Neurocriminalistics in the Era of the Brain–Computer Interface: Balancing Investigative Effectiveness and Human Rights Protection in Light of the UNESCO Samarkand Recommendation
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-2-37-63
Abstract
Fifth-generation brain–computer interface neurotechnologies enable the instrumental registration of cognitive traces of crime, transforming the conditions of investigative practices. Brain fingerprinting, employing event-related brain potentials, allows the establishment of the presence or absence of specific information in memory without verbal mediation. The adoption of the first global neuroethical standard—the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology adopted on November 11, 2025 in Samarkand at the 43rd session of the UNESCO General Conference—creates an international legal framework that has not yet been conceptualized in forensic and criminal procedural terms in post-Soviet and BRICS legal systems. The aim of this article is to substantiate “neurocriminalistics” as a new branch of forensic science and to develop a model of legal regulation of “neuroexpertise” in the criminal procedural law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The research methodology combines comparative legal analysis of the regulatory frameworks of Uzbekistan, BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), Chile, the European Union and the United States; inductive generalisation of criminal neurotesting cases; functional analysis of investigative actions under the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan; and normative modelling of admissibility. The research contribution lies in five proposals: an instrumentally registrable ideational trace as an autonomous object of forensic research; the attributive gap between neurorecognised familiarity and evidentially relevant knowledge; the two-tier admissibility regime distinguishing orienting application in operational-investigative activity from procedural application in particularly grave cases; the “Samarkand Process” as an institutional mechanism for regional implementation; and “neuroexpertise” as an autonomous form of forensic examination.
About the Authors
S. S. GulyamovUzbekistan
Said Saidakhrarovich Gulyamov – Doctor of Law, Professor, Department of Cyber Law
35 Sayilgokh St., Tashkent, 100047
A. Budiono
Indonesia
Arief Budiono – Doctor of Law, Faculty of Law
Jl. A. Yani, Pabelan, Kartasura, Sukoharjo, Jawa Tengah, 57169
G. F. Musaev
Uzbekistan
Gayrat Farkhadovich Musaev – Master of Law, MGIMO University, Associate Professor, Senior Counsellor of Justice, Head of Scientific and Methodological Center for Digital Forensics
9 Rixsiliy St., Tashkent, 100190
B. R. Topildiev
Uzbekistan
Bakhromjon Rakhimjonovich Topildiev – Doctor of Law, Professor, Department of Civil Law
35 Sayilgokh St., Tashkent, 100047
References
1. Aggarwal, N. K. (2017). Lie detection by brain electrical oscillation signature profiling: An emerging neuroforensic technique. New Zealand Criminal Law Review, 2017, 416–438.
2. Curran, T., & Cleary, A. M. (2003). Using ERPs to dissociate recollection from familiarity in picture recognition. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(2), 191–205.
3. Curran, T., et al. (2006). Combined pharmacological and electrophysiological dissociation of familiarity and recollection. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(7), 1979–1985. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5370-05.2006
4. Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x
5. Farwell, L. A., Richardson, D. C., & Richardson, G. M. (2013). Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 7(4), 263–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0
6. Gaudry, K. S., et al. (2021). Projections and the potential societal impact of the future of neurotechnologies. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 658930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.658930
7. Gulyamov, S. S., & Rustambekov, I. R. (2026). Ethical aspects of AI regulation for higher education. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 7(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2026.1.49.70
8. Ienca, M. (2021). On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 701258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258
9. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017).Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
10. Murphy, E. R. D., & Rissman, J. (2020). Evidence of memory from brain data. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa078. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa078
11. Poo, M. M. (2024). China’s new ethical guidelines for the use of brain-computer interfaces. National Science Review, 11(4), nwae154. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae154
12. Rosenfeld, J. P., et al. (2004). Simple effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00158.x
13. Rosenfeld, J. P., et al. (2008). The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): A new, countermeasureresistant, accurate, P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 45(6), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00708.x
14. Sosa Navarro, M. (2026). Workplace neurosurveillance: Is the employee’s mental privacy protected under international law? BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, Special Issue 1/2026, 93–114.
Review
For citations:
Gulyamov S.S., Budiono A., Musaev G.F., Topildiev B.R. Neurocriminalistics in the Era of the Brain–Computer Interface: Balancing Investigative Effectiveness and Human Rights Protection in Light of the UNESCO Samarkand Recommendation. BRICS Law Journal. 2026;13(2):37-63. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-2-37-63
JATS XML






























