Plenum of the Supreme court has explained an order of carrying out of judicial examinations
Plenum of the Supreme court has cleared to people in cloaks as it is necessary to appoint examinations. There are interesting positions. We will tell, papers with an official position of the departments, received on demand of court or a consequence, cannot be considered as the expert judgement. And to participants of processes in certain cases will allow to observe sacrament of work of the expert.
About it and about many other things it is told in the decision of Plenum published on a site of the Supreme court of Russia.
Similar explanations were not almost 40 years, from the moment of acceptance of the previous decision on this theme. And it happens in far 1971. Much since then has changed: both laws, and a technique of work of experts. And the country, by the way, absolutely another. Therefore has come it is time to freshen recommendations.
One of positions as a matter of fact says the Third eye of the expert that the opinion of the official should not be solving. “ Inquiries, certificates, the conclusions and other forms of fixing of results of the departmental or other research, received on demand of preliminary investigation or court bodies, cannot be considered as the expert`s statement and to form the basis to refusal in carrying out of judicial examination, - is told in 6 - m decision point. - the specified positions do not interfere with familiarising with materials of criminal case and use in process dokazyvanija the conclusions of the expert received according to a part of 3 articles 80 UPK the Russian Federation “.
If to speak a simple language, papers from official instances can be accepted and filed in business. But to consider as their ultimate truth it is impossible. Repetition of words here the intended. The opinion of department is only opinion of department, it is no more of that. Let officials from concrete establishment inveterate professionals, with it nobody argues. But the third sight will be not superfluous. It is better to court to invite the expert from outside that objectively in all to understand.
the Academic council - without an epaulet
By data, in the course of work on the document it was actively discussed, whether to oblige people in cloaks to address for examination exclusively in state structures. However the idea has not passed. Hardly official bodies will cope with shaft of expert work if to forbid courts to invite scientific people, so to say, from the civil party. However, business not only in it. For the competent conclusion knowledge and experience is necessary, they do not depend on where the person works. Now in the country the noncommercial organisations which prepare the qualified conclusions operate many. And work will be all.
“ According to positions of a part of 2 articles 195 UPK the Russian Federation judicial examination is made by the state judicial experts and other experts from among the persons possessing special knowledge, - told in the document. - To other experts from among the persons possessing special knowledge, experts not state concern is judicial - expert establishments, and also the persons who are not working in is judicial - expert establishments “.
And that there were no superfluous questions, the Supreme court has explained that it is necessary to understand under not state is judicial - expert establishments. These are the noncommercial organisations (noncommercial partnership, private establishments or the independent noncommercial organisations), created according to the Civil code and the law “ About the noncommercial organisations “. Realisation should be registered In their charters is judicial - expert activity.
Thus makes a reservation that transfer of any proofs on research to private experts it is possible in the event that the local state institution has no in staff of the necessary experts or does not possess necessary material resources. But the court is obliged to motivate this transfer separately.
it is cheap, does not mean angrily
When speech comes about transfer something into private structures, the main horror story is tariffs. Many are afraid that will be expensive and is very heavy for fair people. However in this case it not the fact. According to experts, in the centre of Ministry of Justice of examination can cost from 10 - 12 thousand to one million roubles, all depends on complexity and labour input of research. Private experts in Moscow and St.-Petersburg take not less but only because demand in both capitals is traditionally great. In regions to make private examination frequently costs more cheaply, than state.
Other dangerous moment: corruption. It is considered to be, time people take money they, ostensibly, under the order can make everything, everything for work. However as have told in Chamber of judicial experts, in their sphere slightly other rules. There the one who pays, not necessarily orders “ music “.
As experts, if the professional in something " explain; it was soiled “ then it is difficult to it to wash reputation. And the good name in this business is more expensive than any money. Experts explain these low number of corruption affairs in the sphere. According to heads of Chamber of judicial experts, in the state structures there were individual affairs about bribes of experts. And not state spetsy never came across on payoff, though on them just the biggest pressure.
true Search - under supervision
Participants of process can be present with the permission of court at the expert research made out of a temple of a Themis. Then they will see the eyes as scientists search for true. However, can to see also nothing - if the court refuses the request.
When the expert will consider that presence “ postronnih “ to it will prevent, the court can listen to it, and to start up nobody. In that case, process of work of the man of science remains sacrament.
But in life all is possible. If that, the fact of presence of the participant of proceeding by manufacture of judicial examination out of a hall of judicial session has to be reflected in the expert`s statement.
Besides, the Supreme court has decided “ to explain to courts that the suspect accused and their defenders, and also the victim should be acquainted with the decision about appointment of examination before its manufacture. In the event that the person is recognised to the suspects accused or victims after appointment of judicial examination, it should be acquainted with this decision simultaneously with its that recognition about what the corresponding report " is made;.
Besides the decision provides restriction of term of carrying out of psychiatric stationary examinations by 30 days. However, in case of need on motivirovannomu to the petition of the expert or the commission of experts term of stay in a medical hospital can be prolonged the decision of the judge of district court in the location of the specified hospital for 30 days. And then for as much, but it already as a last resort. About three months, but 90 days already the limit as a result can turn out.
the Petition of the expert or the commission of experts for prolongation of term of stay of the person in a medical hospital should be presented to district court not later than three days before the expiration 30 - day term. Such petition is subject to consideration by rules of article 165 UPK the Russian Federation.
Who knows, that and speaks
For rendering assistance in an estimation of the expert`s statement and interrogation of the expert under the petition of the party or at the initiative of court the expert can be involved. It makes explanations in the form of oral indications or the written conclusion. About it too it is told in the document. And still: The court should specify, to what conclusions the expert as a result of research has come, instead of to be limited only to the reference in a sentence on its conclusion.
By the way, about experts is too very interesting figure in process. He does not conduct research of material evidences and does not formulate conclusions, and only states judgement on the questions put before it. Its conclusion and indications are subject to check and an estimation by the general rules, it is necessary to estimate competence and disinterest of the person of issue of a suit, validity of judgement and so forth. Thus words of the professional can be accepted court or are rejected, as well as any other proof. Eventually, everyone can be mistaken.
“ the Expert participating in manufacture of any investigatory action, can be if necessary interrogated in judicial session about circumstances of its manufacture as the witness. Indications of the expert invited by the parties, are given to them by the rules provided for interrogation of the person as the witness “ - it is told in the plenum decision.