Functional equivalence of digital and written evidence: Aligning legal theory and judicial practice in the Saudi legal model

Abstract

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.