OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023)

279

NOTES AND REFLECTIONS

PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE BASED ON

BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES

OTABEK PIRMATOV

pirmatov.otabek.89@inbox.ru

Assistant Professor of the Department of Civil Procedural and Economic Procedural Law,

Tashkent State University of Law (Uzbekistan), Doctor of Philosophy in Law (PhD)

Introduction

Digital evidence is fundamentally different from physical evidence and written evidence.

Securing physical evidence is primarily to prevent it from being lost or difficult to obtain

in the future.

Compared to traditional evidence, electronic evidence is fragile, easy to change and

delete, and difficult to guarantee its authenticity. For example, data on a personal

computer may be lost due to misuse, virus attack, etc. During the preparation of the

case, the video can be deleted in order to hide the facts. In fact, most electronic evidence

is stored in a central database. If the database is unreliable, the validity of the data is

not guaranteed. Obviously, how to ensure the authenticity and integrity of digital

evidence is very important when storing it.

Because digital evidence is created by special high-tech, it is easier to change it in

practice. More attention should be paid to its authenticity. Digital evidence is more likely

to be tampered with in practice.

The main methods of digital evidence storage (pre-trial provision) in civil court

proceedings are as follows:

1) sealing or closing the means of keeping the original of evidence;

2) printing, photographing and sound or visual recording;

This text is devoted the issues of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies in civil

court proceedings. The article states that since it is not possible to change and delete evidence based on

block-chain technology, contracts based on blockchain technology and documents issued by government

bodies are considered acceptable evidence by the courts. It is highlighted that the usage of evidence based

on block-chain technology in conducting civil court cases will prevent the need for notarization of digital

evidence by the parties in the future.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

280

3) drawing up reports;

4) authentication;

5) provision through a notary office;

6) storage through block-chain;

7) casting a time stamp (time stamp).

Block-chain is a database where data is securely stored. This is achieved by connecting

each new record with the previous one, resulting in a chain consisting of data blocks

("block chain" in English)—hence the name. Physically, the blockchain database is

distributed, allowing authorized users to independently add data. It is impossible to make

changes to previously stored data, as this action will break the chain, and it is

"immutability" that makes the block-chain a safe and reliable means of storing digital

records in public databases

Officially, the history of “blocks and chains” begins on October 31, 2008, when someone

under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto mentioned the blockchain in a white paper (base

document) about the network of the first cryptocurrency - bitcoin. The fundamental

principles for applying decentralization and immutability to document accounting were

laid down as early as the 1960s and 1970s, but the closest to them are the works of

scientists Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornett, who in 1991 described a scheme for

sequentially creating blocks in which a hash is located. The technology was even

patented, but for its time it became a Da Vinci helicopter - there was no technical

possibility to implement the idea, and interest in it disappeared. The patent expired in

2004, just four years before Satoshi and his white paper appeared

1. Literature review

S.S. Gulyamov defines block-chain as follows: blockchain (chain of blocks) is a distributed

set of data, in which data storage devices are not connected to a common server. These

data sets are called blocks and are stored in an ever-growing list of ordered records. Each

block will have a timestamp and a reference to the previous block. The use of encryption

ensures that users cannot write to the file without them, while the presence of private

keys can only modify a certain part of the blockchains.

In addition, encryption ensures synchronization of all users' copies of the distributed

chain of blocks (Gulyamov, 2019: 114).

Primavera De Filippi and Aaron Wright (2018) point out that block-chain technology is

different from other electronic evidence because it cannot be forgotten. The technology

itself has evidential value for the judicial system.

Markus Kaulartz, Jonas Gross, Constantin Lichti, Philipp Sandner define block-chain

technology is getting increasingly renowned, as more and more companies develop

blockchain-based prototypes, e.g., in the context of payments, digital identities, and the

https://www.gazeta.uz/uz/2022/08/26/blockchain-technology/

https://www.forbes.ru/mneniya/456381-cto-takoe-blokcejn-vse-cto-nuzno-znat-o-tehnologii

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

281

supply chain. One use case of blockchain is often seen in the tamper-proof storage of

information and documentation of facts. This is due to the fact that records on a block-

chain are “practically resistant” to manipulation as a consequence of the underlying

cryptography and the consensus mechanism.

