"Evidence derived from artificial intelligence in criminal matters: between judicial validity and legal controls"
AI-derived evidence in criminal cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70411/MJLS.4.1.2026346Keywords:
أدلة الإثبات الجنائي, التشريع الجنائي المقارن, المحاكمة العادلة, الخوارزميات العدلية, التحيز الخوارزمي, التقييم القضائي للتكنولوجياAbstract
The digital age is witnessing an unprecedented development in criminal evidence tools, with increasing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to collect and analyze evidence. This raises fundamental issues related to the legitimacy, reliability, and admissibility of this evidence before the courts. This study aims to analyze the legal and normative framework governing the use of AI evidence in criminal matters, through a comparative analytical comparison between the legal systems of Arab countries, the European Union, and Japan.
The study examines various models for the use of AI in criminal work, such as facial recognition technologies, big data analysis, and systems for predicting criminal behavior. It examines the consistency of these applications with constitutional principles, particularly the principle of criminal legality, fair trial guarantees, and privacy protection.
The study revealed a clear divergence in legislative and judicial positions. While European Union countries are moving toward restricting the use of such evidence and establishing strict legislative frameworks to protect fundamental rights, they are adopting an integrative and flexible approach based on integrating digital evidence and AI technologies into general legislation without issuing a unified law. This approach also establishes strict judicial controls to protect privacy and ensure the legitimacy of evidence, in the absence of a unified legal framework or controlling technical standards.
The study concluded that the judicial acceptance of AI evidence remains dependent on the reliability of the technology used, the transparency of its algorithms, and its adherence to the principles of procedural justice. The study also called for the development of clear national legislation and the establishment of common technical and legal standards that ensure an effective balance between the requirements of combating crime and the rights of individuals.
Keywords: criminal evidence, comparative criminal legislation, fair trial, forensic algorithms, algorithmic bias, judicial evaluation of technology
References
أولًا: القوانين والاتفاقيات الدولية
الدستور المصري للعام 2014، الجريدة الرسمية، العدد 22 مكرر (ب)، 18 يناير 2014.
قانون الإجراءات الجنائية المصري رقم 150 لسنة 1950، الجريدة الرسمية، العدد 8 مكرر، 2 فبراير 1950.
قانون مكافحة جرائم تقنية المعلومات رقم 175 لسنة 2018، الجريدة الرسمية، العدد 32 مكرر (أ)، 14 أغسطس 2018.
اليونسكو، توصية بشأن أخلاقيات الذكاء الاصطناعي" المؤتمر العام، الدورة 41، باريس، نوفمبر 2021" وهي توصية، تهدف إلى وضع إطار أخلاقي شامل لاستخدام تقنيات الذكاء الاصطناعي، مع التركيز على تعزيز حقوق الانسان، وحماية البيئة، وتشجيع التنوع الثقافي.
ثانيًا: الكتب العربية
عمر محمد أبو بكر ابن يونس، الإجراءات الجنائية عبر الإنترنت: في ترجمة المرشد الفيدرالي الأمريكي لتفتيش وضبط الحواسيب وصولًا للدليل الالكتروني في التحقيقات الجنائية، بدون دار نشر، (2004).
عائشة بن قارة مصطفي، حجية الدليل الالكتروني في مجال الإثبات الجنائي، دار الجامعة الجديدة، الإسكندرية، (2010).
محمود الخطيب، الحماية الجنائية للبيانات الرقمية: دراسة مقارنة، دار الجامعة الجديدة، (2020).
محمود عبد الحميد عبد المطلب، البحث والتحقيق الجنائي الرقمي في جرائم الكمبيوتر والإنترنت، دار الكتب القانونية، القاهرة، (2006).
ثالثًا: الرسائل العلمية
خالد عياد الحلبي، إجراءات التحري والتحقيق في جرائم الحاسوب والإنترنت- رسالة ماجستير-، جامعة الشرق الأوسط للدراسات العليا، دار الثقافة للنشر والتوزيع، عمان، (2011).
رابعًا: الدوريات (المجلات العلمية)
الشمري، س. ن، مشروعية الأدلة الرقمية في الإجراءات الجنائية: دراسة مقارنة. مجلة العلوم القانونية، 33(1)، (2020).
