Digital technologies in the process of proving in the proceedings on administrative offenses

Kulikova Yana Alekseevna Postgraduate student; Department of Administrative and Financial Law; Lobachevsky National Research Nizhny Novgorod State University 155550, Russia, Ivanovo region, Privolzhsk, lane The eighth of March, 6, sq. 39 serova-y@mail.ru

Ubiquitous digitalization has long ceased to be a trend of modern social progress, but is rather a thorough and well-established fact of reality. Consequently, many processes of social and legal principles are gradually shifting or have already shifted to the "rails" of a new technological or, more precisely, digital way of life. Many are implementing technologies in areas to automate and enhance the efficiency of processes, such as mass-market enterprises, whose task is to minimize manual labor by saving on labor resources. However, the "digitalization" of the legal sphere is not as flexible and adaptive as other areas, due to its degree of responsibility. The legal industry deals with law, which means that shifting responsibility to technology is fraught with ethical and moral consequences. At the same time, it is no secret that digitalization of any sphere sooner or later begins to produce positive efficiency, and the sphere of law is no exception.

Digital technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the modern world, and various authorities are increasingly turning to them in the process of proving offenses. In administrative offences proceedings, digital technologies are used to collect, analyze and present evidence. A lot of videos, photos, information from the Internet and mobile devices become essential elements of the legal procedure.

The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that with the development of technology, new opportunities arise for detecting and documenting offenses. But at the same time, it becomes important to develop effective methods for verifying the authenticity and reliability of digital evidence.

In addition, with the increase in the volume of digital information, the risks in the field of its processing, storage and use increase. This applies not only to technical aspects such as cybersecurity and authentication capabilities, but also to issues such as digital authentication and privacy. The relevance of the topic is also due to the fact that its research will allow us to develop effective methods of working with digital evidence and strengthen trust in various branches of government in the context of digitalization of society.

It should be noted that the topic of this research has been little studied in the scientific field. Researchers such as Anisiforova M.V., Atabekov A.R., Morozova G.A., Prokopov M.S., Kalmykov G.I., Kramer U., Mickevich L.A., Vasilyeva A.F., Shurukhnova D.N. and a number of others relate to certain aspects of the use of digital technologies in the administrative and jurisdictional process.

During the work on the research, a set of scientific cognition methods was used. General scientific (system method, method of structural analysis), private scientific (specifically sociological method), as well as special (various ways of interpreting law) methods of cognition were used. The general methods used were observation, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction.

So, in the proceedings on cases of administrative offenses, the state body is obliged to prove the existence of an offense and the guilt of a person. The key aspect is the need to provide evidence that confirms the fact of an administrative offense, as well as the guilt of the person and the absence of circumstances precluding the proceedings.

This evidence may be presented in writing or in any other form. The Law does not establish strict requirements for the form of evidence. Therefore, any documents containing information that may contribute to establishing the circumstances of the case are considered admissible evidence.

The need to include digital technologies in administrative production processes is justified by a number of circumstances:

Firstly, there are a number of bureaucratic difficulties that can be avoided by using electronic documents as an evidence base.;

Secondly, working with electronic evidence can avoid additional work with the parties to the proceedings, which facilitates the work of administrative and jurisdictional authorities and increases the reliability of the evidence obtained.

In addition, the use of digital technologies saves time, which helps to comply with procedural deadlines. Digital technologies provide the ability to collect, store, analyze, and present information electronically. All this can be used to improve the quality of work of administrative and jurisdictional authorities.

The definition of what constitutes electronic evidence can be found in part 2 of Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2001 No. 174-FZ (hereinafter referred to as the CPC RF), where this form of information refers to physical evidence, although in fact electronic documents do not have a material basis. On the other hand, they can be downloaded to tangible media, disks, flash drives, cassettes, which determines the sign of physical evidence.

Article 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 95-FZ dated July 24, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the APC RF) provides a more informative definition of electronic evidence, which indicates that they are documents obtained via the Internet and signed with an electronic signature.

According to Part 1 of Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation dated 11/14/2002 No. 138-FZ (hereinafter referred to as the CPC RF), written evidence is information about circumstances relevant to the consideration and resolution of the case, acts, contracts, certificates, business correspondence, other documents and materials made in the form of a digital graphic record, in which including documents received by fax, electronic or other communication using the Internet information and telecommunication network, signed with an electronic signature in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, or executed in another way that allows to establish the authenticity of the document. Article 71 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation dated 08.03.2015 No. 21-FZ (hereinafter - CAS RF) contains a similar definition of electronic evidence.

The main types of electronic evidence include the following categories:

1) electronic documents such as letters, electronic forms, files, scanned documents, etc.;

2) photos and videos taken using mobile devices or special cameras;

3) Audio recordings, such as audio recordings of conversations or interviews;

4) Metadata such as file metadata, network metadata, etc.;

5) electronic signatures and certificates used to confirm the authenticity and integrity of electronic documents;

6) information from online sources such as social networks, websites, etc.

Nowadays, electronic evidence is widely used. A conclusion should be drawn about the growing use of digital technologies in administrative lawsuits. It should be noted that, as the researchers point out, from 2013 to 2019, this process was not particularly dynamic. But after the pandemic, the informatization of society began at a new pace and led to a gradual transition of judicial correspondence to electronic format. MV Anisiforova notes: the social need for application (in the framework of a particular proceeding ...) electronic evidence is long overdue and is an objective necessity, while the author writes that it is important to take into account the specifics of the case [1. P. 212]. However, the issue of reviewing electronic evidence is still viewed skeptically by many practitioners today, which is explained by the interpretation and the existing approach to their consideration.

It should be borne in mind that the work with digital technologies in the framework of supervision and security differs in its specifics. Analyzing the work practices of employees of the departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that the level of IT development is insufficient, there are obvious obstacles associated with the reluctance to work with digital evidence, databases and applications. Other scientists and researchers, based on the results of their sociological survey, conclude that the degree of development of information technologies and their use are characterized by respondents as insufficiently high. There is a need to expand the list of information technologies used. The solution is to create special units for the development and implementation of information technologies [2. P. 125]. However, this decision requires careful reflection and elaboration from the point of view of doctrine and practice, while working with electronic evidence is a mandatory component of modernity.

At the same time, electronic evidence in different areas of law may differ in the specifics of its application. V. B. Vekhov, referring to the CPC, CPC, APC and CAS of the Russian Federation, indicates that evidence in a case is any information on the basis of which the presence or absence of circumstances subject to proof is established in a certain order [3. P. 46]. But the problem is that researchers have different opinions about the inclusion of electronic evidence in the justice system.

For example, E. P. Dorzhiev talks about the need to review the qualifications of judicial officers. The researcher believes that the main disadvantage of the modern law enforcement system is its conservatism and lack of trust in innovation. This leads to a lag in the skills of law enforcement officers and judicial authorities [4. P. 42].

At the same time, it is important to note that electronic documents serve as a kind of timely replacement for traditional sources of information that our society is accustomed to. The material basis allows you to deal with the facts, as they say, "on hand", i.e. material confirmation is always a guarantee of trust and transparency of any system.

Currently, the use of electronic evidence in the administrative and legal system has become a reality, accessible to all participants in the proceedings. The skepticism of administrative and jurisdictional authorities regarding electronic evidence is explained by cases of falsification. Video and audio recordings, being key tools of digital technologies, are actively used in the evidentiary process. They can serve as the main evidence of an offense, as well as a means of recording the testimony of witnesses and persons brought to administrative responsibility. Digital audio and video recordings have greater reliability and reliability compared to analog media. However, in practice, there is an unprofessional approach to the application of these forms of evidence.

A striking example is the decision of the Nalchik City Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic in case No. 12-386/2017 dated April 19, 2017. A complaint was being considered about an earlier trial in which the court relied on video footage. But none of the administrative offense protocols indicated that this type of recording was used. The complaint pointed to a violation of Part 6 of Article 25.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation dated 12/30/2001 No. 195-FZ (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code) and the need to review the case based on Part 3 of Article 26.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, since the evidence presented can be considered as obtained with violations. As a result, the complaint under consideration was satisfied. It can be assumed that if the protocol was kept correctly and the use of video footage was recorded, this recording as evidence could have led to a different outcome when considering the complaint.

When considering the use of electronic evidence, it is necessary to pay attention to evidence signed with an electronic digital signature.

On the one hand, as E. A. Saprykina notes, documents signed with an electronic signature are allowed as written evidence, i.e. they are, in fact, given legal force equivalent to documents on paper. However, the court has the right to demand the presentation of the originals of these documents [5. P. 148].

Thus, in the proceedings in case No. A76-23077/2023, the Arbitration Court of the Chelyabinsk Region, relying on Article 2 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ dated 04/06/2011 "On Electronic Signatures", ruled that the plaintiff's requirements indicating the acceptance of work by the defendant by providing electronic documentation registered and confirmed by an electronic signature must be fulfilled, since the submitted documents should have been accepted for consideration as factual.

It is important to note that there are more and more cases involving the issue of electronic signature accounting. They address the following issues:

· registration in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities: The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Perm Territory dated December 19, 2023 in case No. A50-4606/2023, in which it was established that previously submitted documents were falsified and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the costs of registering a share,

· payment of taxes/fines/utility bills and payments for work performed: Resolution of the Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated December 18, 2023 in case No. A12-11827/2023, in which Gazprom LLC demanded debt collection from the Management Company. The defendant's appeal was rejected due to the lack of supporting documentation, both electronic and factual (paper).,

· challenging the actions and decisions of various officials and authorities: The Decision of the Arbitration Court of Primorsky Krai dated December 18, 2023 in case No. A51-9279/2023, which addressed the issue of invalidity of notices of license refusal. The plaintiff pointed to the provision of all necessary documents, both in electronic and paper form, while the defendant referred to the identification of a number of violations in the applicant's physical compliance. The court decided to eliminate the identified violations and noted that the officials acted within the law.

It is also important to note that electronic evidence is becoming an important part of both pre-trial investigations and court proceedings. But, for example, the use of photographic materials has its own difficulties and peculiarities. So, without intending to use it further, people often do not indicate the time when the photo was taken, the place and circumstances of the shooting. As a result, if it is fixed in a particular case, the difficulty also manifests itself in how to determine where this or that photo could have been taken. Such situations can provoke legal conflicts.

An example of difficulties in using photographic materials is when a photograph shows people or objects without any identifying features or a background that could help determine the location of the shooting. In such cases, it can be difficult to determine the location and time of the shooting, which complicates the use of evidence. As a result, photographic materials are most often considered in court as inspection data or data recorded at the scene of an offense. By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory dated December 20, 2023 in case No. A03-5475/2023, the cost of excluding the consumed resource under cold water supply and sanitation contracts was recovered. Based on the specific circumstances of the case, having assessed the available evidence, including photographs and video materials, in accordance with Article 71 of the APC of the Russian Federation, and also having established that when the vodokanal checked the condition of the water installed at the disputed facility of the enterprise, the fact of violation of the integrity of the seal on the bypass line of the metering unit was revealed, without seeing illegality in the actions of those carrying out the inspection According to the vodokanal staff, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion about the malfunction of the control unit, which creates a presumption without accounting for water consumption by the subscriber and is the basis for applying a calculated method for determining the volume of water consumed using the method of accounting for the capacity of devices and structures.

When studying the issue of the evidentiary process in proceedings on cases of administrative violations, we consider it necessary to refer to Federal Law No. 135-FZ of July 26, 2006 on Protection of Competition, which regulates the use of electronic documents as evidence. Moreover, this law does not contain rules governing the evidentiary process. As a result, it should be noted that it is necessary to eliminate this gap, which is possible either by including provisions on evidence and evidence in the Law, or by specifying that the relevant norms of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation apply to relations regulated by the Federal Law on Protection of Competition.

At the same time, A.V. Mikaya in his article points out that the use of electronic documents as evidence of administrative offenses is one of the grounds for an economic entity to go to court in order to challenge the decision of the antimonopoly authority made using such evidence [6. P. 45].