If a block-chain is used for storing information, the question arises whether the data stored

on a block-chain can be used as evidence in court. In the following article, we will analyze

this question

According to Alexey Sereda, the correct usage of blockchain technologies will eliminate

the need for lawyers to perform certain mechanical tasks to a significant extent: checking

counterparties, contacting other experts (bodies), the need for notarization, etc. All this

allows lawyers to focus their efforts on solving other more important tasks

Vivien Chan and Anna Mae Koo define blockchain is a decentralized and open distributed

ledger technology. Electronic data (e.g. in a transaction on an e-shopping platform, the

transaction time, purchase amount, currency and participants, etc.) will be uploaded to

a network of computers in “blocks”. Since the data saved in a blockchain is stored in a

network of computers in a specific form and is publicly available for anyone to view, the

data is irreversible and difficult to be manipulated.

Anyone who has handled an online infringement case knows the race against time in

preserving evidence. However, screenshots saved in PDF formats are easy to be

tampered with and are of scant probative value before the Chinese courts, unless

notarized. Making an appointment with, and appearing before a notary is another time-

consuming and expensive process.

With blockchain, these procedures can be simplified and improved in the following ways:-

1. E-evidence can be saved as blockchain online instantaneously without a notary

public;

2. Cost for generating blockchain evidence is lower than traditional notarization;

3. Admissibility of block-chain evidence has been confirmed by statute and many courts

in China because of the tamper-free nature of block-chain technology;

4. Possible combination of online monitoring and evidence collection process: with

blockchain technology and collaboration with different prominent online platforms

(e.g. Weixin), it is possible to automate online monitoring of your intellectual

property—blockchain evidence is saved automatically when potential infringing

contents are found

According to Matej Michalko, in the previous trials of dispute cases, evidence preservation

usually requires the involvement of a third-party authority such as a notary office, and

relevant persons are required to fix the evidence under the witness of the notary. With

the more frequent use of electronic evidence, most of the third-party electronic data

preservation platforms have investigated the pattern of “block-chain + evidence

www.jonasgross.medium.com/legal-aspects-of-blockchain-technology-part-1-blockchain-as-evidence-in-

court-704ab7255cf5

https://blockchain24.pro/blokcheyn-i-yurisprudentsiya

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1631e87b-155a-40b4-a6aa-5260a2e4b9bb

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

282

collection and preservation”, which is applying blockchain technology to the traditional

electronic evidence preservation practice (i.e., uploading the preserved evidence to a

block-chain platform). If it is necessary, you can apply online for an expert opinion from

the judicial expertise center. (Michalko, 2019: 7).

Today, the task of providing electronic evidence before the court is carried out by

notaries.

Data recorded on a blockchain is in essence a chronological chain of digitally signed

transactions. Thus, admissibility of block-chain evidence is highly correlated to

acceptance of electronic signatures in a legal setting. Not all electronic signatures provide

the same level of assurance. (Murray, 2016: 517-519).

The usage of this technology when concluding transactions or receiving any official

documents from the state greatly simplifies the process of proof, as it allows to track the

entire history of changes made to the information stored in the blockchain. It also reliably

protects them from illegal attempts to tamper or forge. Such evidence will be nearly

impossible to challenge, although the risk of hacking or fraudulent activity remains.

Second, if the court session is conducted using video conferencing, the blockchain can

be easily used by the participants in the court session. Given the development of remote

technologies caused by the coronavirus pandemic, this situation must be taken into

account. Thus, thanks to the use of blockchain, it is possible to significantly reduce the

time for consideration of cases in courts, increase the transparency of court proceedings

and ensure the necessary confidentiality of information.

If the contracts concluded by the parties are based on the blockchain technology or if the

state authorities draw up their documents based on the blockchain technology, then it

would be possible to evaluate the blockchain technology as evidence by the courts. Now

in our country, government bodies are signing their documents with Q-code.

According to Boris Glushenkov, the successful implementation of the blockchain will also

change the courts: firstly, there will be no need to make decisions for concrete things.

Second, evidence changes: electronic evidence is viewed with skepticism in courts.

Maybe blockchain can change that

In civil litigation, evidence was evaluated as evidence only if it met each of the criteria of

relevance, admissibility, and reliability. Likewise, numerical evidence must meet the

requirements of relevance, acceptability, and reliability of evidence evaluation criteria.

Failure to evaluate digital evidence with one of the evidentiary evaluation criteria may

result in its inadmissibility as evidence in court.