العتيبي، م. خ، الضمانات القانونية للمتهم في مواجهة أنظمة الذكاء الاصطناعي المستخدمة في التحقيقات الجنائية. المجلة السعودية للقانون، 12(3)، (2020).
خامسًا:المراجع الأجنبية
Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice: A Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice System» (2020) by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). URL: https://nij.ojp.gov/ library/publications/artificial-intelligence-criminal-justice.
AI in Law Enforcement: The Power, Risks, and Ethics of Using AI for Criminal Justice. (2021) by the Future of Life Institute. URL: https://futureoflife.org/ai-law-enforcement-power risksethics-using-ai-criminal-justice.
Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice: Addressing Ethical Concerns. (2019) by the Brennan Centre for Justice. URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research reports/artificialintelligence-criminal-justice-addressing-ethical-concerns.
Borgesius, F. Z. (2018). Discrimination, Artificial Intelligence, and Algorithmic Decision-Making. Council of Europe Report.
Brkan, M. (2019). Do algorithms rule the world? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. accessed 2 May 2025: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaz002
Brkan, M. (2019). Do algorithms rule the world? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), accessed 3 May 2025: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaz002
Chan, J., & Lee, K. (2019). Digital evidence in the modern legal system: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Legal Technology, 22(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlt.2019.04.003
Cath, C., et al. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the 'Good Society': The US, EU, and UK Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2).
Council of the European Union, Artificial intelligence b) Conclusions on the coordinated plan on artificial intelligence-Adoption, 2019.
Cabinet Secretariat of Japan. (2004). Act on Prohibition of Unauthorized Computer Access. Retrieved from https://www.nisc.go.jp. accessed 5 May 2025
Donohue, L. K. (2016). The Future of Foreign Intelligence: Privacy and Surveillance in a Digital Age. Oxford University Press.
European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), COM (2021) 206 final.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2020). Getting the future
right – Artificial intelligence and fundamental rights.: https://fra.europa.eu/
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206 accessed 4 May 2025.
European Parliament and Council. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Eoghan Casey. (2011). "Digital Evidence and Computer Crime", 3rd Edition, London, Academic Press.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2020). Getting the future right – Artificial intelligence and fundamental rights. Publications Office of the European Union. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/artificial-intelligence-and-fundamental-rights accessed 2 May 2025.
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). (2018). Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15.
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University Press.
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University Press.
Hirano, Y. (2021). Digital Evidence and Procedural Challenges in Japanese Criminal Law. Journal of Japanese Law, 46(2).
Japanese Ministry of Justice. (2019). Code of Criminal Procedure. Retrieved from https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp accessed 5 May 2025
Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2000). Law Concerning Electronic Signatures and Certification Business. Retrieved from https://www.meti.go.jp
Osaka High Court. (2005). Electronic Contract Case, Judgment No. 平成17(ネ)第1056号. Published in: Hanrei Jiho, 1890.
Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC). (2020). Amendments to the Act on the Protection of Personal Information. Retrieved from https://www.ppc.go.jp
Sulyok, M. (2021). The evidentiary value of AI-based data in criminal proceedings: A European perspective. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(4) https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211044777 accessed 3 May 2025.
Surden, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1305–1338. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol35/iss4/4 accessed 4 May 2025.
Supreme Court of Japan. (2017). GPS Surveillance Case, Judgment No. 平成29(あ)第442号.
Supreme Court of Japan. (2011). Digital Signature Validity Case, Judgment No. 平成23(オ)第415号.
Solove, D. J. (2021). Understanding Privacy (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.
Sulyok, M. (2021). The evidentiary value of AI-based data in criminal proceedings: A European perspective. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(4),. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211044777 accessed 2 May 2025.
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions. (2020) by the Council of Europe. URL: https://rm.coe.int/the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-criminal investigations and - prosec/1680a84a92.
Tokyo District Court. (2019). Twitter Threat Case, Judgment No. 平成31(わ)第278号. Reported in: Mainichi Shimbun, March 12, 2019.
Tomiyama, H. (2021). Judicial Oversight on Digital Evidence Collection in Japan. Tokyo Law Review, 48(1).
U.S. Congress. (2001). Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162
U.S. Congress. (2001). Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162 .
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, Explainable, and Accountable AI for Robotics. Science Robotics, 2(6), eaan6080.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Modern Journal of Legal Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The users are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
