Summary

Digital technologies have expanded the evidentiary landscape in criminal proceedings, but they also introduce volatility, intangibility and scale that make traditional approaches to evidentiary scrutiny inadequate. This article explains how digital evidence can be meaningfully assessed through three minimum quality attributes – authenticity, integrity and reliability – and how these attributes should be substantiated in practice. The article reviews Estonian criminal procedure, where digital evidence lacks a dedicated statutory regime and the same digital content may appear as different evidentiary forms, affecting evidence documentation and later contestability. It then analyses recurring practical problems: incomplete documentation of who handled and processed data; limited forensic competence and non-uniform use of standards by investigators; and cross-border evidence and large datasets (e.g., ANOM/SKY ECC-type cases) where chain of custody and processing logic are opaque and automated processing risks material error. The author argues that courts’ reliance on a presumption of reliability in relation to digital evidence, can improperly shift the burden to the defence. The author further connects evidentiary transparency to fair-trial guarantees under CJEU and ECHR case law. The article concludes by outlining potential solutions.