The article analyzes one of the problematic aspects of forensic expertise – the specifics of using the method of comparative study of objects of digital nature. The author traces the evolution of the method of comparison as a method of scientific knowledge: from F. Bacon to modernity. He also examines the scientific positions of leading Russian criminologists on this topic. It is emphasized that the key condition for obtaining reliable results in comparative research is the comparability of objects, which must be taken into account when developing methodological provisions for expert studies of new objects of forensic examinations. The author comes to the conclusion: compliance with the principles of comparative research as a method of cognition in forensic examination guarantees obtaining scientifically sound conclusions. Such conclusions are based on reliable factual data and are capable of forming a reliable evidentiary base in adversarial proceedings. The article proposes to use a set of methods based on computer vision technologies, which will automate the recognition, classification and analysis of visual data contained in digital images of objects of forensic examination.
method of comparative analysis, principle of comparability, methodology of forensic examination, reliability, scientific validity of expert conclusions
1. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia; 1983: 840. (In Russ.).
2. Bacon F. Essays. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl; 1978: 575. (In Russ.).
3. Marx K., Engels F. German ideology. Essays. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature; 1955: 650. (In Russ.).
4. Vinberg A. I. Osnovnye principy sovetskoy kriminalisticheskoy ekspertizy. Moskva: Gos. izd-vo yurid. lit., 1949. 132 s.
5. Granovsky G. L. Fundamentals of traceology (general part). Red. by E. I. Zuev. Moscow: [S. n.]; 1965: 123. (In Russ.).
6. Belkin R. S. Selected works. Moscow: Norma; 2010: 768. (In Russ.).
7. Vinberg L. A. Comparison as a research method in forensic identification examination. A textbook. Moscow: Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR; 1972: 74. (In Russ.).
8. Koldin V. Ya. Judicial identification. Moscow: LeksEst; 2002: 528. (In Russ.).
9. Mailis N. P. Expert mistakes made in the study of traditional and digital traces. Theory and practice of forensic examination, 20–24, 2024. (In Russ.).
10. Forensic handwriting examination. General part. Theoretical and methodological foundations. Under the scientific editorship of V. F. Orlova. 2nd ed., rev. and add. Moscow: Nauka; 2006: 544. (In Russ.).
11. Handwriting and handwriting expertise: methods of forensic handwriting examination of manuscripts written in Chinese hieroglyphic script: a textbook for universities. Ed. by M. V. Bobovkin. Moscow: Yurait Publishing House; 2022. 107 p.
12. Shvedova N. N. On the scientific validity and credibility of expert conclusions based on the results of examination of images of document details. Forensic Examination, 64–73, 2023. (In Russ.).
13. Stepanova A. A. Theoretical foundations and practice of forensic examination of prints of identification printing plates. Abstract of dissertation of candidate of juridical sciences. Moscow; 2025: 23. (In Russ.).
14. Podpolukho M. M. Images of manuscripts in copies of documents and documents in electronic form as objects of forensic handwriting expertise // Issues of criminology, criminology and forensic examination, 107–114, 2024. (In Russ.).
