Content uploaded by Angus M Marshall
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Angus M Marshall on Apr 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
SUPPLEMENT:
Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S1
Summary
The Draft Convention is the first treaty dealing with the status of electronic evidence, covering civil and criminal
proceedings; the investigation and examination of electronic evidence, and general provisions regarding the
recognition and admissibility of electronic evidence from foreign jurisdictions.
Convention on Electronic Evidence
London,
Preamble
[The States signatory hereto],
Considering that the aim of the Drafting Committee is to encourage judges and lawyers to appreciate the concept of
evidence in electronic form;
Recognising the value of promoting international co-operation with [the other States that are Parties] to this
Convention;
Convinced of the need to pursue, as a matter of priority, a common policy on electronic evidence;
Conscious that the profound changes brought about by the machine and software code (collectively ‘digital systems’)
have altered the means by which evidence is authenticated, in that the medium and the content are no longer
bound together as with paper, and that the rules established for paper do not always apply to evidence in electronic
form;
Concerned by the risk that electronic evidence can be misunderstood and misinterpreted;
Recognising that evidence in electronic form has unique characteristics that are significantly different to paper and
other objects, which raise complex questions about the integrity and reliability of data in electronic form;
Recognising the need to facilitate the co-operation between States for the proper receipt, handling and
authentication of electronic evidence;
Believing that it is in the interests of justice to provide for fairness in legal proceedings;
Have agreed as follows:
Part I – Use of terms
Article 1 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention:
“adjudicator” means any person that is lawfully appointed as a judge, arbitrator or to any other role that requires
the holder of the office to act in a judicious and unbiased manner;
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S2
“attribution” means the assigning of responsibility for or tracing the origin of an act purported to have been
performed or committed using or through a computer device, system or network;
“authentication” means the process by which any electronic record, document, statement or other thing is proven to
be what it claims to be;
“computer” means any device capable of performing mathematical or logical instructions;
“court” means any international court, national court, statutory arbitral or other tribunal, board or commission
according to national law of the contracting state;
“electronic evidence” means evidence derived from data contained in or produced by any device the functioning of
which depends on a software program or from data stored on or communicated over a computer system or
network;
“electronic record” means data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a device programmed by software
code and that can be read or perceived by a person or any such device, and includes a display, printout or other
output that represents the data;
“device” means any apparatus or tool operating alone or connected to other apparatus or tools, that processes
information or data in electronic form;
“digital” means anything that relies on technology based on a binary system or any future development or
replacement technology of the same;
“digital evidence practitioner” means a person who is appropriately qualified, and where the law requires,
authorized, to investigate and examine evidence in electronic form;
“legal proceeding” means any formal procedure that takes place before any court, national or international, a
statutory arbitral or other tribunal, board or commission according to national law and charged with legally defined
duties and obligations, or any other formal legal process;
“metadata” means data that describe other data;
“program” means any set of instructions stored in a machine-readable format that can be used to perform a function
in a repeatable and reproducible manner;
“relevant legal proceedings” means the legal proceedings for which data in electronic form is requested under a
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or any other bilateral or multilateral instrument;
“tool” means any device or software program that can be used to identify, secure, examine and analyse electronic
evidence.
Part II – Status of electronic evidence
Article 2 – Admissibility of electronic evidence
1. Evidence in electronic form shall be admitted into legal proceedings.
2. Article 2(1) does not modify any existing national rule that applies to the admissibility of evidence, except in
relation to the rules relating to authenticity and best evidence.
Article 3 – Agreement on the admissibility of electronic evidence
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S3
1. Unless otherwise provided in any law operating in the relevant jurisdiction, an electronic record or document may
be tendered, subject to the discretion and rules of the court, if the Parties to the proceedings have expressly agreed
to its introduction.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1), an agreement between the Parties on the admissibility of an
electronic record or document does not render the record admissible in a criminal proceeding if at the time the
agreement was made
(a) the accused person or any of the persons accused in the proceeding was not represented by a lawyer;
(b) except where the adjudicator finds that admitting the record or document into evidence does not
prejudice the case for the accused.
Article 4 – Authentication of electronic evidence
1. The party seeking to introduce electronic evidence in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving it is what it
claims to be.
