Procedural Features of Investigation and Assessment of Electronic Evidence in Russian Civil Proceedings

The use of information technologies currently indicates the rapid development of the world community. The need to expand the list of evidence by introducing a new means of proof – electronic evidence – is long overdue. It is obvious that courts and lawyers today lack a fundamental understanding of the essence of electronic evidence, its legal nature, the features of their assessment and inclusion in the case, while the number of civil cases in which the parties present electronic evidence is constantly and steadily growing. In that way, it seems that the nature of electronic evidence, in particular its types such as electronic documents, audio and video recordings, as well as the rules for their evaluation, admissibility and reliability, require careful consideration. For the successful implementation of this goal in the framework of this work, the author analyzed the understanding of electronic evidence by the domestic legislator, their distinctive features and place in the system of evidence in Russian civil proceedings are investigated, the procedural features of the study and evaluation of electronic documents and audio and video recordings as evidence in Russia and foreign countries are revealed, the procedural value of the electronic signature of an electronic document is considered, the procedural order of submission and demand of audio and video recordings is reflected. Based on the conducted research, the author formulated the following conclusions: taking into account the established classification of means of proof, electronic evidence in the Russian procedural legislation, as in many foreign legal systems, is not allocated as a separate category, but is equated with written evidence and is examined using methods of evaluating traditional written evidence, which seems incorrect, since electronic evidence has its own nature due to the presence of such distinctive qualities and characteristics as immateriality, features of the information carrier, the absence of the original, copy, susceptibility to constant change, non-universality, etc. Therefore, today it is worth talking about electronic evidence as a qualitatively new means of proof, since the specific features inherent in electronic evidence make them unlike any other known means of proof. In addition, Russian legislation needs to reinforce the idea that electronic evidence has the same evidentiary value as traditional evidence.