Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The rapid development of digital technologies has greatly facilitated access to digital data and evidence. This data and digital evidence can be obtained through the Internet, social networks, or satellites. They can be used in investigating violations of human rights and international criminal law. Consequently, a need has emerged to reassess the balance between the right to privacy and the use of information and digital evidence when investigating human rights violations and breaches of international criminal law. This article examines the evolving role of digital evidence in documenting human rights violations and prosecuting international crimes. It provides an in-depth analysis of legal frameworks, admissibility criteria, methodological challenges, and ethical issues, with particular focus on international courts and human rights mechanisms. An analytical approach is employed to ensure international and national justice, criminal accountability, and comprehensive documentation of all violations of human rights and international criminal law. This approach is implemented through the analysis of previous research on the use of digital data and evidence in investigating violations of human rights and international criminal law.
References
Jan Gruber, Christopher J. Hargreaves, and Felix C. Freiling, “Contamination of Digital Evidence: Understanding an Underexposed Risk”, Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 44 (2023), 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.30150)
Graeme Horsman, “Digital Evidence Strategies for Digital Forensic Science Examinations”, Science & Justice, 63.1 (2023), 116–126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.004
Karolina Aksamitowska, “Digital Evidence in Domestic Core International Crimes Prosecutions: Lessons Learned from Germany, Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19.1 (2021), 189–211 https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab035
Ivan Prysiazhniuk, “Use of digital evidence in criminal process: some issues of right to privacy protection”, Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, 5 (2023), 81-88 https://doi.org/10.61345/1339- 7915.2023.5.11
Karolina Aksamitowska, “Digital Evidence in Domestic Core International Crimes Prosecutions: Lessons Learned from Germany, Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19.1 (2021), 189–211 https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab035
Widya Setiabudi Sumadinata, “CYBERCRIME and GLOBAL SECURITY THREATS: A CHALLENGE in INTERNATIONAL LAW”, Russian Law Journal, 11.3 (2023), 438-444 https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v11i3.1112
A/HRC/52/62, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Advance Unedited Version. Human Rights Council. Fifty-second session. 27 February–31 March 2023. Agenda item 4. Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention. 15 March 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/coiukraine/A_HRC_52_62 _AUV_EN.pdf
Max Tani, Satellite companies are restricting Gaza images. Updated Nov 6, 2023, 5:05am GMT+3. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/05/2023/satellite-companies-are-restricting-gaza-images
María De Arcos Tejerizo, “Digital Evidence and Fair Trial Rights at the International Criminal Court”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 36.3 (2023), 749–69 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156523000031
A/HRC/42/CRP.3, Full report: the economic interests of the Myanmar military https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/myanmar-ffm/economic-interests-myanmar-military
Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi at the International Criminal Court https://www.icccpi.int/sites/default/files/CaseInformationSheets/Al-MahdiEng.pdf
Zhilong Guo, Jie Hao, and Lewis Kennedy, “Protection path of personal data and privacy in China: Moving from monism to dualism in civil law and then in criminal law”, Computer Law & Security Review, 52 (2024), 105928 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105928
Ilyoung Hong, Hyeon Yu, Sangjin Lee, and Kyungho Lee, “A New Triage Model Conforming to the Needs of Selective Search and Seizure of Electronic Evidence”, Digital Investigation, 10.2 (2013), 175–92 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2013.01.003