According to Yuhei Okakita, In civil litigation, any form of evidence can generally be

submitted to the court. That is, the court accepts not only physical documents but also

digital data as evidence. Of course, civil procedure laws vary from country to country,

but electronic evidence is recognized in many legislations such as the EU, the United

States, or Japan. Since it can be said that blockchain certificates are a kind of digital

data, it should be accepted in most courts as admissible evidence.

https://blockchain24.pro/blokcheyn-i-yurisprudentsiya

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

283

So, you can submit the certificate to the court. However, the question is how judges

evaluate the evidence. Let's to through an example relevant for e.g. the German or

Japanese system: in these systems, it is up to the discretion of the judge to decide

whether the certificate will be taken into consideration. If the judge believes the

authenticity of the certificate, it will become the basis of the judgment.

Let's suppose that the claim of a defendant in a dispute could be validated with the data

certified with a blockchain transaction. The judge decides on the authenticity of the

submitted evidence based on the opinions of both parties. The defendant will explain the

concept of blockchain immutability achieved with the consensus mechanism, and the

other party will argue the possibility that the information on the blockchain has been

tampered with. After the judge considers both stories and takes a position regarding the

authenticity of the information, s/he will make a decision accordingly

According to Zihui (Katt) Gu, For the blockchain evidence to be admissible, the

authenticity of the source of the electronic data must first be confirmed, whether through

examination of the original or comprehensive consideration of all the evidence at hand

The admissibility of digital evidence is one of the problems of judicial evaluation of

evidence in civil litigation.

In ensuring the admissibility of electronic evidence in foreign countries, transferring it to

the blockchain software or evaluating the evidence in the blockchain software as

admissible evidence is of great importance.

According to Van Yojun, if blockchain technology can be applied to any digital evidence,

regardless of whether it is a criminal or civil trial, the general expected benefits can be

achieved, including: ensuring the integrity and accuracy of data, preventing the

tampering of data or evidence, increasing the transparency of legal proceedings, Court

proceedings are easy to follow, accelerated and simplified

2. Issues of application of blockchain technology in the legislation of

foreign countries

The Federal Government of the United States has not exercised its constitutional power

to implement legislation regulating the admissibility of blockchain evidence in court.

Thus, states enjoy residual power to implement their own legislation. The Federal Rules

of Evidence establish a minimum requirement in what is referred to as the ‘best evidence

rule which establishes that the best evidence must be used at trial. Rule 1002 of the

Federal Rules of Evidence states “An original writing, recording, or photograph is required

in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise”.

Several states have regulated blockchain through introducing their own legislation and

rules, particularly with regard to the regulation of cryptocurrency – or as termed by

various legislators, virtual currencies. New York kickstarted legislative developments in

https://www.bernstein.io/blog/2020/1/17/can-digital-data-stored-on-blockchain-be-a-valid-evidence-in-

ip-litigation

http://illinoisjltp.com/timelytech/blockchain-based-evidence-preservation-opportunities-and-concerns/

https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/130752

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

284

the USA through the regulation of virtual currency companie, and eventually several

states followed suit, with 32 states implementing their own rules and regulations. The

states of Illinois, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, New York and Ohio have

passed or introduced legislation which specifically regulates the admissibility of

blockchain evidence in court

In April 2018, 1 22 member states signed the Declaration for a European Blockchain

Partnership (EBP) in order to “cooperate on the development of a European Blockchain

Services Infrastructure.”2 With its ambitious goal of identifying initial use cases and

developing functional specifications by the end of the year, the EBP should be an

important catalyst for the use of blockchain technology by European government

agencies

In October 2018, discussions were underway among the Azerbaijani Internet Forum (AIF)

for the Ministry of Justice to implement blockchain technology in several departments

within its remit. Currently, the Ministry provides more than 30 electronic services and 15

information systems and registries, including “electronic notary, electronic courts,

penitentiary service, information systems of non-governmental organizations”, and the

notary office” which would involve the notarization of electronic documents. Through this

process, the registry’s entries will be stored on blockchain which parties will be able to

access but not change, thus preventing falsification. Future plans also include employing

smart contracts in public utility services such as water, gas and electricity

Blockchain technology is a new way to build a network. Today, almost all service systems

in the Internet system work on the basis of a centralized network, that is, the data

warehouse is located on a central server, and users receive data by connecting to this

server. The main difference of blockchain technology is that there is no need for a central

server and all network participants have equal rights. The network database is kept by

each user.

One of the main reasons why evidence based on blockchain technology is considered

admissible by courts is that blockchain technology is transparent, that is, it is not affected

by the human factor.