2. The matters set out below are to be considered when assessing that evidence in electronic form is what it claims
to be:
(a) The data (both the content and associated metadata) relied upon in any legal proceedings can be shown
to be an accurate representation of the prevailing and existing state of those data at the time relevant to the
legal proceedings.
(b) If the data have changed from the moment they were identified (and possibly seized) as potential
evidence in legal proceedings, there is an accurate and reliable method of documenting any such changes,
including the reasons for any such modifications.
(c) The continuity of the data between the moment in time the data were obtained for legal purposes and
their submission as an exhibit in legal proceedings can be demonstrated.
(d) Any techniques that were used to obtain, secure and process the data can be tested and shown to have
been appropriate for the purpose for which they were applied.
(e) The technical and organizational evidence demonstrates that the integrity of the data is trustworthy, and
can therefore be considered reliable and complete (insofar as the data can be complete), which in turn will
depend on the circumstances surrounding the data at the time they were identified as being potentially
relevant in legal proceedings.
Article 5 – Best evidence
1. In any legal proceeding, where any printout, document or other physical manifestation of the result or output or
appearance of any electronic process, record or any other representation of that process or record has been
manifestly or consistently acted on, relied upon, or used as the record of the information represented by or stored
on the printout, the printout or other physical manifestation shall be considered the best evidence and admitted as
evidence subject to satisfactory proof of its integrity.
2. Where the output of a process is relied upon, and it remains in electronic form, the best evidence rule remains,
subject to the provisions of Article 4(2).
3. Article 5(1) and (2) do not modify any domestic rule that applies to the admission of evidence.
Part III – Investigation and examination of digital evidence
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S4
Article 6 – Digital evidence practitioner
1. Since digital evidence practitioners are required to make informed judgements about the appropriateness of the
tools and techniques they use to secure and preserve electronic evidence, the Parties shall establish minimum
standards for their formal education and training.
2. A digital evidence practitioner must be able to provide, in compliance with the necessary court and legal
requirements:
(a) an analysis of their findings, setting out the scientifically agreed basis upon which their judgement is
based; and
(b) shall identify and explain any data that appear to be inconsistent with their findings.
3. The primary duty of the digital evidence practitioner is to the court.
Article 7 – The use of good practice guidelines for electronic evidence
1. The Parties to the Convention shall establish a Forum for the development of good practice and guidelines in the
acquisition, handling and otherwise processing of electronic evidence in the form of a set of agreed common
requirements.
2. The forum shall:
(a) Include participation from at least two thirds of all Parties to the Convention.
(b) Establish its own rules of procedure and may establish subcommittees to consider specific issues.
(c) Be funded on a basis to be agreed.
(d) Submit the first edition of its agreed common requirements to the Parties within two (2) years of this
Convention coming into force for subsequent adoption by the Parties.
(e) Produce updates and amendments to the agreed common requirements as deemed desirable and
necessary by the Forum and in any case every two years, or a statement that an update is not currently
necessary.
3. Except where incompatible or inconsistent with national legislation, codes or procedure, the Parties to this
Convention shall implement agreed common requirements on the acquisition, obtaining, packaging, processing and
examination of electronic evidence.
4. The agreed common requirements shall be:
(a) Drafted by reference to the guidelines established by the Forum.
(b) Adopted within [time period to be agreed] of accession to this Convention or within [time period to be
agreed] of the publication of the first version of the agreed common requirements by the Forum, wherever
is the sooner.
(c) Implemented by all national and government departments charged with legal duties and obligations
involving the use, handling or processing of electronic evidence.
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S5
5. Any authority responsible for investigating a matter involving the criminal law shall apply and follow the agreed
common requirements unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances where they cannot be followed.
6. Where, under Article 7(5) above, the agreed common requirements have not been complied with for exceptional
circumstances, those circumstances and the reasons shall be recorded in writing at the time of the departure from
the agreed common requirements and the written record shall be admissible in legal proceedings.
Part IV – Treatment of electronic evidence upon receipt
Article 8 – The requesting party
1. The provisions of this Article apply where the requesting party makes a request for evidence in electronic form to
the sending party.
