Legal assessment of the conclusion of the forensic examination

This research topic focuses on the legal assessment of the conclusions of the forensic examination, presenting an analysis of the importance and impact of forensic expert conclusions in legal practice. The present study delves into the intricacies of conducting a forensic examination, encompassing its aims and methodology. Additionally, it scrutinizes matters pertaining to the admissibility, dependability, and interpretation of expert opinions within court proceedings. The primary legal facets associated with the role of forensic examination in ascertaining facts and evidence in legal cases, along with potential ramifications for the involved parties, are thoroughly analyzed. The findings of this investigation furnish valuable insightsfor a more profound comprehension of the significance of forensic examination in legal proceedings, as well as the crucial role played by reliable and precise expert opinions in upholding equity and justice. The study discusses the regulatory and legislative environment that governs forensic examination, including the qualification requirements for experts and the procedures for their appointment. The study also highlights the importance of the neutrality and objectivity of experts, as well as the need to ensure their independence from the parties to the process. Potential challenges and problems related to expert opinions are highlighted, such as conflicts of interest and the possibility of expert errors. As a result, this study highlights the importance of forensic expertise in court proceedings and its impact on judicial decision-making. Practical recommendations and measures that can improve the quality and reliability of expert opinions are analyzed, contributing to a more fair and effective legal process. 

1. Bednjakov I.L. (2017) Teorija dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom processe. – Samara: Samarskij juridicheskij institut FSIN Rossii, 152 p. (In Russian).

2. Qazaqstan Respublikasynyñ Qylmystyq-prosestık kodeksi Qazaqstan Respublikasynyñ Kodeksı 2014 jylğy 4 şıldedegı No. 231-V QRZ. URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/K1400000231. (In Kazakh).

3. Cot-saraptama qyzmetı turaly Qazaqstan Respublikasynyñ Zañy 2017 jylğy 10 aqpandağy No. 44-VI QRZ. URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/Z1700000044. (In Kazakh).

4. Maslennikova L.N. (2017) Dokazyvanie i prinjatie reshenij v sostjazatel'nom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. M.: Norma, 384 p. (In Russian).

5. Şakirov K.N.,TapalovaR.B. Mergembaeva N.B.(2012) QazaqstanRespublikasyndağy Sotsaraptamasy: ūiymdastyryluy jäne öndırısı. Almaty: äl-Farabi atyndağy QazŪU, 230 p. (In Kazakh).

6. Shakirov K.N. (2016) Sudebnaja jekspertologija: problemy i reshenija (ot teorii – k praktike). Almaty: Қazaқ universiteti, 218 p. (In Russian).

7. Toleubekova B.H. (2015) Qazaqstan Respublikasyndağy qylmystyq proses. Erekşe bölım. Almaty: KazNPU im.Abaia, 186 p. (In Kazakh).

8. Giverts P., GriberA., Kokin A.V. (2022) On the Criteria for Evaluating an Expert’s Opinion and Forensic Methods by Participants in the Legal Proceedings // Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. No. 17(1). P. 27–37. (In English).

9. Zajceva E.A. Koncepcija razvitija instituta sudebnoj jekspertizy v uslovijah sostjazatel'nogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva. M.: Jurlitinform, 2010. 437 p. (In Russian).

10. Kostenko R.V., Nemira S.V. Dostovernost' zakljuchenija jeksperta v ugolovnom processe. M.: Jurlitinform, 2018. 152 p. (In Russian).