It should also be noted that today the possibilities of using artificial intelligence (hereinafter – AI) in pre-trial investigation and judicial process are widely discussed. Thus, there is an opinion that AI will minimize the percentage of errors in decisions made, determine the vector of further development of the human rights system of the Russian Federation, and also provide opportunities for more successful analytics with minimal time. A. R. Atabekov, concluding his theoretical research, concludes that the predictive use of AI in order to analyze the actions of citizens on the subject of potential offenses, it will allow to inform about alternative ways for the subject to achieve the goal within the legal framework [7. P. 127]. And if such proposals could not be considered in the recent past, they may be feasible within the framework of modern technologies.

According to N. A. Filipova, AI can be used in the process of proving administrative cases in various ways.:

· For analyzing large amounts of data to help identify connections and patterns that may be useful in the proof process.;

· for automatic analysis of video and audio recordings to help determine the authenticity of materials;

· to predict the likely outcomes of a case based on the available evidence and arguments of the parties, etc. [8. pp. 19-20].

Therefore, the appearance of such portals as "GAS Justice", "My Arbitrator" and others is a natural solution that is among the priorities of a modern government seeking to expand the possibilities of implementing justice. At the same time, it must be understood that the introduction of digital technologies involves a number of risks.

Of course, the issues of legal regulation of AI participation in the human rights system have not been fully resolved either in Russia or in the world, but researchers (for example, Sukhomlin V.A. [9. P. 439], Kachalova O.V. [10. P. 113], Jakobs K. ^[11], Egyedi T. M., Sherif M. H. ^[12]) write about the need to rely on technical standards and recommendations.

The Russian government has developed a number of decrees and regulations approving the national strategy for the development of AI until 2030 (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy). A number of laws and regulations are still under development (for example, the law "On Experimental legal regimes in the field of digital innovation in the Russian Federation"). And the implementation of projects to simplify forms of administrative and regulatory control in the field of electronic technology application is lagging behind the plan specified in the Strategy.

However, experts believe that the next step the government will take will be a nationwide discussion of standards for using information technology and AI.

Since the adoption of the Strategy, many regulations have been amended and new amendments have been adopted. Thus, Part 3.1 of Article 30.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation appeared, which introduced a simplified procedure for appealing court decisions. Administrative and tort legal relations have received a new interpretation within the framework of the appeal to electronic means. However, there are still issues of security of interaction between subjects of legal relations.

In this regard, it is important to note that electronic evidence should be evaluated within the framework of standard procedures designed for any form of evidence. However, in accordance with Article 84 of the CAS of the Russian Federation, unlike traditional forms, electronic evidence in administrative cases requires a special confirmation procedure. Thus, the authenticity and/or details must necessarily be confirmed by the author. But even this does not provide absolute guarantees: within the framework of the previously mentioned problem, we note that today there is no way to protect electronic information from its correction. However, such verification methods are available today, such as verifying the identity of the originator, which can become the basis for ensuring the authenticity of the source.

Computer programs for data analysis and processing are another important tool of digital technologies. Thanks to them, it is possible to conduct an examination of digital documents, study file metadata, restore deleted data and verify their authenticity. Thus, G. I. Kalmykov and M. V. Anisiforova note that today the digitalization of proceedings on an administrative offense can be considered as a process of introducing information technology processes into the activities of authorized persons in accordance with the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which indicates the need for further improvement of legislation and training of law enforcement officials [13. P. 29].

Another important area of digital technology in the proving process is the use of specialized equipment such as video surveillance cameras, digital photo recorders, scanners, sensors that allow you to record the facts of offenses and provide their evidence base.

Experts single out the acceptance of screenshots as evidence in administrative cases as one of the problems, which results from the lack of legislative consolidation of their use. Some courts accept screenshots as evidence, for example, to bring them to administrative responsibility. However, in other cases, the courts refuse to take screenshots into account, pointing out doubts about their reliability and authenticity. G. A. Morozova points out that this is due to a number of unresolved problems in the field of information protection. And despite the fact that "digital technologies (can) shorten and facilitate the path to judicial protection... It is necessary to implement secure communication and data transmission networks, as well as develop other proposals that can solve security issues" ^{[14, p. 192]}.

