A Survey on Authenticity and Admissibility of Electronic Evidences

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of private Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD student in Private law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Electronic evidence can be a product of different situations: Someone enters the data into a computer, the computer is performing a user's request or a computer automatically processes information. Therefore, Electronic evidence includes databases, operating systems, computer programs, computer generated models, electronic, audio records, and any type of information or instruction which is stored in computer memory or exchanged, processed, recovered or generated through computer or telecommunication systems.
Authenticity or genuineness and admissibility of electronic evidences are subjects of this paper. We are discussing this subject by relying on the law of Iran, UNCITRAL Model Laws and Convention and related precedent from common law countries. Finally, it is suggested to the Iranian legislator to approve an Act to prohibit providing audio or image or video from others without their permission and without legal or judicial authorization, as well as non-admissibility of evidences provided with these illegal methods. In this way, citizenship rights will protect against the misuse of new technologies.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References:
 
Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 [DC Cir Cir 1993].
Blakeslee, Melise R (2010), Internet Crimes, Torts and Scams (Investigation and Remedies), Oxford University Press.
Chung, Christine Sgarlata & Byer, David J (1997), The Electronic Paper Trial: Evidentiary Obstacles to Discovery and Admission of Electronic Evidence, Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, Vol.4.
Coburn C.J in R v. Birmingham Overseers (1861) 1 B & S 763 at 767.
Elsan, Mostafa (2017), Cyberspace Law, 8th Ed, Shahre Danesh Pub, Theran, Iran (in Persian).
Fedral Rules of Evidence; See: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
Friedman, Richard B (2007), Remote Witnessing, Translated by Alireza Gharajelou, Kanoun Law Journal, No. 76 (in Persian).
Gharajelou Alireza (2007), Circumstantial Evidence in Iran Q UK Law, Thesis Submitted for PhD, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
Gholizadeh, Ahad (2006), Evidential Value of Data-Message with Reference to the Iranian Electronic Commerce Act, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, Vol. 3.
Givens, Shane J (2003-2004), The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence at Trial: Courtroom Admissibility Standards, Cumberland Law Review, Vol. 34.
Goode, Steven (2009-2010), The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, Review of Litigation, Vol. 29 (1).
 Jalali Farahani, AmirHosein (2007), Admissibility of Electronic Evidences in Criminal Law, Feqh & Law, No. 15, winter (in Persian).
Joseph, Gregory P, Internet and E-mail Evidence, Practical Litigator, Vol. 13, 2002.
Kevin Michael Shea v. The State of Texas (Tex 2005).
Mack v. Markel American Insurance Company, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 330200, (D.C.Md., 2007).
McLaughlin, Joseph M (Ed. 1997), Weinstein’s Federal Evidence: Discovering and Admitting Computer-Based Evidence, Matthew Bender, 2d Ed.
Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397 (2nd Cir. 1996).
Shams, Abdollah (2010), Evidences (Case & Materials), 7th Ed, Derak Pub, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
St. Luke's Cataract & Laser Inst. v. Sanderson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28873,  at 5-6 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2006).
State of Connecticut v. Alfred Swinton (SC 16548) “Opinion” (2004).
Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 2004 WL 2367740, at 6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004).
Uncitral (1996) Working Group on Electronic Commerce, Uncitral Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment, Uncitral.
Uncitral (2007), Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, New York.
United States v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 150 (D.Me.2009).
United States v. Jackson. 208 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2000).  
United States v. Safavian; U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32284 (D.D.C. May 23, 2006).
Xavier Linant de Bellefonds (2013), Le Droit du Commerce Electronique, Transleted by Sattar Zarkalam, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics