Validity of audio recordings in criminal evidence

Abstract

This paper addresses a sensitive and contemporary topic, namely, the “legal validity of audio recordings” as evidence in criminal investigations and proofs. With the proliferation of technology and smart devices, classical methods of proof are no longer capable of tackling complex crimes alone, so resorting to audio recordings has become an inevitable necessity. The study points out that although these records have great accuracy and potential in revealing the truth, their use without due regard to the law can lead to violations of the right to privacy and personal freedoms protected by the constitution and international law. Hence, the study highlights the uncertain balance that needs to be struck between “getting the truth” and “protecting the dignity and privacy of the individual”. In order for an audio recording to be considered legal (legitimate) evidence before a court, it needs to be under the supervision of the judiciary and in accordance with legal procedures, not in a haphazard manner that violates fundamental rights. Finally, the researcher emphasizes that legal texts should be redesigned to adapt to technological changes and define clear limits on the use of such evidence so that it does not become a tool to threaten human freedoms, while remaining powerful tools for upholding justice. In this study, a combination of scientific methods appropriate to the nature of legal matters, above all the descriptive-analytical method, was used to describe the concept of audio recordings and analyze legal texts contained in the Criminal Code and Principles of Criminal Procedure. Also, the comparative method has been followed through comparing the national legal system with some of the laws and regulations of other countries and international agreements, so as to better understand the direction in which global developments in this area have gone. In addition, the study used critical methods to identify gaps and shortcomings in the laws regarding the validity of electronic evidence, especially thanks to the advancement of artificial intelligence. Thus, the paper does not stop at just describing the theory, but tries, through careful and comparative interpretation, to arrive at conclusions and recommendations that serve the reality of justice and the protection of rights and freedoms.