2. When the requesting party makes a request for evidence in electronic form, regardless of the mechanism by
which the evidence is requested, the requesting party shall provide a legally binding undertaking in writing to the
sending party to include the following:
(a) An assurance that the data shall be dealt with in accordance with how evidence in legal proceedings is
normally dealt in the requesting parties’ jurisdiction under the relevant legislation, procedural rules and
rules of professional conduct.
(b) Copies of the data shall only be given to parties authorized to receive the data that are part of the
relevant legal proceedings.
(c) Data provided under the provisions of this Article 8 shall only be used for purposes related to the relevant
legal proceedings.
(d) The sending party may waive the provisions of Article 8(2)(b). The terms of any such waiver shall be
decided by the parties in a form and to the extent that they determine.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Article 8(2) above, all data in electronic form that is provided to the
requesting party shall be the subject of all the relevant laws of the requesting party, including, but not limited to,
confidentiality, the protection of data and the security of data.
4. The assurances provided by the receiving party under the provisions of Article 8(2) above may be provided in
physical or electronic form as is agreed between the parties.
5. The provisions of Article 8(3) shall also apply to any other receiving party authorised to receive the data that are
part of the relevant legal proceedings.
Part V – General provisions
Article 9 – Admissibility of electronic evidence from other jurisdictions
1. Where electronic evidence originates in another jurisdiction, its admissibility is not impaired if the electronic
evidence is proven in accordance with Article 3 or the authenticity of the evidence is otherwise demonstrated.
2. The provisions of this Article 9 do not modify any domestic rule that applies to evidence in electronic form
obtained contrary to relevant human rights legislation or data protection legislation.
Article 10 – Recognition of foreign electronic evidence and signatures
1. In determining whether or not, or to what extent, data in electronic form are legally effective, no regard shall be
had to the geographical location where the data were created or used or to the place of business of their creation,
provided those data are located in the domestic jurisdiction.
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S6
2. Where the electronic record or document is located in a foreign jurisdiction, Article 10(1) above does not apply
unless –
(a) the party who adduces evidence of the contents of an electronic record or document has, not less than
14 days before the day on which the evidence is adduced, served on each other party a copy of the
electronic record or document proposed to be tendered, except where exceptional, urgent and exigent
circumstances apply;
(b) the court directs that it is to apply; or
(c) there is an international treaty in effect establishing recognition of electronic records or documents or of
electronic signatures located in the foreign jurisdiction.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10(2)(a) above, what constitutes exceptional, urgent or exigent
circumstances for the purposes of this Article is a matter for the court seized with the matter.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10(2) above, an adjudicator may admit data in electronic form that are
located in a foreign jurisdiction if domestic law so provides.
Article 11 – Interpretation
1. Where the meaning of a word or phrase in this Convention differs from the meaning of a word or phrase defined
in any information technology literature, the adjudicator shall interpret the meaning in accordance with the
domestic law on the interpretation of words and phrases.
Article 12 – Entering into force
1. The Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit with the [name of
sponsoring organization].
2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the [third] instrument of ratification or
accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit by such State of its instrument
of ratification or accession.
Explanatory notes to the Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence
1. The main objective is to pursue a common policy towards electronic evidence, taking into account the differences
in the treatment of evidence in individual jurisdictions. This Convention does not seek to harmonize judicial systems.
The aim is to encourage judges and lawyers to more fully understand the concept of electronic evidence in the
interests of providing for fairness in legal proceedings; to promote adequate procedures in legal proceedings; to
implement appropriate legislation where necessary, and to promote international co-operation.
2. Part I Article 1 provides a number of definitions. The aim is to provide definitions that transcend legal cultures.
Although the definition of “authentication” does not include reference to relevant international or domestic
guidelines and standards, it does not preclude the use of such guidelines and standards in demonstrating
authenticity. The definition of “electronic evidence” is taken to be synonymous with the term “digital evidence”.
3. Part II considers the status of electronic evidence, covering the admissibility of electronic evidence (Articles 2 and
Article 3), authentication (article 4) and best evidence (Article 5).
4. Article 2 aims to provide minimum rules to the admissibility of electronic evidence. The purpose of Article 2(1) is
to prevent a party from seeking to exclude evidence in electronic form because it is in electronic form. Article 2(2)
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S7
does not modify any domestic rule relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence other than in relation to
authenticity and best evidence.
