Electronic documents are no longer an exception in modern transactions; rather, they have become the predominant means for contracting, correspondence, and the management of civil and commercial obligations. With this transformation, the central question is no longer whether an electronic document may be relied upon, but rather: when, how, and under what conditions may it be invoked before the courts?
Since the promulgation of Law No. (16) of 2010 on Electronic Commerce and Transactions, the Qatari legislator has adopted a clear position based on the principle of functional equivalence between electronic and paper documents. The electronic form is no longer, in itself, a ground for rejecting evidence, provided that the document is capable of being stored and retrieved, and that its integrity and attribution to its author are duly established.
However, this recognition is neither absolute nor unconditional. It is subject to a set of technical and legal safeguards intended to ensure confidence in electronic evidence without compromising procedural justice. Evidentiary value, therefore, does not derive from the electronic medium as such, but from the integrity of the system governing creation, preservation, and transmission.
This legislative approach has been clearly reflected in the jurisprudence of the Qatari Court of Cassation. In several rulings, the Court affirmed that electronic documents enjoy the same legal value as traditional written documents, provided that they are preserved in a manner ensuring protection against tampering, that they remain accessible when required, and that their attribution to the relevant parties is established in a reliable manner.
In Appeal No. 79 of 2023, the Court articulated a precise standard for assessing electronic evidence, holding that the decisive factor is not form, but reliability of the medium. The Court ruled that an electronic document does not lose its evidentiary value merely because it is a copy, so long as it is preserved within an electronic system that guarantees the stability of its content. The Court further confirmed that it retains full discretionary authority in weighing such evidence and may disregard it if it is not satisfied with the circumstances of its creation or preservation.
This principle carries significant practical importance, as it shifts the evidentiary focus from mere production of the document to proof of the integrity of its technical environment. It is no longer sufficient to rely on an email message or a digital extract; rather, the party invoking such evidence must be able, when challenged, to demonstrate its technical reliability.
Conversely, the Court emphasized that a mere denial by the opposing party does not, in itself, deprive an electronic document of its evidentiary value, provided that its exchange and attribution are established in accordance with legal standards. This approach reinforces the stability of digital transactions and prevents abuse of formal denial as a means of undermining reliable evidence.
Statutory Exceptions toElectronic Evidentiary Value
Despite this broad legislative and judicial recognition ofelectronic evidentiary value, the Qatari legislator did not make suchrecognition absolute. Article (3) of the Electronic Transactions and CommerceLaw expressly excludes certain documents and transactions from the scope of thelaw, most notably:
This regulatory framework indicates that such exceptions must remain strictly confined to their express scope and may not be expanded by interpretation or analogy. The general rule remains that electronic documents are subject to evidentiary rules, while the exceptions are exhaustive and restrictive.
The exclusion of family and personal status matters reflects a conscious legislative policy recognizing the sensitive social and human nature of such disputes, and the need to subject them to a special evidentiary regime that respects their particular character. This does not deny the factual value of electronic documents, but rather limits their legal effect within the framework prescribed by law.
The Court of Cassation affirmed this approach in Appeal No. 120 of 2023, holding that evidentiary rules in family matters are governed by a special system derived from their religious and social nature, and that electronic evidentiary rules may not be extended thereto where such extension would conflict with the governing legal standards. The Court emphasized that the legislator intentionally excluded such matters from the scope of the Electronic Transactions Law in order to protect family public order and preserve social stability.
Accordingly, the Court of Cassation has consistently respected the limits of the legislative exception and has refrained from applying electronic evidentiary rules to matters expressly excluded by law, in adherence to the principle of legality and in protection of legal certainty.
Judicial Balance in Assessing Electronic Evidence
It is evident from this jurisprudential trend that Qatari courts have not treated electronic documents as inherently weak evidence, nor as evidence of absolute probative force. Rather, they have placed them in their proper position as evidentiary tools subject to judicial assessment, like all other means of proof, while taking into account their technical specificity.
From a practical perspective, this judicial approach leads to important consequences. Companies and institutions are now required to manage their digital correspondence and records in accordance with technically verifiable standards. Technical expertise has become a central element in disputes involving electronic evidence. Negligence in data preservation and documentation is no longer merely an administrative shortcoming; it may constitute a significant legal vulnerability capable of influencing the outcome of litigation.