The practice of working with electronic evidence in Ukraine has been developing rapidly, particularly since 2022 — the experience of documenting war crimes through digital sources has significantly accelerated this process. Yet the gap between Ukraine and leading legal systems remains significant. Here is what that gap looks like and why it matters for your case.

The Ukrainian Approach

In Ukraine, the most common types of electronic evidence in criminal cases are:

• CCTV recordings;
• messenger and social media correspondence;
• mobile operator data (calls, geolocation);
• electronic bank statements;
• recorded telephone conversations.

The main challenge is the absence of standardised collection and storage protocols. Different investigators and different courts may interpret admissibility requirements differently, leading to unpredictable outcomes.

US and UK Standards

The United States has a detailed system of rules for collecting digital evidence. Core principles: minimal interference with original data, mandatory hashing to confirm integrity, and thorough chain-of-custody documentation. A breach of any of these principles automatically calls the admissibility of evidence into question.

In the United Kingdom, the ACPO Guide sets sector standards for handling digital evidence in law enforcement. It establishes clear requirements for specialist qualifications, equipment, and procedures.

EU Member State Experience

In the EU, the key issue is balancing investigative effectiveness with privacy protection. GDPR significantly limits the possibility of collecting data without a court order. At the same time, the European Investigation Order mechanism allows digital evidence to be obtained efficiently from other member states.

ECHR case law requires that any interference with a person’s private digital life be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be proportionate.

What This Means for Parties to Ukrainian Proceedings

Despite the absence of detailed standards, Ukrainian courts are increasingly guided by international practice. This means arguments grounded in ECHR standards or general European principles of admissibility have a real chance of being heard.

If evidence in your case was obtained in breach of proportionality principles or without proper court authorisation, that is grounds for challenge — regardless of whether there is a specific provision in the CCP.

This article is based on: Petryk V.V. “Electronic Evidence in Ukrainian and Foreign Court Proceedings” // Scientific Papers of NUCZU, 2025. Read the original article.

Have questions about electronic evidence in your case? Contact us – we offer a free initial consultation.