Digital Evidence as a Means of Proof in Criminal Proceedings in the UAE
1. Introduction. – 2. Research Methodology. – 2.1. Objectives and research problem. – 3. The Concept of Digital Evidence. – 3.1. The Concept of Digital Evidence in the European Union. – 3.2. The Concept of Digital Evidence in the UAE. – 4. Legal Framework for the Digital Evidence in the European Union and UAE. – 4.1. The Legality Characteristic of Digital Evidence. – 4.2. The Judge's Freedom to Evaluate the Evidence. – 4.3. The Legal Framework for Digital Evidence in the European Union. – 4..4 The Legal Framework for Digital Evidence in the UAE. – 4.5. Legitimacy of Obtaining Electronic Evidence. – 5. Digital Evidence in Foreign Jurisdiction (Joint Investigation Teams). – 6. Conclusion.
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.
Abstract
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.
About Authors
Ayman Nawwaf Alhawawsheh*
PhD (Law), Professor in Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, American University in the Emirates, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0356-1896
Corresponding author, responsible for research methodology, data curation, investigation, and writing- original draft.
Qusay Salman Alfalahi
PhD (Law), Professor, College of Law, American University in the Emirates, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8609-3150
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, formal analysis, validation, writing-original draft.
Khaled Ramadan Soltan
PhD (Law), Associate Professor in Criminal Law, College of Sharia and Law, Imam Malik College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5995-1597
Co-author, responsible for research methodology, data curation, investigation, writing-original draft.
Abdulghani Qasem Taher
PhD (Law), Assistant Professor in Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, Umm Al Quwain University, Umm Al Quwain, United Arab Emirates.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-4640
Co-author, responsible for research methodology, data curation, investigation, writing-original draft.
Luma Ali Al Dhaheri
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, College of Law, American University in the Emirates, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4826-5123
Co-author, responsible for research methodology, data curation, investigation, writing-original draft.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
© 2025 Ayman Nawwaf Alhawawsheh, Qusay Salman Alfalahi, Khaled Ramadan Soltan, Abdulghani Qasem Taher and Luma Ali Al Dhaheri. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Al Kattan MS, ‘Digital Justice “Model of the United Arab Emirates”’ (2023) 18(1) Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental e04945, doi:10.24857/rgsa.v18n1-091.
2. Alhawawsheh AN, ‘Cybercrimes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ (11th Cybercrime Conference, Jordan, Faculty of Law, Jerash University, 5-6 May 2015).
3. Al-Kilani F, Lectures on the Principles of Criminal Trials (Dar Al Farabi 1985).
4. Al-Manaasah OA and Al-Zoubi JM, Information Technology Crimes: A Comparative Study (Dar Althkafa 2022).
5. Arhouma MM, ‘Procedural Problems Raised by Transnational Crime’ (The First Maghreb Conference on Informatics and Law: Academy of Graduate Studies, Tripoli, 28-29 October 2009).
6. Ashcroft J (ed), Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders (US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice 2001).
7. Hossain B, ‘Digital Evidence in Foreign Jurisdiction and Quality of Justice’ (2023) 1 ELCOP Journal on Human Rights 143, doi:10.59871//SFGB7594.
8. Juszczak A and Sason E, ‘The Use of Electronic Evidence in the European Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice: An Introduction to the New EU Package on E-evidence’ [2023] 2 EUCRIM: Electronic Evidence 182, doi:10.30709/eucrim-2023-014.
9. Kostenko OV and Ghaziani VA, ‘Admissibility of Illegally Obtained e-Evidence: A Critical Study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2024) 2 European Journal of Privacy Law and Technologies 205, doi:10.57230/EJPLT242OVKVAG.
10. Lasagni G, ‘Admissibility of Digital Evidence’ in Franssen V and Tosza S (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Investigations (CUP 2025) 126.
11. Mifsud Bonnici JP, Tudorica M and Cannataci JA, ‘The European Legal Framework on Electronic Evidence: Complex and in Need of Reform’ in Biasiotti MA and others (eds), Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe (Law, Governance and Technology Series 39, Springer 2018) 189, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_11.
12. Miller CM, ‘A Survey of Prosecutors and Investigators Using Digital Evidence: A Starting Point’ (2022) 6 Forensic Science International: Synergy 100296, doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100296.
13. Shukla V, ‘The Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Challenges and Future Implications’ (2023) 9 Commonwealth Law Review Journal 464.
