Блог

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.18

О. Nedashkivska

The author raises the issue of the lack of a clear mechanism for the implementation of the right of a forensic expert of an expert initiative using the right of a forensic expert to file a petition as, in fact, the only procedural form for a forensic expert to exercise his right of an expert initiative.
The purpose of the study is to analyze the existing legal framework governing the right of expert initiative and various scientific opinions on the right to identify an expert initiative, using the right to petition.
The study was conducted by analyzing the current legislation in terms of regulating the right of expert initiative and the views of scholars on the concept of expert initiative, as well as a survey of practicing forensic experts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine to determine the limits of ownership of the conceptual apparatus, its implementation in practice.
The level of mastery of the conceptual apparatus by forensic experts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of theoretical and practical knowledge in the field of expert initiative and the possibility of their implementation in practice is established. Various scientific approaches to the problem of using the right of expert initiative in modern conditions are analyzed, the practical significance and importance of legal regulation of the right of a forensic expert to file a petition as a procedural form of ensuring the right of expert initiative by forensic experts in their practical work is demonstrated.
A systematic solution to the problem is proposed by the improving the legal framework that would regulate the procedure for using the right of a forensic expert to file a petition as a de facto form of exercising the right to an expert initiative and creating an algorithm to ensure the right of a forensic expert to an expert initiative.

Key words: petition, expert initiative, forensic expert, questionnaires, forensic examination, expert research, justice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.17

T. Kryvak

The article deals with the features of translation of terms in the field of criminalistics and forensic examination and the issue of variance that arises in the process of translation.
It is noted that variance in the translation of terms in the field of criminalistics and forensic examination is both a positive and a negative phenomenon. However, the emergence of variance, as practice shows, is a prerequisite for the acquisition of an exact and unambiguous equivalent in language, depending on the context. The article indicates that the translation of terminology in the field of criminalistics is of particular interest, since the language of law, as a language of professional communication, has a vivid national specificity, due to the legal realities of national legal systems. Therefore, in the case of translations from English into Ukrainian and from Ukrainian into English, one should take into account the difference between the common law system, which is applied in English-speaking countries, and the civil law system, which also includes the Ukrainian legal system.
The lexical transformations that are used when translating terms are analyzed and the need to achieve the effect of meaningful and contextual identity when translating terms is determined. It is concluded that as criminalistics and forensic examination develop, there is a rethinking and transformation of existing terminological units. Moreover, international cooperation has a beneficial effect on the work of not only terminologists, but also criminologists and forensic experts, since the unification of terminology facilitates communication between specialists. Terminology serves as the basic conceptual apparatus for any field of knowledge, and forensic science is no exception.

Key words: terminology, variance in translation, criminalistics, forensic examination.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.16

S. Kukhareva D. Kalnoi

The article deals with legislative amendments in the regulation of forensic examinations and expert research. Its practical application in forensic activity and the use of research results in forensic practice is analyzed. A brief analysis of judicial practice has been carried out for the courts to assess the conclusions of experts, taking into account the amendments made to the legislation on forensic activity, and its recognition as appropriate evidence in the case. The problematic of this article is related to the need to properly regulate the issue of conducting forensic examinations and expert research, due to the presence of a number of contradictions in such regulation now. In particular, regarding a clear definition and regulation of the legal and procedural status of an expert opinion and expert research, as well as special knowledge. The application of the requirements of the law on forensic activities, as amended, with regard to the provision of expert advice to other persons on request prior to the commencement of proceedings in a case, is critically evaluated in practice, as the relevant conclusions may not be taken into account by the courts (as not having an appropriate procedural status).
The legislation on forensic activity requires the elimination of gaps and the introduction of appropriate changes, bringing the regulatory legal acts in accordance. In particular, to agree on the requirements of Articles 1 and 71 of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination” regarding the grounds (its presence or absence). For conducting forensic examinations on the appeal of other persons out of court proceedings, as well as clause 1.8 of the Instruction on the appointment and conduct of forensic examinations and forensic investigations approved by order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated 08.10.1998 No. 53/5. With the Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 18.12.2019 No. 522/1029/18 regarding the indication in the expert opinion regarding the expert’s knowledge of criminal liability for a knowingly false conclusion, and that such a conclusion was prepared for submission to court.