5. Article 3, regarding the agreement on admissibility of electronic evidence, is taken and adapted from the
Commonwealth Draft Model Law on Electronic Evidence and Electronic Evidence: Model Policy Guidelines &
Legislative Texts (Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures in the Caribbean,
International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Development Bureau, Geneva, 2013).
6. The provisions of Article 3(1) aim to permit the parties to a legal proceeding to agree on the authenticity of the
evidence. The purpose of Article is to simplify the legal process by reducing the time that might be spent in
authenticating documents and records in electronic form that both parties rely on. There is no point in increasing the
time (and costs) spent on unnecessary actions.
7. Article 4(1), deals with the process of proving that data in electronic form is what it claims to be. The word
authenticity is used, even though this may be considered to be irrelevant and out-of-date. To establish whether a
electronic record, document or other thing is proven to be what it claims to be, the tests regarding the integrity,
reliability and completeness of the data and therefore trustworthiness is more important. It is for the adjudicator to
assess the evidence before them to determine whether the data is what it claims to be. The term ‘authentic’ is used
by many jurisdictions in other contexts, such as the provision of an ‘authentic’ record. The word ‘authentication’
remains, but it should not be taken to override the domestic methods of determining whether a electronic record,
document or other thing is proven to be what it claims to be – nor does it refer to the ‘authentic’ record.
8. Article 4(2) was initially taken from Stephen Mason, Electronic Evidence (3rd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2012),
4.21. Both the Commonwealth Draft Model Law on Electronic Evidence and Electronic Evidence: Model Policy
Guidelines & Legislative Texts (Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures in the Caribbean,
International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Development Bureau, Geneva, 2013) provide for a
presumption (the term ‘judicial notice’ is also used in some jurisdictions – this term has a similar effect to the
presumption) that electronic evidence is ‘reliable’ or that a computer system or other similar device was ‘operating
properly’. No lawyer or judicial authority has put any evidence forward to establish what ‘reliability’ means in
relation to computers and computer like devices, or what ‘operating properly’ means. Because a minority of
jurisdictions adopts this presumption in the absence of any evidence that such a presumption is justified, it is
considered more appropriate to refrain from including such a presumption in the Draft Convention.
9. The provisions of Article 4(2) operate to require a party to demonstrate whether the data in electronic form it is
what it claims to be, and conversely, for the challenging party to cross examine to establish that the data is not an
accurate presentation of what it claims to be.
10. Article 5 specifically refers to the common law concept of best evidence. The term ‘original’ has deliberately not
been included in this Draft Convention. This is because the word ‘original’ has different meanings for lawyers and
notaries, and also in different jurisdictions. The term ‘original’ is not helpful when analysing evidence in electronic
form. This is because every item of data in electronic form is a copy. There can be no original.
11. Part III deals with the investigation and examination of electronic evidence in Articles 6 and 7.
12. Article 6 provides for the formal education and training of digital evidence practitioners. People that investigate,
seize and analyse evidence in electronic form ought to be educated and trained through a formal process. This is in
the interests of justice and fairness between the parties, and because evidence in electronic form is now ubiquitous
and an every-day part of legal proceedings.
13. Article 7 provides for the creation of a Forum to develop appropriate guidelines or standards for the process of
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S8
investigating evidence in electronic form. A number of guidelines exist at present. It is the interests of justice that
such guidelines are not only publicly available, but are developed by representatives from internationally respected
bodies. By developing a set of internationally recognized guidelines, adjudicators will be better informed when
assessing evidence in electronic form. The development of common guidelines or standards will also promote
confidence in and acceptance of the quality of evidence especially where obtained in another jurisdiction.
14. Part IV provides for the transmission of data in electronic form between jurisdictions. The terms of Article 8 do
not affect the provision of any Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, bilateral or multilateral instrument, or of any other
method of requesting evidence from a foreign jurisdiction. The purpose of this provision is to reassure the sending
party that the evidence sent will be dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the norms of the receiving
jurisdiction relating to evidence in legal proceedings. Some jurisdictions are wary of sending evidence without
suitable provision for the security and the protection of the people mentioned in the data.
