Reliance on Electronic Evidence in the Interaction between Criminal and Civil Judgments: A Comparative Study and Presentation of an Authentication Model

Abstract

With the advent of the digital age, “electronic evidence” (Digital Evidence) has become a central pillar of proof in both criminal and civil proceedings (1). However, the fundamental difference in standards of proof between criminal adjudication (based on the “judge’s conviction” and certainty beyond a reasonable doubt) and civil adjudication (based on the “preponderance of probabilities”) has created serious challenges in the cross-referencing of such evidence (2). The main research problem is how the absence of standardized technical protocols for maintaining the “chain of custody” and the reliance on an expansive interpretation of the phrase “effective in the substance of the legal matter” in Article 18 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure have led to violations of victims’ rights and inconsistencies in judicial decisions (3). Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach with the legal system of England (common law system), particularly through an examination of judgments issued in the “Horizon Scandal,” this study demonstrates that the traditional presumption of the “reliability of computer systems” is no longer defensible, and the unconditional acceptance of outputs from electronic systems constitutes a serious error. The findings indicate that Article 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires both interpretive and legislative revision when dealing with digital evidence. Ultimately, drawing on comparative insights, the article proposes a “technical authentication model” for the Iranian judicial system and recommends the addition of a note to Article 18 in order to distinguish between the “technical weakness of evidence” and the “non-occurrence of a crime,” thereby providing a mechanism for the fair harmonization of judicial decisions.