Key words: legal regulation, examination, expert research, expert, special knowledge, process, awareness, warning, legislation.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.15

D. Smernnytskyi Y. Samus O. Biliaieva T. Romanova

In order to obtain reliable measurement results during the conformity assessment of products in the testing laboratory, it is important to provide metrological confirmation of the used measuring equipment. When performing measurements according to the appropriate methodology, it is important to comply clearly with the requirements for measuring equipment, conditions, sequence of measurement operations, the qualifications of specialists.
Research article considers the general requirements for testing equipment and measurement methodology in accordance with the national standard DSTU ISO / IEC 17025: 2017.Several requirements to the equipment and methodology of confirming their suitability by calibration and verification are analyzed. For accredited laboratories the calibration of measuring equipment, that affects the reliability of obtained results, is mandatory; testing equipment that does not perform measuring functions, must be checked for the compliance with the technical characteristics set out in the testing methods. The requirements for measurement methodology and methods of their suitability confirming through verification and validation are analyzed. The main risks of testing laboratories in the performance of measurements have been identified.

Key words: testing laboratory, testing equipment, measuring equipment, calibration, measurement technique, laboratory accreditation, metrological traceability, accuracy characteristics.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.14

A. Poltavskyi

The article deals with the problem of interpretation of the normatively fixed definition “detailed description of the studies in the expert’s conclusion”, which (that is, conclusion) is a source of evidence in the procedural law of Ukraine. There are presented the views of forensic scientists, the international standards adopted in Ukraine are analyzed, the ILAC G19: 08/2014 “Modules in a Forensic Science Process” guidelines, the draft of fifth part of the ISO 21043 standard “Reporting” regarding the content of this definition. It is stated that “the detailed description of the studies in the expert’s conclusion” is based on the dialectical-materialistic method, methods of formal logic, general scientific methods, methods of maternal sciences and special methods, that is, methodologies of conducting forensic examinations. A parallel is drawn with the latter as with normative documents that should regulate the process of description in the research part of the conclusion.
Based on the obtained results of the analysis, it was concluded that in the forensic examination methodology, as a detailed program for solving an expert assignment, in the section that regulates the procedure for formalizing the research conducted by an expert conclusion, the procedure for a detailed description of the research should be determined, which allows for interpretation the results obtained (assessment of the results of the studies carried out and the formulation of conclusions) by others who did not conduct an examination, by qualified specialists having the appropriate competence to confirm the reliability of the results and formulated answers to the questions posed, including by reproducing and/or repeating the process of producing the examination.
In order to solve the problem raised, it is necessary to develop the state standard of Ukraine – DSTU XXXX: 202__ “Forensic expert activity. Forensic examination methodologies. Requirements”, in which to determine, inter alia, the content of the definition “detailed description of the studies in the expert’s conclusion”.

Key words: detailed description of the studies, expert’s conclusion, development of the state standard of Ukraine.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.13