According to the Decision of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated July 3,

2018, "On measures to develop the digital economy in the Republic of Uzbekistan":

− basic concepts in the field of "blockchain" technologies and principles of its operation;

− powers of state bodies, as well as process participants in the field of "blockchain"

technologies;

− measures of responsibility for using "blockchain" technologies for illegal purposes.

The State Services Agency of the Republic of Uzbekistan has decided that starting from

December 2020, the country's registry offices will operate based on blockchain

technology. However, as of today, this system has not yet been launched. It would be

https://blog.bcas.io/blockchain_court_evidence

https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/reports

https://blog.bcas.io/blockchain_court_evidence

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

285

appropriate if the documents issued not only by registry authorities, but also by tax

authorities, cadastral departments, transactions concluded by notary offices, and most

importantly, decisions of district and city mayors and reports issued by electronic auction,

e-active, would be accepted based on blockchain technology.

Agreements concluded by notary offices in civil courts, decisions of district and city

mayors, and reports issued by electronic auction serve as the main written evidence

confirming ownership rights.

Due to the widespread involvement of information technologies in all spheres of social

life in our country, the above bodies are also moving to receive documents in electronic

form.

Also, distribution of electricity based on blockchain technology is being carried out in

Uzbekistan based on South Korean technology. Perhaps, in the future, electricity

contracts in our country may be concluded on the basis of blockchain technology.

3. Discussion

With the development of the Internet and information technology, digital data has

gradually become an important part of the evidence system in civil court cases, which

cannot be ignored. Among all types of digital data, blockchain evidence is a relatively

new type.

A proper blockchain is not a proof itself, but a technical implementation method of

storing, transporting and correcting digital data.

Blockchain is just a storage technology, the purpose of which is to ensure the authenticity

and reliability of digital data. The most important thing is to determine the authenticity

of the digital data.

Improvements in blockchain technology can make electronic documents flow more

quickly and improve the efficiency of their assessment in courts. However, compared to

the traditional notarization method of securing electronic evidence, blockchain-based

evidence storage lags behind. That is, there are not enough normative legal documents

on the implementation of blockchain technologies in the field of justice. Notarization,

which has become a means of preventing falsification of electronic documents, is rarely

used in legal practice, because notarization of electronic evidence requires excessive time

and money for the parties.

It includes digital signatures, reliable time stamps and hash value verification to prove

the authenticity of the submitted data using blockchain technology. Parties must be able

to demonstrate how blockchain technology has been used to collect and store evidence.

Due to the decentralization of information in the blockchain network, it is very difficult

for hackers to exploit. Additionally, since each block contains the hash of the previous

block, any transaction within the blockchain is done by changing it.

Check Hash Value: After computing any electronic file using hash algorithm, only one

hash value can be obtained. If the content of the electronic file changes, the resulting

hash value will also change. The uniqueness and non-repeatability of the hash value

ensures the immutability of electronic files.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

286

The verifier can use the hash value written to the blockchain to verify the original data

to verify that the data is valid and has not been tampered with.

Encrypting evidence can also ensure its safe storage. At a basic level, encryption uses a

secret key to ensure that only those with access can read the file by encrypting the file's

contents.

It is possible to prepare documents based on blockchain technology in applications such

as SharpShark, SynPat, WordProof, Waves, EUCD, DMCA.

The main reason why evidence based on blockchain technology is considered acceptable

evidence in foreign countries is its technological structure. We can see the following

unique features of it:

- at the discretion of one of the parties, it is not possible to change and add (falsify

and destroy) documents based on blockchain technology;

- documents based on blockchain technology are a technology resistant to hacker

attacks, which means that electronic evidence based on blockchain technology

cannot be tampered with by third parties;

- in blockchain technology, there is no need for a central server, and all network

participants have equal rights. A network database stores every user in it.

The lack of possibility of falsification and alteration of the evidence based on blockchain

technology makes it considered acceptable evidence by the courts.

According to the civil procedural law, the admissibility of the evidence must be confirmed

by certain means of proof according to this law.

In order to ensure the admissibility of electronic evidence, it is appropriate to create

electronic documents, electronic transactions using blockchain technology, and to

improve the legislation in this regard.

The following features of blockchain evidence should be considered:

1. To review the authenticity of the blockchain evidence. Specifically, it means that the

court should examine whether the blockchain evidence is likely to be tampered with

in the process of formation, transmission, extraction and display, and to the extent

of such possibility.

2. To review the legitimacy of the blockchain evidence. Specifically, it means that the

court should examine whether the collection, storage and extraction methods of

blockchain evidence comply with the law, and whether they infringe on the legitimate

rights and interests of others.