15. Part V deals with general provisions. In particular, Article 9 on the admissibility of electronic evidence from other
jurisdictions attempts to deal with the difficult question of which set of legal requirements apply to evidence in
electronic form – whether it is of the State in which the evidence is geographically located, or the State in which the
evidence is to be submitted in a legal proceeding. Article 9(1) seeks to indicate that if the evidence is proven in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4, the matter of the geographical location is irrelevant. Alternatively, an
adjudicator can admit the evidence as being authentic where the authenticity of the evidence is demonstrated in
some other manner that is accepted by the adjudicator.
16. Article 10 provides that evidence in electronic form that ostensibly originates in a foreign jurisdiction can be
admitted, notwithstanding that it was not actually located in the domestic jurisdiction. The aim is to enable the
admission into a legal proceeding of electronic evidence and electronic signatures that might otherwise not be
admitted because of lack of formalities.
17. Although the provisions of Article 11(1) may appear to be open to interpretation, the clause mirrors many such
clauses in legislation relating to electronic commerce and communications across the world. Article 11(2) deals with
the inevitable disagreement between the meaning of words in a technical sense and a legal sense. When this occurs,
it is for the adjudicator to determine the meaning in accordance with the relevant provisions in domestic law on
interpretation. There has been no attempt to incorporate technical definitions into the Convention, because doing
so might cause greater uncertainty than is intended.
Select bibliography
A number of documents and studies have been conducted by various agencies in relation to aspects of electronic
evidence, some of which have influenced the development of this Draft Convention. They are listed below.
Unfortunately, they are limited to the English language. Participants in this exercise were encouraged to add to this
list any work undertaken in other jurisdictions and in other languages. The aim was to be inclusive, not exclusive.
For an introduction to the basis upon which this project was formed, see Stephen Mason, ‘Towards a global law of
digital evidence? An exploratory essay’ – published in Revista de Concorrência e Regulação, Ano VI, number 23-24,
julho– dezembro 2015, 239 – 258 and Amicus Curiae The Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies, Issue
103, Autumn 2015, 19 – 28.
Regional recommendations – European Union
Recommendation No R (81) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the harmonisation of laws
relating to the requirement of written proof and to the admissibility of reproduction of documents and recordings of
computers (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 December 1981 at the 341st meeting of the Ministers’
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S9
Deputies)
Recommendation No R (95) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning problems of criminal
procedural law connected with information technology (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September
1995 at the 543rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Reports
Bert-Jaap Koops and Morag Goodwin, Cyberspace, the cloud and cross-border criminal investigation The limits and
possibilities of international law, Commissioned by WODC, Ministry of Security & Justice (Tilburg University,
December 2014)
UNODC Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime (United Nations, New York, Draft – February 2013)
Model laws
Electronic Evidence: Model Policy Guidelines & Legislative Texts (Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and
Regulatory Procedures in the Caribbean, International Telecommunication Development Bureau, Geneva, 2013)
Commonwealth Draft Model Law on Electronic Evidence LLM(02)12
Projects
European Informatics Data Exchange Framework for Courts and Evidence (CSA (Supporting Action), Call ID FP7, grant
agreement number 608185, duration 32 months (March 2014 – October 2016))
The use of electronic evidence in civil and administrative law proceedings and its effect on the rules of evidence and
modes of proof: A comparative study and analysis (Stephen Mason, assisted by Uwe Rasmussen) (European
Committee on Legal Co-operation, Strasbourg, 27 July 2016, CDCJ(2015)14 final)
European Certificate on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence (ECCE project, Cybex and European Commission, 2007)
The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Court (EU AGIS 2005 Programme and Cybex, 2006)
Books
Stephen Mason, ed, Electronic Evidence (3rd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2012) [4th edition due in early 2017, and
will be a free download in PDF form]
Stephen Mason, ed, International Electronic Evidence (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008)
George L. Paul, Foundations of Digital Evidence (American Bar Association, 2008)
Paul R. Rice, Electronic Evidence – Law and Practice (2nd edn, American Bar Association, 2009)
Allison Stanfield, Computer Forensics, Electronic Discovery & Electronic Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009)
List of participants (on-line and off-line)
Carmelo Asaro, retired Italian judge, teaching courses on the degree of Master sulla Sicurezza and Master sul
Cyberceime at Departimento di Informatica in the Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Rome
Steven David Brown, Independent law enforcement consultant
Hein Dries, LLM
Dr Mark Lomas, Capgemini UK plc
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S10
Dr Steven J. Murdoch, Royal Society University Research Fellow in the Information Security Research Group of
University College London
Dr. iur., associate professor Uldis Ķinis, Rīgas Stradiņa Universitāte
Tim McCormack
Angus M. Marshall, BSc, CEng, FBCS, CITP, FRSA, Director and Principal Scientist, n-gate Limited; Director, Digital
Evidence Virtual Centre of Excellence C.I.C. and Visiting Fellow at the Open University
Goran Oparnica, Managing Director of INsig2 d.o.o.
