Judicial oversight of investigative measures is a core safeguard for the protection of human rights in contemporary criminal procedure. The expansion of investigative powers and the increasing reliance on digital evidence have made such oversight particularly important at the pre-trial stage. This article examines the legal nature of judicial oversight of investigative measures and analyzes comparative models of judicial supervision in criminal justice systems. Particular attention is paid to the development of judicial oversight in Uzbekistan and to the need to strengthen procedural safeguards in the digital age. The study combines doctrinal legal analysis, comparative legal methodology, and a review of international scholarship on criminal procedure. The findings suggest that effective mechanisms of judicial oversight enhance procedural fairness, reduce the risk of disproportionate interference with fundamental rights, and reinforce the rule of law.

Judicial control, investigative actions, criminal procedure

Kremens, K. (2020). The authority to order search in a comparative perspective: A call for judicial oversight. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 6(3), 1585–1626. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.412

Khidirov, G. T. (2025). Directions and prospects for introducing judicial oversight over operative-search activities. Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and History, 6(3), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.17605/cajssh.v6i3.1201

Kulbaeva, M. M., & Akhpanov, A. N. (2023). International standards, foreign legislative experience of judicial control in the investigation stage. Scientific and Legal Journal “Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” 2(73). https://doi.org/10.52026/2788-5291_2023_73_2_86

Temirbekova, A. A. (2020). Development of judicial control in criminal proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Experimental Education, (1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.17513/mjeo.11946

Morozova, O. S. (2020). Introduction of the figure of an investigating judge in criminal proceedings: Pros and cons. Siberian Law Review, 17(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2020-17-1-83-88

Kakim, I. (2023). Features of judicial control in the criminal process of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan: Comparative legal analysis. Bulletin of the Jusup Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University, 15(4), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.58649/1694-8033-2023-4(116)-90-95

Kaplina, O., Tumanyants, A., & Krytska, I. (2023). Standards for ensuring the legality of covert activities in criminal proceedings through the prism of European Court of Human Rights. Revista Jurídica Portucalense, (34), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(34)2023.ic-11

Skrypnyk, A., & Titko, I. (2024). Proportionality of intervention and the balance of public and private interests in covert evidence collection in criminal proceedings. Theory and Practice of Jurisprudence, 2(26), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2024.26.313485

Schaunig, G. (2025). House searches and seizures in criminal proceedings. University of Vienna Law Review, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.25365/vlr-2025-9-1-20

Bernardini, L., & Sanvitale, F. (2023). Searches and seizures of electronic devices in European criminal proceedings: A new pattern for independent review? Revista Ítalo-española de Derecho Procesal, (1), 73–119. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/1475

Stoykova, R. (2023). The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations. Computer Law & Security Review, 49, 105801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801

Stoykova, R. A. (2024). A new right to procedural accuracy: A governance model for digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, 106040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106040