This research aims to examine how legal systems and courts have approached the principle of functional equivalence between written documents and digital evidence, more than three decades after its initial codification in the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1996. The study focuses on the Saudi legal system as a case study, in light of the provisions introduced by the 2021 Law of Evidence.
The study adopted a dual-method approach combining a theoretical analysis of the relevant legal provisions with a quantitative and qualitative examination of a sample of judicial decisions issued by Saudi commercial courts. The data was collected and classified based on predefined indicators aimed at capturing how the judiciary has interpreted and applied the statutory framework governing functional equivalence.
The findings reveal that the Saudi legal framework has successfully integrated the principle of functional equivalence into the new Law of Evidence in a manner that aligns with traditional rules governing written evidence. Judicial analysis shows a positive response to this principle. However, the inconsistent classification of evidence and limited engagement with the statutory conditions suggest that many rulings relied more on judicial discretion than on a rigorous application of the law.
AlabduljabbarZM (2022) The authenticity of digital evidence in proving: A study in the Saudi law of evidence. Journal of Economic, Administrative and Legal Sciences6(26): 132–144.
2.
AlassafFSAljadaniSS (2023) Digital evidence in Saudi law: A comparative study. International Journal of Law and Politics Studies5(2): 48–64.
3.
AlhosaynSI (2020) The relationship of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and the law in Saudi Arabia: An analytical study. The Scientific Journal of King Faisal University21(2): 86–91.
4.
Al-JaloudS (2024) Digital evidence and its impact on proof: An applied jurisprudential study compared with the Saudi system. Journal of Sharia Sciences17(3): 2384–2436.
5.
Al-KhalidiM (2024) Proof by digital evidence and its judicial applications: A comparative jurisprudential study with the Saudi evidence system. Qada Journal: 329–416.
6.
Al-SalehiWY (2023) The electronic evidence and its role in proof under the Saudi law of commercial courts compared with the UAE laws. Journal of Law19(1): 320–338.
7.
Al-SamakAH (1997) The system of evidence in Islamic sharia and positive law. Journal of Law21(2): 125–190.
8.
Al-ShehriAMZ (2022) The authoritativeness of digital evidence in the Saudi system and Islamic jurisprudence: A comparative study in light of the evidence system. Journal of the College of Islamic and Arabic Studies for Girls in Kafr El-Sheikh6(2): 259–330.
9.
Al-ZahraniN (2024) The judge’s authority in assessing the evidentiary value of digital evidence. Journal of Sharia and Law Studies36(1): 183–224.
10.
AtimZAH (2020) Evidence in the Saudi electronic transaction system, a comparative study with the UNCITRAL model laws. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues23: 1.
11.
AwwadAAbdelsattarA (2025) Digital evidence in forensic accounting: A study in Saudi legislation. Cogent Social Sciences11(1): 2522958.
12.
CaseyE (2002) Error, uncertainty, and loss in digital evidence. International Journal of Digital Evidence1(2).
13.
ChurakovaENLangPPLoshkarevAV (2020) Problems of evidence in the conditions of digitalization of economic justice. In: European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Global Challenges and Prospects of the Modern Economic Development. London: European Publisher Ltd, vol. 79, pp. 942–947. Available at: 10.15405/epsbs.2020.03.136.
14.
Civil Transactions Law. (2023) Law of Civil Transactions’. Bureau of Experts at the Council of Ministers. Available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/655fdb42-8c96-422b-b8c4-b04f0095c94c/1.
15.
Companies Law. (2022) Companies Law. Bureau of Experts at the Council of Ministers. Available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/a8376aea-1bc3-49d4-9027-aed900b555af/1.
16.
CST. (2022) Saudi Internet. Communications, Space and Technology Committee. Available at: www.cst.gov.sa/ar/indicators/PublishingImages/Pages/saudi_internet/saudi-internet-2022.pdf (accessed 14 February 2024).
17.
DGA. (2023) Digital Government Authority Annual Report. Digital Government Authority. Available at: https://dga.gov.sa/sites/default/files/2023-05/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D9%8A%20%D9%84%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%202022.pdf (accessed 14 February 2025).
18.
Digital Government Authority. (2024) Implementing Regulations of the Electronic Transactions Law’. Available at: https://portal.uqn.gov.sa/details?p=25092.
19.
E-Commerce Law. (2019) Saudi E-Commerce Law. Available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/360de590-0286-4fa5-a243-aa9100c31979/1.
