyka: poniattia, zmist ta mistse v systemi kryminalistychnoi taktyky’ [2016] 2 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 113–123 (in Ukrainian).

10. Pohoretskyi M, Shchyruk M, ‘Uchast zakhysnyka u dokazuvanni u spravakh pro pryvlasnennia abo roztratu maina sluzhbovoiu osoboiu: problemni pytannia teorii ta praktyky’ [2025] 3(71) Knowledge, Education, Law, Management 139–150 https://doi. org/10.51647/kelm.2025.3.20 (in Ukrainian). Conference papers

11. Pohoretskyi M, ‘Zakhysnyk – sub’iekt dokazuvannia na dosudovomu provadzhenni za chynnym KPK Ukrainy: problemni pytannia’, Aktualni pytannia derzhavotvorennia v Ukraini: materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (m. Kyiv, 23 travnia 2014 r.) (Print-Servis 2014) 480–482 (in Ukrainian). Websites

12. Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations: A Practical Guide on the Effective Use of Digital Open Source Information in Investigating Violations of International Criminal, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (OHCHR, University of California, Geneva–Berkeley 2022) (accessed 27.09.2025).

13. Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics, NIST SP 800-101 Rev. 1 (R Ayers, S Brothers, W Jansen, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2014) https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-101r1.

14. Ligeti K, Hackenbruch M, Albrecht F, Monsalve Cuéllar A et al., ‘The Advent of AI: Reshaping Criminal Procedure’ (University of Luxembourg, Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, 2024) (accessed 27.09.2025).