Place of Digital Phonograms, Videograms, and Videophonograms in the System of Electronic Evidences: Theoretical and Methodological Principles of Classification

Objective: to determine the place of digital phonograms, videograms and videophonograms in the system of electronic evidence in Russian judicial proceedings, to form a unified conceptual framework and classification system to ensure effective use in procedural practice.

Methods: the research is based on the universal dialectical method of cognition, general scientific methods (description, comparison, generalization, modeling, analysis, synthesis), and specific scientific methods. Special attention was paid to the system-structural analysis of regulatory legal acts, state standards in the field of information technology, and international documents regulating work with digital evidence. The author applied methods of criminalistic research, a formal legal method of interpreting procedural norms, and a comparative analysis of foreign experience in regulating electronic evidence.

Results: the study identified and systematized the key reasons for the legal uncertainty of electronic evidence: a variety of representation forms, high data vulnerability, insufficient competence of the proving subjects, and inconsistency with traditional methods of evidence recording. The author developed an original classification of electronic evidence and digital phonograms, videograms, and videophonograms, using criteria such as the form of data presentation, recording method, and nature of information media. Universal definitions of the basic concepts are formulated: electronic evidence, digital evidence, digital phonogram, videophonogram, data carriers, a copy of digital evidence. The necessity is substantiated to harmonize procedural norms based on state standards of information technologies and international experience.

Scientific novelty: for the first time, a comprehensive methodology was developed to form the conceptual apparatus and classification of electronic evidence, integrating state standards on information technology with criminalistic and procedural aspects of evidence recording. Universal terms and definitions were introduced, which had been absent in the current Russian legislation. They were adapted for all types of legal proceedings, taking into account the specifics of the digital environment. A typical model of working with digital evidence was proposed, with identification, collection, receipt, preservation, analysis and presentation stages. The category of digital phonograms, videograms and videophonograms was proved to be a subtype of electronic discrete digital evidence.

Practical significance: the results can be used to improve procedural legislation regarding the regulation of work with electronic evidence. They can help to develop departmental instructions and practical recommendations for investigators, specialists and experts on the identification, collection, fixation, verification and evaluation of digital evidence. The proposed classification and conceptual framework contribute to the unification of approaches to the procedural design of electronic evidence. The result is minimizing procedural errors, increasing the competence of the proving subjects, and ensuring the admissibility and reliability of digital phonograms, videograms and videophonograms. The research materials are applicable in the training of lawyers, investigators, and forensic experts specializing in digital forensics

1. An, S. S. (2017). The admissibility of digital evidence. Korean Lawyers Association Journal, 66(1), 5–56. https://doi.org/10.17007/klaj.2017.66.1.001

2. Awwad, A. (2025). Digital evidence in forensic accounting: A study in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, 5(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215092501001

3. Belkin, A. R. (2007). Theory of proving in criminal judicial procedure. Moscow: Norma. (In Russ.).

4. Bodrov, N. F., & Lebedeva, A. K. (2024). Analysis of the case law establishing circumstances of illegal distribution of generative content created using artificial intelligence. Legal Studies, 11. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7136.2024.11.72540

5. Cheretskikh, A. V. (2023). Digital (electronic) evidence in criminal proceedings. Legal Order: History, Theory, Practice, 4(39), 110–117. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47475/2311-696X-2023-39-4-110-117

6. Guttman, B., White, D. R., & Walraven, T. (2022). Digital Evidence Preservation Considerations for Evidence Handlers. NIST Interagency Report NIST IR 8387. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387

7. Hosmer, C. (2006). Digital evidence bag. Communications of the ACM, 49(2), 69–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/1113034.1113072

8. Insa, F. (2007). The admissibility of electronic evidence in court (A.E.E.C.). Computer Law & Security Review, 23(5), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2007.07.002

9. Malyk, A. V. (2023). Formation and nature of electronic evidence. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Pravo, 3(54), 45–51. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17308/law/1995-5502/2023/3/45-51

10. Maurer, U. (2004). New approaches to digital evidence. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(6), 933–947. https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2004.827358

11. Politsan, D. A. (2022). “Digital” and “Electronic” evidence – pro et contra: problems of terminology. Rossiyskiy sudya, 7, 38–44. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2022-7-38-44

12. Reedy, P. (2020). Interpol review of digital evidence for 2016–2019. Forensic Science International: Synergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.01.015

13. Reedy, P. (2022). Interpol review of digital evidence for 2019–2022. Forensic Science International: Synergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100313

14. Romaniuk, V. V. (2024). Criteria for the admissibility of digital (electronic) evidence in criminal proceedings. Problems of Legal Regulation, 59(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2024-2-10

15. Rybaczewska, M., & Sparks, L. (2022). Digital evidence and online consumer engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 65, Article 102889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102889

16. Shikhaliyeva, S. Z. (2025). The absence of a hash sum as a procedural error arising in a forensic examination when analysing objects in a digital form. The Rule-Of-Law State: Theory and Practice, 21.1(79), 256–263. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2025.1.28

17. Tripathi, S., & Meshram, B. B. (2022). Digital evidence for database tamper detection. Advances in Multidisciplinary and Scientific Research Journal Publication, 1(1), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.22624/aims/crp-bk3-p30

18. Turner, P. (2005). Unification of digital evidence from disparate sources (Digital Evidence Bags). Digital Investigation, 2(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2005.07.001

19. Vlasov, O. O. (2024). Classification of tasks for forensic video analysis. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 19(2), 14–25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2024-2-14-25

20. Voronin, M. I. (2021). Characteristics of electronic (digital) evidence assessment. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 8(129), 118–128. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2021.129.8.118-128

21. Voznyuk, M. A., & Denisov, Yu. A. (2017). Forensic diagnostics of the circumstances of digital video and audio production: analytical review. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 12(1), 48–71. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/64/1819-2785-2017-12-1-48-71

22. Zemskova, A. V., & Minakov, S. S. (2023). Features of the use of tools for searching and documenting computer information during investigative actions on inspection. Vestnik economicheskoy bezopasnosti, 2, 74–85. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2414-3995-2023-2-74-85

23. Zubov, G. N. (2020). Actualizing the concept of “special technical means for covert obtaining of information” in the photovideoscopic expertise. Vestnik kriminalistiki, 2(74), 52–60. (In Russ.).

24. Zubov, G. N., Timoshenko, A. A. (2014). Using digital audio- and videophonograms in proving. Ugolovniy protsess, 2(110), 52–61. (In Russ.).

25. Zubov, G. N., Zubova, P. I. (2023). Falsification of audio information using artificial intelligence technologies. Features of technical research. Vestnik kriminalistiki, 3(87), 5–26. (In Russ.).