The influence of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the formation of forensic standards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15225970Keywords:
European Court of Human Rights, forensic, expert report, criminal proceedings, source of evidence, right to a fair trial, standard of proofAbstract
The European Court of Human Rights is an international legal, independent judicial body whose task is to ensure compliance with and application of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. One of the tasks is to respect the right of an individual to a fair trial, in particular, ensuring the rights of participants in criminal proceedings during forensics. The purpose of the article is to analyze the decisions of the European Court related to the appointment and conduct of forensics, the evaluation and use of expert report, and the formulation of proposals for domestic criminal procedural legislation. To achieve the specified goal, a set of methods was applied: comparative law, analysis, synthesis, generalization. According to the results of the study, in order to ensure the adversarial nature of the parties, it is proposed to appoint a commission forensic with the participation of experts from the prosecution and defense; the presence of a specialist during the forensic initiated by the prosecution; and the defense's application to the judge with a request to conduct an forensic of objects in the possession of the prosecution. The proposal to grant the victim the same rights to involve an expert as the defense party is substantiated. The inadmissibility of illegally forcibly involving persons for conducting forensic psychiatric examinations is indicated. It is noted that it is impossible to order repeated forensic without reasonable grounds, which will avoid excessive duration and exceeding reasonable deadlines for conducting the criminal investigation. It is stated that expert report should be evaluated in conjunction with other proof in criminal proceedings and the results of expert research should not be given priority. The necessity of allowing specialist reviews of expert report as a source of information on the validity of the expert opinion has been proven.