3. To review the relevance of blockchain evidence. Specifically, it means that the court

should examine whether there is a substantial connection between the blockchain

evidence and the facts to be proved

https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/when-blockchain-meets-electronic-evidence-in-china-s-internet-

courts

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

287

Conclusion

Blockchain storage solves the problem of securely storing digital data. In a sense,

blockchain storage is an authentication or auxiliary storage method. Currently,

blockchain storage is a more indirect authentication method.

One of the peculiarities of blockchain technology in legal science is that the use of this

technology when concluding transactions or obtaining any official documents from

government authorities greatly simplifies the process of proof. Due to this, the blockchain

allows to track the entire history of changes made to the data stored in the "data" and

reliably protects against illegal attempts to tamper with or falsify the data. Such evidence

would be nearly impossible to challenge, but the risk of hacking or fraudulent activity

remains, albeit partially. Second, if court hearings are held online, the possibility of

blockchain use by court hearing participants will increase even more. Thus, due to the

use of blockchain, it is possible to significantly reduce the time of consideration of cases

in civil courts and to increase the transparency of judicial processes and ensure the

necessary confidentiality of information.

Because public offering of goods and services on social networks has become popular in

our country. Purchase of goods and services on social networks is carried out through

mutual correspondence. Correspondence in the social network can be deleted or

changed. This creates problems in evaluating social network correspondence as evidence

in civil courts.

The adoption of blockchain technologies by social networks may also lead to the use of

social media correspondence as evidence in courts in the future.

References

Blockchain 24, consulted online, available at https://blockchain24.pro/blokcheyn-i-

yurisprudentsiya

Chan, Viviene (2020). Blockchain Evidence in Internet Courts in China: The Fast Track

for Evidence Collection for Online Disputes. Consulted online, available at

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1631e87b-155a-40b4-a6aa-

5260a2e4b9bb

De Filippi, Primavera and Wright, Aaron (2018). Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of

Code. Harvard University Press.

Du, Guodong and Yu, Meng (2021). “When Blockchain Meets Electronic Evidence in

China's Internet Courts”, China Justice Observer Consulted online, available at

https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/when-blockchain-meets-electronic-evidence-

in-china-s-internet-courts

European Union blockchain observatory & forum, blockchain for government and public

services (Dec. 7, 2018), https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/reports

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 279-288

Notes and Reflections

Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain technologies

Otabek Pirmatov

288

Fedorov, Pavel (2022). “What is blockchain: everything you need to know about the

technology”, Forbes, consulted online, available at

https://www.forbes.ru/mneniya/456381-cto-takoe-blokcejn-vse-cto-nuzno-znat-o-

tehnologii

Gazeta.uz (2022). Blockchain technology is not a problem, but it is a problem that has

to be solved. Consulted online, available at

https://www.gazeta.uz/uz/2022/08/26/blockchain-technology/

Gross, Jonas (2020). Legal aspects of blockchain technology. Consulted online, availabe at

www.jonasgross.medium.com/legal-aspects-of-blockchain-technology-part-1-

blockchain-as-evidence-in-court-704ab7255cf5

Gulyamov, S. (2019). Blockchain technologies in the digital economy. Textbook, p. 114.

iThome (2022). Taiwan Takes the Lead in Judicial Blockchain Applications] An Inventory

of Global Judicial Blockchain Applications, consulted online, available at

https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/130752

Michalko, Matej (2019). “Blockchain ‘witness’: a new evidence model in consumer

disputes”. International journal on consumer law and practice. V.7., p.7.

Murray, Andrew (2016). Information Technology Law, p. 517-519.

Okakita, Yuhei (2020). Can digital data stored on Blockchain be valid evidence in IP

litigation?. Consulted online, available at https://www.bernstein.io/blog/2020/1/17/can-

digital-data-stored-on-blockchain-be-a-valid-evidence-in-ip-litigation

Pollacco, Alexia (2020). The Interaction between Blockchain Evidence and Courts – A

cross-jurisdictional analysis. Consulted online, available at

https://blog.bcas.io/blockchain_court_evidence

The Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, consulted online, available at

http://illinoisjltp.com/timelytech/blockchain-based-evidence-preservation-

opportunities-and-concerns/

How to cite this note

Pirmatov, Otabek (2023). Problems of evaluation of digital evidence based on blockchain

technologies. Notes and Reflections in Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Vol. 14, Nº

1, May-October 2023. Consulted [online] on date of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-

7251.14.1.01