There are also problems in establishing digital authenticity and reliability of information obtained from Internet resources. In this context, it is necessary to develop clear rules and procedures for taking screenshots as evidence in proceedings on administrative offenses and establishing their authenticity and reliability.

To increase the effectiveness of the institute of electronic evidence, it is necessary at the legislative level in the Agroindustrial Complex of the Russian Federation, the CPC of the Russian Federation and the CAS of the Russian Federation to determine in detail the list of such evidence, the forms of submission of electronic evidence to the court, criteria for determining their admissibility and reliability, the possibility of using electronic documents without additional conditions, binding to a specific source of electronic information ^{[15, p. 109]}.

It is important to note that a "screenshot" can be considered as evidence only if a number of conditions are met: the screen image must be certified by a participant in the case or a notary; the printout must contain the exact URL of the page from which the picture was taken, as well as the exact time of its creation. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory for the recognition of evidence as appropriate, acceptable and reliable. In addition, for a full-fledged analysis, according to O. I. Faustov, it is necessary to include such criteria for verifying the information received as its relevance, admissibility and reliability - in this case, the submitted data can be accepted for consideration [16. P. 18]. But to date, little attention has been paid to the reliability of digital evidence obtained from digital devices, networks, and government databases. This evidence can be volatile and is susceptible to damage or loss during processing. When collecting digital information, it is important to record each stage of the process, ensuring the safety of data and their protection from changes or destruction. Failure to comply with these measures may result in the loss of evidence and the termination of the case. In modern conditions, administrative cases are often based on significant amounts of digital information obtained from government databases, including video recordings from surveillance cameras. When using such data, it is necessary to verify their authenticity, integrity, as well as the correctness of their removal, and confirm the legality of their inclusion in the case file. All this work requires competence to ensure the reliability of digital evidence in proceedings on administrative offenses [17. P. 74].

At the moment, as noted earlier, experts are assessing the backlog of procedural law on the introduction of digital technologies. Nevertheless, in a number of regions there is an active transition to digital technologies (MO, RO, BO, Krasnodar Territory actively use automatic shorthand, and the possibilities of electronic resources, and the analysis of information provided, etc.), but there are lagging subjects. In this vein, V. Y. Drozdov proposes to carry out a number of transformations in the very approach to the recruitment of authorized bodies, their training and the introduction of technological solutions into the human rights protection system [18. P. 117].

On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that the rapid introduction of digital technologies into the judicial process can lead to many errors and ambiguities, which can destabilize the entire system. However, the longer the procedural industries postpone digital integration, the more this will affect the level of protection of the rights of citizens and entrepreneurs, which will gradually decrease.

GOST R ISO/IEC 27037-2014 "Information Technology. Methods and means of ensuring security. Guidelines for the identification, collection, receipt and storage of digital certificates." In the future, the provisions of this standard should be implemented in the legislation on administrative offenses.

As noted earlier, in addition to the legislative consolidation of the basic concepts related to electronic evidence in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, there are other ways to solve the stated problems. One of these ways is to train and improve the competencies of employees in the field of working with digital evidence. Specialists should master the methods of collecting, analyzing, and presenting digital evidence, as well as develop risk management and data integrity and authenticity skills. In this vein, A.V. Popova, S. S. Gorokhova and G. M. Aznagulova emphasize the need to transform certain branches of law, which will eventually lead to a gradual increase in both the regulatory framework and the level of qualifications of employees [19. P. 36].

Also, as S.V. Zuev notes, it is important to develop technical infrastructure and cybersecurity methods to protect digital evidence from damage, correction or loss [20. p. 51]. This, according to A. S. Kiselyov, includes equipping law enforcement agencies and the judicial system with specialized software and equipment for processing and storing digital evidence [21. P. 64]. Of course, this opinion is true, but in addition to equipping local officials with software and hardware, measures such as the organization of special training, the development and implementation of methodological and tactical recommendations on the use of digital evidence, as well as the overall improvement of the regulatory framework in this area are also required.

