دسترسی متهمان به عدالت در بستر الگوی مطلوب دادرسی الکترونیکی

رسیدگی از راه دور / Remote Proceeding , دادگاه برخط / Online Court , دسترسی به عدالت / access to justice , حقوق متهم / rights of the accused , انسانیت‌زدایی / dehumanization , تحول دیجیتال / Digital Transformation

1) ابهری، حمید، 1397، “ابلاغ الکترونیکی اوراق قضایی؛ مزایا و معایب”، نشریه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، 48 (3). 2) اسمعیلی، اکبر، پورقهرمانی، بابک، 1398، “چالش‌های فراروی دادرسی الکترونیک در ایران”، فصلنامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، 24(87). 3) پورمجرب، گل آرا، 1400، دادرسی الکترونیک: بررسی سازوکار رسیدگی قضایی از طریق ویدئوکنفرانس، گزارش پژوهشی، پژوهشکده آمار و فناوری اطلاعات، پژوهشگاه قوه قضاییه. 4) جعفری، حمیدرضا و همکاران، 1393، “بررسی تأثیر کیفیت خدمات الکترونیک قضایی بر رضایت‌مندی شهروندان”، پژوهش‌های مدیریت عمومی، 7 (24). 5) حسن‌پور، فرزانه، 1393، بایسته‌ها و ‌چالش‌های‌ دادرسی‌ کیفری‌ الکترونیکی ‌در‌ پرتو‌ لایحه ‌جدید ‌آیین ‌دادرسی‌ کیفری، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، به راهنمایی دکتر عبدالرضا جوان جعفری بجنوردی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد. 6) زاده حسین علیائی، زهرا، 1396، بررسی دادرسی الکترونیکی در نظام کیفری ایران، تهران، نشر مجد. 7) گیواندی، سارتور، برتینگ، کارل، 1399، کاربردهای قضایی هوش مصنوعی، ترجمه مهرنوش ابوذری و سعید شفیعی، تهران، نشر میزان. 8) معصومی، مالک، 1396، بررسی تطبیقی حقوق و سیاست دادرسی کیفری الکترونیکی با نگاهی به ادله اثبات آن در حقوق ایران و ایالات متحده امریکا، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، به راهنمایی دکتر مجتبی جانی‌پور، دانشگاه گیلان. 9) مهرافشان، علیرضا، 1393، ” رسیدگی به اتهام از طریق ویدئوکنفرانس”، مجله مطالعات حقوقی، 6 (4). 10) اله‌یاری نیک، احمد، شعبان‌نیا، مهدی، 1399، “تأثیر دفاتر خدمات الکترونیک قضایی بر کاهش اطاله دادرسی”، فصلنامه تعالی حقوق، شماره 8. 11) یوسفی، یحیی، هاشمی، سیدرضا، 1393، “تأثیر کاربرد فناوری اطلاعات بر بهره‌وری نظام قضایی (مطالعه موردی: دادگستری کل استان کرمانشاه)”، نشریه پژوهش و توسعه فناوری، 3 (6).

