New digital-evidence case law: source, integrity and access
Short answer
To assess digital evidence, compare its original source, how it was obtained, the inspection record and the preserved file. In a judgment of 5 August 2026, Ukraine’s Criminal Cassation Court considered preservation of public internet material and the absence of indications of distortion on specific facts. This does not extend public-access reasoning to private correspondence or establish that every screenshot is reliable.
- Published
- Legally reviewed
- Author
- Vitaliy BessonovAttorney-at-law, license No. 1893 dated 18 February 2015
Step-by-step action plan
- 1Identify what was used: a public webpage, file, recording, device data or private correspondence. Keep different access methods distinct.
- 2Compare the record, attachments and available preserved material: source address, capture date, recorded actions and content. Note specific discrepancies.
- 3Preserve available files without editing and separately record who supplied them and when. These are the author’s practical recommendations, not a universal statutory record form.
- 4Identify missing integrity information: a full recording, context, metadata or copying details. Discuss the need for technical examination with counsel and a specialist.
- 5With counsel, check the legal basis for access and the appropriate procedure for obtaining the material, given your procedural status. Do not access another person’s private account yourself.
- 6Frame admissibility and reliability separately and explain how a particular discrepancy affects the fact being proved. Do not promise an outcome based only on a breach label.
What the law requires
Under Articles 84 and 86 of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code, factual information must be obtained through the procedure established by the Code. Article 87 separately addresses substantial violations of rights and freedoms. A digital format does not remove the need to examine lawful acquisition.
Article 99 includes photographs, audio, video and computer data among documents subject to its conditions. Paragraph 4 provides for recognition as an original of a duplicate document and the specified information copies made by an investigator or prosecutor with a specialist’s participation. Calling a file a “copy” or “original” is insufficient: the conditions of the applicable provision must be checked.
Article 237(2) requires the content of inspected computer data to be reflected in the inspection record in a form that can be perceived. Article 94 requires assessment of each item for relevance, admissibility and reliability, and of the body of evidence for sufficiency and interconnection. These are separate questions.
What the judgment establishes
Public sources and preservation
The Third Criminal Chamber’s judgment of 5 August 2026 in case No. 201/10481/23, proceeding No. 51-1751км25 as stated in the judgment, addressed an argument that material from blocked internet pages could not be checked. The prosecution concerned collaboration; this note covers only its digital-material issue.
The trial court examined the inspection records and material preserved on DVD-R and found their content consistent. The appellate court agreed with that assessment without directly re-examining the evidence. The Criminal Cassation Court referred to preservation of public sources and the absence of information indicating falsification or deliberate distortion. Reliability assessment remained within the powers of the trial and appellate courts. The cassation appeal was dismissed.
The position appears in the official August 2026 review published on 24 September. The judgment date differs from the review publication date. The proceeding identifier in the register’s information card differs from the judgment text; this note follows the judicial act, also confirmed by the official review.
Limits of the holding
Reasoning about preserved public publications does not authorise every method of obtaining private data. This judgment establishes neither a universal mandatory-hash rule nor the reliability of every screenshot. Its reference to Berkeley standards does not replace the Code’s requirements.
Step-by-step checklist
Common mistakes
This is general information. A position reached on one case’s facts does not determine another proceeding’s outcome. Legal sources checked on 2 October 2026.
Rule of law and case law
What the law provides
- Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine — ст. 84, 86–87, 94, 99, 237
What follows from case law
On the case facts, the Court considered preservation of public publications and the absence of information indicating falsification. This does not replace lawful-access and reliability assessment of other material.
Official sources
- LawCriminal Procedure Code of Ukraine — ст. 84, 86–87, 94, 99, 237
- Supreme CourtThird Criminal Chamber, 5 August 2026, case No. 201/10481/23, proceeding No. 51-1751км25 in the judgment text
- Supreme CourtOfficial August 2026 review, pp. 5–6, published 24 September 2026
- RegistryUnified State Register of Court Decisions
- RegistrySupreme Court Legal Positions Database
Frequently asked questions
Does the public-publication holding extend to private correspondence?
Not automatically. Case No. 201/10481/23 concerns particular public material. The legal basis and acquisition method for private data require separate Code-based assessment.
Does this judgment require a hash for every digital item?
No universal rule of that kind is established in this judgment. The need for technical examination depends on the particular file and case material.
Why is August mentioned when the review was published in September?
The judgment was delivered on 5 August 2026; the official August review was published on 24 September. These dates must remain distinct.
What should be prepared for assessing digital material?
The available record and attachments, preserved file, source and acquisition details, and specific discrepancies. This is the author’s practical recommendation; disclosure depends on procedural standing.