20.
ECC. (2022) E-Commerce Q4. E-Commerce Committee. Available at: https://ecc.gov.sa/pdfs/7d68b9d7-132f-4af0-89e3-7b1d48215dd3.pdf (accessed 14 February 2025).
21.
FurrerAMüllerL (2018) Functional equivalence of digital legal transactions: A fundamental principle for assessing legal validity in Swiss law, Jusletter [Preprint]. Available at: www.unilu.ch/fileadmin/fakultaeten/rf/furrer/dok/180619_Funktionale_AEquivalenz_translation.pdf.
22.
Galvis LugoÁFBustamante RúaM (2019) La no equivalencia funcional entre la prueba electrónica y la prueba documental: Una lectura desde la regulación procesal colombiana. Ius et Praxis25(2): 189–222.
23.
GoodeS (2009) The admissibility of electronic evidence. The Review of Litigation29(1): 1–64.
24.
GorgievaDGjorgjioskaEStoilevaZ (2021) Electronic evidence in civil proceedings. Horizons28(1): 19–27.
25.
HarveyD (2017) Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Internet Age. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.
26.
HasanovT (2023) Functional equivalence: A comparative study under international law with reference to Azerbaijan. ELSA Azerbaijan Law Review 30(6): 30–40.
27.
KulehileMR (2017) An Analysis of the Regulatory Principles of Functional Equivalence and Technology Neutrality in the Context of Electronic Signatures in the Formation of Electronic Transactions in Lesotho and the SADC Region. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cape Town. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/f0874e36-13e2-4f9b-be87-cb2bb080195e/content.
28.
Law of Evidence. (2021) Evidence Law. Bureau of Experts at the Saudi Council of Ministers. Available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/2716057c-c097-4bad-8e1e-ae1400c678d5/1 (accessed 31 March 2025).
29.
NashnashM (2018) The principle of functional equivalence between electronic writing and traditional writing in evidence: A comparative study in Algerian and French law. Dirasat: Sharia and Law Sciences45(4): 85–97.
30.
PacioccoD (2013) Proof and Progress: Coping with the Law of Evidence in a Technological Age. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology11(2): 181–228.
31.
ReedC (2010) Online and offline equivalence: Aspiration and achievement. International Journal of Law & Information Technology18(3): 248–273.
32.
SAMA. (2023) National Payments Usage Study. Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority. Available at: www.sama.gov.sa/ar-sa/Documents/National_Payments_Usage_Study_2023_ar.pdf (accessed 14 February 2025).
33.
Saudi Electronic Transactions Law. (2007) Saudi Electronic Transactions Law. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/6f509360-2c39-4358-ae2a-a9a700f2ed16/1 (accessed 7 April 2025).
34.
Saudi Ministry of Justice. (2022) Procedural Guidelines for the Law of Evidence. Available at: https://uqn.gov.sa/details?p=20767.
35.
Saudi Ministry of Justice. (2025) Saudi Ministry of Justice Judicial Decisions Database. Available at: https://laws.moj.gov.sa/ar/JudicialDecisionsList/1 (accessed 15 March 2025).
36.
SavinA. (2019) Rule making in the digital economy: Overcoming functional equivalence as a regulatory principle in the EU. Journal of Internet Law22(8): 1–31. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340886.
37.
SDAIA. (2025) Statistics. Available at: https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/Services/Pages/eServices-Statistics.aspx (accessed 14 February 2025).
38.
SethiaA (2016) Rethinking admissibility of electronic evidence. International Journal of Law and Information Technology24(3): 229–250.
39.
ShadikhodjaevS (2021) Technological neutrality and regulation of digital trade: How far can we go?The European Journal of International Law32(4): 1221–1248.
40.
Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng. (2021) Electronic Evidence. London: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies,University of London.
41.
Supreme Court. (2018) Supreme Court Decision No. (34) dated 24-04-1439H (2018). General Assembly of the Supreme Court, Saudi Arabia. Available at: https://elmokhtarlaw.com/قرار-الهيئة-العامة-للمحكمة-العليا-رقم-3/.
42.
UNCITRAL. (1996) UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce.
43.
VeerpaluA (2019) Functional equivalence: An exploration through shortcomings to solutions. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics12(2): 134–162.
44.
ZeidMMMA (2021) Commentary on two Egyptian court of cassation rulings on the evidentiary value of electronic documents. Law and Technology Journal1(1): 249–272.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