12) Anderson, Monica & Kumar, Madhumitha, 2019, Digital Divide Persist Even as Lower-Income Americans Make Gains in Tech Adoption (Report), Pew Research Center, Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lowerincome-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/. 13) Anderson, Monica & Perrin, Andrew, 2019, Disabled Americans are Less Likely to Use Technology (Report), Pew Research Center, Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/disabled-americans-are-lesslikely-to-use-technology/ 14) Ariturk, Deniz, Crozier, William E. & Garrett, Brandon L., 2020, “Virtual Criminal Courts”, University of Chicago Law Review Online, 57. 15) Bannon, Alicia and Adelstein, Janna, 2020, “The Impact of Video Proceedings on Fairness and Access to Justice in Court”, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law. 16) Benninger, Taylor et al., 2021, “Virtual Justice? A National Study Analyzing the Transition to Remote Criminal Court”, The Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Available at: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Virtual-Justice-Final-Aug-2021.pdf 17) Department of Justice [Ireland], 2021, Action Plan 2021: Strategic Priorities & Initiatives. Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/da0c1-department-of-justice-action-plan-2021-mid-year-progress-report/. 18) Department of Justice and Attorney General [Queensland], Strategic Plan 2018-2022. Available at: https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/573317/djag-strategic-plan-2018-22.pdf. 19) Diamond, Shari Seidman et al., 2010, “Efficiency and Cost: The Impact of Videoconferenced Hearings on Bail Decisions”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100 (3). 20) Eagly, Ingrid V., 2015, “Remote Adjudication in Immigration”, Northwestern University Law Review, 109 (4). 21) European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2016, Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16807482de#_Toc462148789. 22) European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2021, Guidelines on Electronic Court Filing (E-Filing) and Digitalisation of Courts. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-15-en-e-filing-guidelines-digitalisation-courts/1680a4cf87. 23) European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2021, Guidelines on Videoconferencing in Judicial Proceedings. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-4-guidelines-videoconference-en/1680a2c2f4. 24) Gourdet, Camille et al., 2020, Court Appearances in Criminal Proceedings through Telepresence (Report), the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ). 25) Greacen, John, 2017, Remote Appearances of Parties, Attorneys, and Witnesses (Report), Self-Represented Litigation Network. Available at: https://www.srln.org/node/1269/report-remote-appearances-parties-attorneys-and-witness-review-current-court-rules-practices 26) Inter-American Development Bank, 2020, Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action. Available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Digital-Technologies-for-Better-Justice-A-Toolkit-for-Action.pdf 27) Kenniston, Carolyn W., 2015, “You May Now ‘Call’ Your Next Witness: Allowing Adult Rape Victims to Testify via Two-Way Video Conferencing Systems”, High Technology Law, 16(1). 28) Lynch, Brian L., 2015, “Access to Legal Services in Rural Areas of the Northern Rockies: A Recommendation for Town Legal Centers”, Indiana Law Journal, 90(4). 29) Perrin, Andrew & Turner, Erica, 2019, Smartphones Help Blacks, Hispanics Bridge Some – But Not All – Digital Gaps with Whites (Report), Pew Research Center, Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2019/08/20/smartphones-help-blacks-hispanics-bridge-some-but-not-all-digital-gaps-with-whites/. 30) Perrin, Andrew, 2019, Digital Gap between Rural and Nonrural America Persists (Report), Pew Research Center, Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-between-rural-and-nonrural-america-persists/. 31) Prescott, James J., 2017, “Improving Access to Justice in State Courts with Platform Technology”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6). 32) Sanders, Anne, 2021, “Video-Hearings in Europe Before, During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic”, International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2). 33) Stepanov, Oleg, et al., 2019, “Conceptual Legal Viewpoints on the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction in the Context of Digitalization”, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 5(43). 34) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), 2020, From Digitisation to Digital Transformation: A Case for Online Courts in Commercial Disputes?. Available at: https://app.glueup.com/resources/protected/organization/1136/event/27964/99358ddf-99c4-4026-b5c7-21c882fddfbc.pdf. 35) The Ministry of Attorney General (British Columbia), 2018, Court Digital Transformation Strategy 2019-23. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justice-system/justice-reform-initiatives/digital-transformation-strategy-bc-courts.pdf 36) The National Center for State Courts (NCSC – USA), 2021, Remote Hearings and Access to Justice: During Covid-19 and Beyond. Available at: https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/40365/RRT-Technology-ATJ-Remote-Hearings-Guide.pdf 37) The Police Foundation and CGI [United Kingdom], 2017, Reforming Justice for the Digital Age. Available at: https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/project/reforming-justice-for-the-digital-age/. 38) The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2021, Emerging Technologies and Judicial Integrity: Toolkit for Judges. Available at: https://www.undp.org/publications/emerging-technologies-and-judicial-integrity-toolkit-judges 39) The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), 2020, Remote Hearing Toolkit. Available at: https://www.unitar.org/learning-solutions/publications/remote-hearing-toolkit 40) The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2020, Guidance Note on Ensuring Access to Justice in the Context of COVID-19. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/Advocacy-Section/Ensuring_Access_to_Justice_in_the_Context_of_COVID-191.pdf 41) The Scottish Courts and Tribunals [Scotland], 2018, Digital Strategy – 2018-2023. Available at: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/aboutscs/reports-and-data/reports-data/scts-digital-strategy—final.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 42) Turner, Jenia I, 2021, “Remote Criminal Justice”, Texas Tech Law Review, 53(2). 43) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2021, Emerging Technologies and Judicial Integrity: Toolkit for Judges. Available at: https://www.undp.org/publications/emerging-technologies-and-judicial-integrity-toolkit-judges . 44) Vogels, Emily A. & Anderson, Monica, 2019, Americans and Digital Knowledge (Report), Pew Research Center, Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/10/09/americans-and-digital-knowledge/ 45) Walsh, Frank M. & Walsh. Edward M., 2008, “Effective Processing or Assembly-Line Justice? The Use of Teleconferencing in Asylum Removal Hearings”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 22(2).