Cybercrime governance and the admissibility of cross-border digital evidence
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Transnational cybercrime poses growing challenges for criminal justice systems, as digital evidence is often distributed across different jurisdictions, private providers, cloud infrastructures, and heterogeneous legal frameworks. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between cybercrime governance and the admissibility of cross-border digital evidence in specialized literature. The research was conducted through an exploratory, documentary, and qualitative bibliographic review based on scientific articles, books, technical standards, international treaties, and institutional reports published between 2014 and 2026, while also incorporating earlier sources of normative relevance. The findings show that legal fragmentation, delays in international cooperation, the involvement of private providers, and weaknesses in chain of custody, authenticity, and integrity affect the procedural validity of digital evidence. Likewise, the study identified the need to balance investigative effectiveness with procedural guarantees, judicial oversight, proportionality, and the right of defense. It is concluded that the admissibility of cross-border digital evidence requires an integrated model of evidentiary governance that articulates international cooperation, forensic standards, technical traceability, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Barzola-Plúas, Y. G. (2022). Reformas Constitucionales en Ecuador: Impacto y Perspectivas. Revista Científica Zambos, 1(1), 86-101. https://doi.org/10.69484/rcz/v1/n1/23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.69484/rcz/v1/n1/23
Brenner, S. W., & Schwerha, J. J., IV. (2002). Transnational evidence gathering and local prosecution of international cybercrime. The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 20(3), 347–395. https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol20/iss3/1/
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: Cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), Article tyac014. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014
Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185). Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=185
Council of Europe. (2022). Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence (CETS No. 224). Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=224
Europol. (2024). Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2024. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/internet-organised-crime-threat-assessment-iocta-2024
Human Rights Watch. (2024, December 30). New UN cybercrime treaty primed for abuse. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/30/new-un-cybercrime-treaty-primed-abuse
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012: Information technology—Security techniques—Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html
ISO/IEC. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012: Information technology—Security techniques—Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html
Jaramillo-Becerra, J. D., Gaibor-Vásconez, L. E., López-Soria, Y., & García-Segarra, H. G. (2025). La discrecionalidad administrativa en el Ecuador: Del uso legítimo a la arbitrariedad – Sentencia No. 1381-17-EP/22. Revista Científica Ciencia Y Método, 3(4), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v3/n4/111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v3/n4/111
Jaramillo-Quezada, D. M., Jaramillo-Rivadeneira, A. M., & Freire-Gaibor, E. F. (2025). El uso indebido del arraigo personal en materia flagrante frente al principio de igualdad. Revista Científica Ciencia Y Método, 3(4), 278-291. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v3/n4/110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v3/n4/110
Juszczak, A., & Sason, E. (2023). The use of electronic evidence in the European Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice: An introduction to the new EU package on e-evidence. Eucrim, 2023(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2023-014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2023-014
Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H. (2006). Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response (NIST Special Publication 800-86). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86
Koops, B.-J., & Goodwin, M. (2014). Cyberspace, the cloud, and cross-border criminal investigation: The limits and possibilities of international law. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2698263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2698263
Lasagni, G. (2025). Admissibility of digital evidence. In V. Franssen & S. Tosza (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of digital evidence in criminal investigations (pp. 126–152). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049771.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049771.007
Llanos-García, R. V., Ocampo-Valle, G. F., Bonilla-Fierro, L. F., & Calero-Brito, E. E. (2025). Jurisprudencia educativa como pilar de la equidad y el acceso al derecho a la educación. Journal of Economic and Social Science Research, 5(2), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/jessr/v5/n2/188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/jessr/v5/n2/188
Mason, S., & Seng, D. (Eds.). (2021). Electronic evidence and electronic signatures (5th ed.). University of London Press. https://doi.org/10.14296/2108.9781911507246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14296/2108.9781911507246
Mendoza-Armijos, H. E., Camacho-Medina, B. M., & García-Segarra, H. G. (2023). Análisis de la justicia restaurativa como alternativa al sistema penal tradicional en América Latina. Revista Científica Ciencia Y Método, 1(3), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v1/n3/20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v1/n3/20
Mina-Bone, S. G. (2024). Evolución del derecho penal económico frente a los delitos financieros digitales. Revista Científica Ciencia Y Método, 2(3), 52-66. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v2/n3/50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v2/n3/50
Moreno-Sacón, V. C., & García-Segarra, H. G. (2025). Independencia judicial en Ecuador y los desafíos frente al control del Consejo de la Judicatura. Journal of Economic and Social Science Research, 5(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/jessr/v5/n2/192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/jessr/v5/n2/192
Nath, S., Summers, K., Baek, J., & Ahn, G.-J. (2024). Digital evidence chain of custody: Navigating new realities of digital forensics. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) (pp. 11–20). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA62245.2024.00012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA62245.2024.00012
Samaniego-Quiguiri, D. P., & Bonilla-Morejón, D. M. . (2024). Análisis de la Evolución del Derecho Constitucional en Ecuador: Implicaciones para el Desarrollo Democrático. Revista Científica Zambos, 3(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.69484/rcz/v3/n3/53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.69484/rcz/v3/n3/53
Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, Article 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575
Stoykova, R., Andersen, S., Franke, K., & Axelsson, S. (2022). Reliability assessment of digital forensic investigations in the Norwegian police. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 40, Article 301351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301351
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2024). United Nations Convention against Cybercrime. United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/home.html
World Economic Forum. (2025). Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2025/