Bertan Özerdağ, Judge of the Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Yüksek Mahkemesinin (Supreme Court of the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus)
Gita Radhakrishna, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia
Dr Giuseppe Vaciago, Partner at R&P Legal and Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Insubria (Como), Italy
Events
Launch of the Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence
Held at DataFocus 2016, Zagreb, Croatia, 5 April 2016
Workshop on the Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence
Held on 20 May 2016 between 14:30 and 17:00 at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 17 Russell Square,
London WC1B 5DR
Attendees
Michael Asher, Barrister
Werner R. Kranenburg, Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Krenenburg
Dr Alan McKenna, Associate Lecturer, Law School, University of Kent
Naraindra Maharaj, Datatec Financial Services Limited
Nikolaos Trigkas, LLB, MBA, PhD in Law candidate (University of Aberdeen)
Katrine Broch Petersen
Dr Michael Reynolds, Solicitor and Arbitrator
Dr Judith Townsend, Director, Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies,
London
Richard Trevorah, tScheme Limited
Acknowledgments
A brief introduction to the development of this Convention can be read here: Stephen Mason, ‘A proposed
Convention on Electronic Evidence’, Pandora’s Box, 2016, 153 – 155 (http://www.jatl.org/pandoras-box/). I was
invited by the L’Accademia di Diritto Europeo – Academy of European Law – Europäische Rechtsakademie –
l’Académie de droit europée to speak at an event entitled ‘Relying on Electronic Evidence in Criminal Cases’ (event
number 315DT21) held in Bucharest on 12 and 13 November 2015 at the Institutului National al Magistraturii. One of
the attendees asked a question that is often asked at similar events: ‘Why was there no Convention on Electronic
Supplement: Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | S11
Evidence?’. My usual response was that no organization wanted to spend the time developing one, but on this
occasion, I decided at this event to write one myself, and announced that this is what I was going to do.
Part of the content of this Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence was taken from the Commonwealth Draft Model
Law on Electronic Evidence and the Commonwealth Draft Model Law on Electronic Evidence and Electronic Evidence:
Model Policy Guidelines & Legislative Texts (Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures in
the Caribbean, International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Development Bureau, Geneva, 2013).
These valuable sources are explicitly recognised, as is their copyright. I wrote the remainder of the first version of the
text.
I am not technically competent, so I was very fortunate that Hein was able and willing to host the web site using the
domain name I registered for the purposes of the development of the Convention
(conventiononelectronicevidence.org).
My first thanks go to Hein for taking on this arduous task while continuing to work his way around Europe fulfilling
various contracts, and also commenting on the content of the Convention.
I also thank the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for hosting the workshop held in London. It was a useful event.
A final word of thanks to everyone that took the time to read the various iterations of the Convention and offer
comments. As can be imagined, lawyers and technicians tend to use language in different ways, and the discussions
partly reflect this. I have approached the task of redrafting text by taking into account these differences, and
adjusting words where they can be adjusted to the benefit of the project without loosing meaning.
Some suggestions have been made that do not appear in this draft Convention. Their failure to appear is not because
they were irrelevant. In drafting a Convention, it is important to ensure that the text can be generally agreed. This
means excluding controversial provisions that are not universally shared.
Stephen Mason, 2016
Copyright of the Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence
The Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
3.0 Unported License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