14. Smith J, ‘Criminal Evidence: Relevancy’ in Markham JM, Smith J and Denning SR, North Carolina Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook (UNC School of Government 2015).
15. Stoykova R, ‘The Right to a Fair Trial as a Conceptual Framework for Digital Evidence Rules in Criminal Investigations’ (2023) 49 Computer Law and Security Review 105801, doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801.
16. Vedwal A, ‘Admissibility of Digital Evidence for Cyber Crime Investigation’ (School of Law, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies (UPES) 2023) doi:10.2139/ssrn.4443356.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Оглядова стаття
ЦИФРОВІ ДОКАЗИ ЯК ЗАСІБ ДОКАЗУВАННЯ В КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ В ОАЕ
Айман Навваф Альгававше*, Кусай Салман Альфалагі, Халед Рамадан Солтан, Абдулгані Касем Тагер та Лума Алі Аль Дагері
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. У цій статті розглядаються ключові питання, пов'язані з допустимістю цифрових доказів, що становить основну проблему сучасного судочинства. Використання таких доказів супроводжується низкою труднощів, зокрема через стрімкий розвиток технологій та зростаючу стурбованість питаннями конфіденційності електронних даних. У системі кримінального правосуддя ці виклики можуть впливати на допустимість доказів, порядок їх подання в суді, висунення обвинувачень та вирішення справ.
У цьому дослідженні розглядаються труднощі, пов'язані з прийняттям цифрових доказів у судовій системі ОАЕ. З огляду на тенденцію до переходу до цифрового світу як альтернативи матеріальному, зростає інтерес до ступеня автентичності та надійності засобів технічного зберігання інформації в процесі доказування, важливості автентичності комп'ютерних витягів і того, наскільки правова система доказування здатна пристосуватися до цих нових видів засобів доказування. У дослідженні зроблено висновок, що, незважаючи на труднощі в отриманні цифрових доказів та потребу в забезпеченні певних умов, необхідних для їх прийняття, цифрові докази часто користуються вищим ступенем довіри, ніж традиційні форми доказів, завдяки своїй точності та науково-технічному характеру. Метою цієї стаття є вирішення цих проблем та дослідження потенційних рішень.
Методи. У цій роботі застосовується юридично-аналітична методологія, що зосереджена на правовій базі ОАЕ. Також у статті використовується описово-аналітичний підхід, здійснюється аналіз юридичних текстів за допомогою контент-аналізу. Зокрема, було розглянуто позицію законодавця ОАЕ щодо використання електронних доказів, проаналізовано погляди вчених-юристів та судові рішення, пов'язані з допустимістю електронних доказів у кримінальному процесі.
Результати та висновки. Аналіз і порівняння відповідних нормативних актів дали підстави для низки висновків.Серед них, перш за все, є необхідність адаптації судової системи до цифрових та електронних доказів, визнання їх самостійної доказової сили – за умови дотримання правової визначеності, законності та цілісності. Такі докази також повинні підлягати усному дослідженню та бути доступними для всіх сторін.
Особлива увага приділяється Федеральному декрету-закону № (34) від 2021 року «Про боротьбу з чутками та кіберзлочинністю», який підтверджує достовірність цифрових доказів у кримінальному доказуванні, чітко визначаючи їхню доказову силу відповідно до статті 65. У дослідженні також було зроблено висновок, що цифрові докази мають характеристики, які відрізняють їх від матеріальних доказів, а чинні процесуальні норми не регулюють належного поводження з ними; наразі вони розглядаються як різновид документальних доказів.
Ключові слова: цифрові докази, допустимість, доказування, легітимність, кіберзлочинність.
Publication history
-
Date of submission: 12 Feb 2025
Date of acceptance: 20 May 2025
Online First publication: 18 Jul 2025
Last Publication: 17 Aug 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round with major revisions
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
How to cite it?
-
Alhawawsheh A, Alfalahi Q, Soltan K, Taher A and Dhaheri L, ‘Digital Evidence as a Means
of Proof in Criminal Proceedings in the UAE’ (2025) 8(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe
521-40 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.3-a000111>
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.3-a000111
Managing editor – Mag. Bohdana Zahrebelna. Section Editor: Serhii Kravtsov.
English Editor – Julie Bold. Ukrainian language editor: Lilia Hartman.
