<![CDATA[Article 30 of the KUHAP introduces electronic recording of custodial interrogations but does not regulate implementation, creating legal uncertainty regarding recording standards, procedural safeguards, and the legal consequences of non-compliance. Using a normative legal method with a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks of Colorado, Texas and England, the research addresses the regulatory gap in Article 30 of the KUHAP by proposing a conceptual framework for the implementing Government Regulation. Comparative analysis demonstrates that recording mechanisms differ across jurisdictions but consistently regulate recording standards, storage and data security, mandatory application to serious offences, statutory exceptions, and legal consequences for non-compliance. The proposed regulatory model incorporates mandatory electronic recording, secure evidence management, phased implementation, and risk-based application to strengthen due process, protect suspect rights, and enhance law enforcement accountability.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
