This study examines the potential of artificial intelligence technologies to enhance the legality, validity, and fairness of court verdicts in criminal proceedings of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The research analyzes the current legislative framework governing verdict requirements under Article 455 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, identifies procedural gaps that impede the consistent enforcement of these requirements, and proposes AI-based solutions drawing on the comparative experience of China, Singapore, Canada, and Turkey. The study employs formal-legal, comparative-legal, and system analysis methods to evaluate four specific AI applications: automated court transcription using speech recognition technology, AI-assisted verdict verification for formal compliance with procedural law, comparative sentencing analytics to ensure proportionality across jurisdictions, and structured evidence mapping to support judicial reasoning. The analysis reveals that while Presidential Decree UP-140 of August 21, 2025, establishes the Digital Court concept and mandates automatic real-time protocol formation, the current legal framework lacks explicit procedural guarantees linking these technological innovations to the substantive requirements of legality, validity, and fairness. The study demonstrates that automated transcription directly serves the requirement of validity by creating verifiable records of all evidence examined during trial, that AI-assisted verdict checking supports legality by reducing procedural errors, and that comparative sentencing analytics promotes fairness by ensuring proportionate punishment across similar cases. The research proposes specific amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, including the addition of reasonableness as a fourth mandatory requirement for verdicts, the establishment of mandatory audio recording as an integral part of the trial protocol in criminal cases, and the creation of a legal framework for AI-assisted judicial support tools that preserve judicial independence while enhancing verdict quality. The findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of how technological guarantees can complement traditional procedural safeguards in ensuring the administration of justice.
Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Proceedings: Ensuring Legality, Validity and Fairness of Court Verdicts in Uzbekistan
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
References
Beltsov, A.I., 2020. Zakonnost, obosnovannost i spravedlivost prigovora v ugolovnom protsesse [Legality, validity, and fairness of verdicts in criminal proceedings]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii, 3(87), 120–128 (in Russian).
Gamidov, A.M., Alieva, P.A., 2021. Obvinitelnyy prigovor v sisteme ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Conviction verdict in the criminal justice system]. Yuridicheskiy vestnik DGU, 38(2), 152–158 (in Russian).
Garneau, N., Bolduc, O., 2024. The State of Commercial Automatic French Legal Speech Recognition Systems and their Impact on Court Reporters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11940.
Kadyrov, D.U., 2019. Svoistva i trebovaniya k sudebnomy prigovoru [Properties and requirements for court verdicts]. Rossiyskiy sudya, 5, 34–39 (in Russian).
Kostyukov, D.Yu., Garmaev, Yu.P., 2022. Prigovor suda: poryadok i problemy postanovleniya [The verdict of the court: the order and problems of the ruling]. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 8(6), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/79/66
Magankova (Sivolova), A.A., 2022. Spravedlivost v sfere ugolovnogo protsessa [Fairness in criminal proceedings]. Candidate of Legal Sciences dissertation. Moscow (in Russian).
Malikov, M.F., 2014. Retrospektivnyy analiz sudebnogo prigovora [Retrospective analysis of the adjudication]. Eurasian Advocacy, 1(8), 71–74 (in Russian).
Mikhaylov, A.N., 2018. Motivirovannost prigovora kak ego svoistvo [Reasonableness of the verdict as its property]. Ugolovnoye pravo, 4, 87–93 (in Russian).
Ostapenko, I.A., 2007. Prigovor kak itogovoye resheniye po ugolovnomu delu [The verdict as the final decision in a criminal case]. Candidate of Legal Sciences dissertation abstract. Vladimir (in Russian).
Papagianneas, S., 2023. Artificial Intelligence in the Chinese Judiciary: Current State and Future Potential. AI and Ethics, 3(4), 1125–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00202-3
Popova, I.P., 2019. Prigovor suda i yego znachenie v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Court verdict and its significance in criminal proceedings]. Sibirskiye ugolovno-protsessualnyye i kriminalisticheskiye chteniya, 4(26), 45–53 (in Russian).
Pozdnyakov, M., 2011. Obvinitelnyy uklon i korporativnyye soobrazheniya [Prosecutorial bias and corporate considerations]. Yuridicheskaya gazeta, 3, 15 (in Russian).
Rogova, A.A., Rogov, A.V., 2021. Obosnovannost prigovora: problemy opredeleniya i proverki [Verdict validity: problems of definition and verification]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo, 40, 88–102 (in Russian).
State Courts of Singapore and A*STAR, 2018. Speech Transcription System for Use in Courts. Press Release, December 15, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.a-star.edu.sg/i2r/partnerships/government-agencies/state-court
Stimson Center, 2026. AI in Global Majority Judicial Systems. Retrieved from https://www.stimson.org/2026/ai-in-global-majority-judicial-systems/
Tuzov, N.A., 2020. Motivirovannost sudebnykh aktov [Reasonableness of judicial acts]. Moscow, Norma (in Russian).
Voskobitova, L.A., 2014. Obvinenie ili obvinitelnyy uklon? [Prosecution or prosecutorial bias?]. Aktualnyye problemy rossiyskogo prava, 3, 455–462 (in Russian).
Zarakusheva, K.R., Zelenkina, V.N., 2022. Trebovaniya zakona k prigovoru suda [Legal requirements for court verdicts]. Molodoy uchenyy, 15(410), 290–293 (in Russian).
Zheng, G.G., 2020. China’s Grand Design of People’s Smart Courts. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.16