en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 20.01.2026,
  • Revised 17.04.2026,
  • Accepted 26.05.2026
  • Published 01.06.2026
Download article Download article
Vol. 31, No. 2, 2026
  • digital forensics; admissibility of evidence; authentication; chain of custody; comparative legal analysis; procedural legislation
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/2.2026.09
  • Pages 9-19

As of 2025, over 94% of internet users use messaging apps on a monthly basis, leading to the growing role of electronic correspondence as a source of evidential information in criminal proceedings, particularly under martial law in Ukraine. The purpose of the study was to identify legal gaps in the regulation of messaging app correspondence as electronic evidence through a comparative analysis of the legal approaches of Ukraine, the United States of America, and the European Union. The study employed comparative legal and formal legal methods, along with the method of analysing judicial practice. The classification of messaging app correspondence was examined and systematised according to eight criteria, including the number of participants, access to correspondence, the format of information transmission, and the stage of creation. It was established that the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine does not distinguish a category of electronic evidence, whereas in the US, there is a developed system for the authentication of electronic evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the European Union adopted a dedicated Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on cross-border access to electronic evidence in 2023. It was determined that Ukrainian courts generally recognise messaging correspondence as admissible evidence provided that the procedural rules for its collection are followed and there are no substantiated objections from the defence, although practice remains inconsistent. The grounds for deeming such correspondence inadmissible evidence have been analysed, including breaches of collection procedures, lack of confirmation of authorship, and the obtaining of evidence by unauthorised parties. The results of the study may be used by researchers, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers to improve the practice of working with electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, in addition to legislators for the regulatory framework of this institution

References

  1. Akhtyrska, N.M. (2022). Obtaining evidence in electronic form in the light of the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. Criminalistics and Forensic Expertise, 67, 188-200. doi: 10.33994/kndise.2022.67.21.
  2. Akhtyrska, N.M., & Kostiuchenko, O.Yu. (2022). Procedural and organizational aspects of collecting electronic evidence during international cooperation. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, 72(2), 192-198.
  3. Aksamitowska, K. (2021). Digital evidence in domestic core international crimes prosecutions: lessons learned from Germany, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 189-211. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqab035.
  4. Anheliuk, A.M. (2023). The use of electronic evidence in the criminal procedural law of Ukraine (problematic issues). Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, 79(2), 214-218. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2023.79.2.32.
  5. Antoniuk, P.Ye., & Hutsaliuk, M.V. (2020). On the essence of electronic (digital) information as a source of evidence in criminal proceedings. Criminalistic Bulletin, 33(1), 37-49. doi: 10.37025/1992-4437/2020-33-1-37.
  6. Avdieieva, H.K. (2024). Problems of determining the reliability of digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Bulletin of LNDI named after E.O. Didorenko, 1(105), 33-48. doi: 10.33766/2786-9156.105.
  7. Bajović, V., & Ćorić, V. (2025). EncroChat and Sky ECC data as evidence in criminal proceedings in light of the CJEU decision. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 33, 235-262. doi: 10.1163/15718174-bja10062.
  8. Basysta, I.V., & Havryliuk, L.V. (2024). Use of digital data from open sources during the investigation of criminal offenses: Selected aspects. Scientific and Informational Bulletin of Ivano-Frankivsk University of Law, 17(29), 227-243. doi: 10.33098/2078-6670.2024.17.29.227-243.
  9. Fomina, T.H., & Rachynskyi, O.O. (2023). Electronic evidence in criminal proceedings: Problematic issues of theory and practice. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 102(3), 207-220. doi: 10.32631/v.2023.3.43.
  10. Goodison, S.E., Davis, R.C., & Jackson, B.A. (2023). A survey of prosecutors and investigators using digital evidence: A starting point. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 6, article number 100319. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100319.
  11. Harasymiv, O.I., Marko, S.I., & Riashko, O.V. (2023). Digital evidence: some problematic issues regarding their concept and use in criminal justice. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, 75(2), 158-162. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2022.75.2.25.
  12. Hora, I.V., Kolesnyk, V.A., & Popovych, I.I. (2024). On the issue of digital forensics in the system of forensic knowledge. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence, 68, 86-91. doi: 10.32782/2307-1745.2024.68.18.
  13. Horsman, G. (2023). Interpol review of digital evidence for 2019-2022. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 6, article number 100313. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100313.
  14. Kalancha, I.H., & Stemkovskyi, D.B. (2025). Use of evidence in electronic form in the criminal process of Ukraine: Judicial practice. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 2, 1001-1008. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2025.02.148.
  15. Kovalenko, A.V. (2023). Classification of electronic (digital) traces of criminal offenses. Problems of Legality, 161, 202-214. doi: 10.21564/2414-990X.161.278117.
  16. Ligeti, K., Garamvölgyi, B., Ondrejová, A., & Galen, M. (2021). Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in the EU. Eucrim: The European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum, 3, 201-208. doi: 10.30709/.
  17. Novak, M. (2020). Digital evidence in criminal cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeal: Trends and issues for consideration. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 14(4).
  18. Sachoulidou, A. (2024). Cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters: The new EU legislation and the consolidation of a paradigm shift. New Journal of European Criminal Law. doi: 10.1177/20322844241258649.
  19. Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, article number 105575. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575.
  20. Stoykova, R. (2023). The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations. Computer Law and Security Review, 49, article number 105801. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801.
  21. Wilson-Kovacs, D., Helm, R., Growns, B., & Redfern, L. (2023). Digital evidence in defence practice: Prevalence, challenges and expertise. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 27(3). doi: 10.1177/13657127231171620.