Forms of Recording Evidence Information in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

Abstract. This article provides a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of the forms of recording evidentiary information in criminal proceedings, with particular attention to their regulatory consolidation, forensic content, and evidentiary value in the context of ongoing digital transformation. The study aims to clarify the essence and systemic nature of fixation, to determine its place within the mechanism of proof, and to identify problematic aspects of its legal regulation under the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. The paper examines the provisions governing protocol (written-verbal), technical (audio and video recording on information carriers), and court-registration (court session log) forms of recording, as well as the norms defining a document and an expert opinion as independent procedural sources of evidence. It is substantiated that fixation has a multi-tiered character: first, as a procedural activity ensuring the reproducibility and verifiability of investigative and judicial actions; second, as a materialized result embodied in protocols, technical records, appendices, and digital carriers; and third, as an autonomous source of evidentiary information recognized by procedural law. This «dual» or even «triple» legal nature generates doctrinal and practical challenges concerning the hierarchy and interaction of different forms of recording. It is established that the contemporary model of fixation functions as a multi-channel system in which written-verbal and technical means of recording are interdependent and complementary. In certain situations, particularly where the law prescribes mandatory audio or video recording, the technical record may acquire priority evidentiary significance and effectively determine the admissible scope of factual data. Special attention is paid to the correlation between the form of fixation and the procedural source of evidence, as well as to issues of authenticity, integrity, and admissibility of digital data, including duplicates and copies of computer information. A systematic classification of forms of fixation is proposed based on several criteria: the subject performing the recording, the method of information representation, the material carrier, the procedural stage, the degree of obligation, and the functional purpose. The findings support the need for clearer legislative coordination of the evidentiary status of different forms of fixation and for more precise standards governing the verification and preservation of digital evidence.

Keywords: crime prevention; computer data review; fixation of evidence; open data intelligence; OSINT; Berkeley protocol.