О. Humenskyi

A correct understanding of special knowledge is an important condition for its application in all necessary cases, due to the need for legal proceedings. Special features that characterize special knowledge are the following:
– this knowledge is not generally known, generally available and unit;
– a person in the process of theoretical and practical preparation for a specific activity acquires them;
– are used not once;
– are provided in indirect form, not direct form;
– are involved in the process in accordance with the procedure established by law if the participants in the process have a need for this kind of knowledge;
– are used in the forms provided for by procedural legislation;
– its use is associated with a certain level of education and/or training, as well as professional or other experience;
– such knowledge helps to ensure the adoption of a lawful and justified act of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the court as a judicial authority.
The basis of special knowledge must necessarily be theoretical, scientific validity. Special knowledge in criminal proceedings is knowledge and skills obtained as a result of special education and/or practical activity in any field of science, technology, art or craft, which are used by the participants in the process determined by the law within the powers granted to each of them to solve procedural tasks according to a certain procedure.
Special knowledge is personalized knowledge acquired and assimilated by a specific person in the process of cognitive activity. In addition, the understanding of cognition as an activity to achieve knowledge corresponds to the concept of judicial cognition as a process for the formation of knowledge about the circumstances that are significant for the correct consideration and resolution of the case.
The basis for the use of special knowledge is the need for it in order to obtain evidence-based information: 1) by establishing in the process of research facts that cannot be obtained in another way (examination); 2) by using special knowledge to provide advice, clarifications, assistance in formulating questions to an expert or the commission of other procedural actions.
Depending on the subject, type of activity and the purpose of its application, procedural and non-procedural forms of using special knowledge are distinguished.
Depending on the legal purpose, the distribution of forms of using special knowledge is carried out as follows: if new evidence is formed using special knowledge, this is a procedural form; if special knowledge is used for the internal conviction of the subject of proof, this is a non-procedural form.

Keywords: knowledge, cognition, special knowledge, special skills, forms of using special knowledge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.12

О. Zherebko

The article deals with the features of the organizational provisions of forensic and expert activity of the bodies of the system of the Ministry Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the patterns associated with the appointment of a forensic examination, its conduct and the activities of the forensic departments of the bodies of the system the Ministry Internal Affairs. It is also developed recommendations for improving the forensic expert activity.
Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that the ways to improve forensic examination should be:
– increasing the level of technical and forensic support for the disclosure, investigation and prevention of crimes;
– implementation of measures to increase the effectiveness of the participation of employees of expert services in the conduct of investigative actions and law enforcement intelligence operations;
– improvement of research activities and the introduction into practice of new technical and forensic tools, forensic expert methods and methodologies;
– conducting forensic records, analytical and organizational work based on the introduction of modern automated systems and technologies;
– generalization and dissemination of best practices and analysis of expert practice;
– improving the selection, training and placement of employees of expert subdivisions, strengthening of service and performance discipline;
– intensification of interaction between the expert service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs with other divisions of the bodies of the system of the Ministry Internal Affairs, as well as with other law enforcement agencies, including at the interstate level.

Key words: forensic institution, investigative bodies, forensic and expert activity, organizational and legal issues of expert activity.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.11

O. Baulin O. Izotov

The article considers the procedural and forensic aspects of the verification and assessment of an expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings, its regulation under the current legislation of Ukraine.
The authors define the assessment of the expert’s conclusion and indicate its structural elements and features, as well as what is its difference from the verifying the expert’s conclusion, since the latter is characterized not only by the operations of mental activity, but also by the conduct of investigative (search) and other procedural actions. It is noted that the verification of the expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings always precedes its assessment.
The assessment of the expert’s conclusion includes the analysis of the follows:
– compliance with the procedural rules for the appointment, conduct and execution of the xamination;
– competence and adequacy of an expert;
– expert’s conclusions on compliance with the tasks assigned to him/her;
– completeness and scientific validity of the conclusion;
– the data of the conclusion regarding its relevance;
– compliance of the expert’s conclusion with other evidence collected in criminal proceedings.
The subjects carrying out criminal proceedings pay particular attention to the modern practice of assessing the expert’s conclusion. The approach is perceived critically, according to which only the categorical conclusion of the expert has evidentiary value, and the court cannot base the judgment on the probabilistic conclusion. Based on the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and on the example of the assessment of the conclusions of the forensic medical examination on the probabilistic cause of the death of the victim, which was made by the Supreme Court, applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the authors point to the obligatory use of probabilistic expert conclusions by courts to justify its acquittals.
The article draws conclusions about the current state and limits of legal regulation of the assessment of an expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings, the rules of which, according to the authors, do not need to be fixed in a separate article of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Key words: expert’s conclusion, an expert, verification of expert conclusion; assessment the expert’s conclusion; forensic examination, criminal proceedings.