An important step may be cooperation with friendly international organizations and other countries to develop and implement international standards and practices for working with digital evidence, which, according to M. V. Moiseev, can help improve methods of processing, authenticating and using digital evidence in proceedings on administrative offenses [22. P. 147]. In addition, it is necessary to accumulate knowledge to solve problems related to information security (for example, the problem of personal data protection is currently becoming particularly relevant), the occurrence of technical problems with systems, and the optimization of work with digital evidence.

In addition, it is important to take into account that the domestic legislator is also interested in the development and further implementation of digital technologies in proceedings on administrative offenses. In this regard, additions and amendments to the Administrative Code are being developed, which will be adopted in 2024. In particular, the punishment of mobile operators is getting tougher – they will be fined for violating the network algorithm. Fines will also be imposed in case of incorrectly issued information during registration with the state. Responsibility for processing data received from the road fund control system will be introduced. These changes, of course, cannot completely solve all the accumulated problems in the field of processing and introducing digital technologies into the system of work of administrative bodies, but their introduction largely indicates the prospects for further digitalization and stricter control over its implementation.

On the other hand, at the end of 2023, the State Duma received bills No. 502104-8 on strengthening responsibility for violating the procedure for processing personal data and No. 160278-8 on countering monopoly in digital commodity markets. And if the first draft law was sent for revision and was revised in February 2024, then the second one went through all the stages and was adopted.

The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation has also proposed a number of amendments to the Administrative Code regarding videoconferencing, remote participation in proceedings, and the use of electronic documents through portals such as Gosuslugi and a website designated by the Supreme Court. These amendments certainly take into account the technical potential of the courts and administrative and jurisdictional authorities. However, the main purpose of the changes is to reduce bureaucratic procedures, as they make it possible to provide documents in electronic format, which also reduces the burden on archives. Videoconferences will reduce the time required for the implementation of proceedings to identify participants in an administrative offense case.

But even such amendments are perceived as insufficient today, since the reference to technical capabilities suggests that Russian courts, like administrative and jurisdictional authorities, are not equipped at an adequate level.

To summarize, we consider it necessary to refer to article 3.10 of the draft Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, according to which written evidence includes information about circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of an administrative offense case, acts, contracts, certificates, business correspondence, other documents and materials made in the form of digital and graphic recordings, received by fax, electronic or other means of communication, including using the Internet information and telecommunications network, via videoconference (if technically possible for such transmission of documents and materials), or in any other way that allows the authenticity of documents to be established. Documents obtained by fax, electronic or other communication, including using the Internet information and telecommunication network, as well as documents signed with an electronic signature in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, are allowed as written evidence in the cases and in the manner provided for by the Code, other federal laws, and other regulatory legal acts. acts. If copies of documents are submitted to the court in electronic form, the court may require the presentation of the originals of these documents.

Thus, back in 2020, the issue of the need to amend the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation regarding the determination of the place of electronic evidence in the evidentiary process was raised. Considering that 4 years have already passed since the development of the draft Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative offenses, it is necessary to make appropriate amendments to the current Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and consolidate the place of electronic evidence in the evidentiary process in proceedings on administrative offenses.

Thus, it is obvious that in the coming years, the authorized bodies should carry out serious work on the digitalization of the administrative and jurisdictional process. There is a need for more detailed regulation of the algorithm of using digital technologies: it is necessary to work out all aspects of their use - from the procedure of data collection to presentation as evidence in the administrative process; improve the legal regulation of the processes of obtaining, securing, fixing, storing and providing electronic (digital) evidence. So, on the one hand, electronic evidence should be evaluated within the framework of standard procedures designed for any form of evidence; on the other hand, it should be borne in mind that, unlike traditional forms, electronic evidence objectively requires a special confirmation procedure that should ensure the "reliability" of the use of digital evidence in proceedings on administrative offenses.. Additionally, we note that the use of AI and other digital technologies in the administrative process also raises certain issues related to data confidentiality, transparency and the objectivity of decisions made using them. In this regard, it is necessary to carefully consider all aspects of the use of digital technologies in the context under consideration. One of the primary ways to solve these problems should be to include key concepts related to electronic evidence in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

The successful solution of these tasks will significantly improve the efficiency of public administration and, in particular, ensure a more complete implementation of the principle of the inevitability of responsibility for administrative misconduct.