Inna Holova, the Head of the Department of Commodity Research and Research of Intellectual Property and Natalia Klimova, the lead forensic expert of the Department Department of Commodity Research and Research of Intellectual Property took part in a round table discussion: “Review of the conclusions of forensic experts: reasons for the appointment, content, procedural status”.

The event was held on the basis of the Research Center for Forensic Expertise on Intellectual Property of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

The agenda included issues of the specifics of the legal regulation of the procedure for reviewing the conclusions of forensic experts in Ukraine and abroad: the grounds and procedure for the appointment, the essence and content, as well as consideration of the review of the conclusion of the forensic expert as evidence in the legal proceedings. In addition, the participants discussed the reviews of the conclusions of forensic experts, which are performed outside the review clause, their procedural status and other important issues.

According to Inna Holova, the expert of Kyiv Research Scientific Institute of Forensic Expertise, at present, there is a situation in which the review of the conclusions of forensic experts takes place within the framework of the review regulations approved by the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and outside it. Reviews are drawn up to the order by one side of the case. Usually reviewers are not certified by forensic experts and do not have the right to do so.

“The speeches at the round table were divided into two parts. Those who compose these reviews support them accordingly. Still, most of those present, namely lawyers of leading law firms, forensic experts, judges and directors of other forensic expert organizations, seek a more regulated process, said Inna Holova, the Head of the Department of Commodity Research and Research of Intellectual Property the Laboratory of Automotive, Commodity and Special Types of Research of KFI. My speech drew attention to the following point: if we say that all lawyers are a legal entity, then there is no need to violate the law. There is a procedure within the framework of the current legislation, provides grounds for a review: date, purpose and, in fact, the specific person of the reviewer. The regulation on review does not provide that the reviewer made his own conclusions on the issues raised. But in reviews that are performed outside the order, such conclusions are often found. In my opinion, it is preferable to order such a document as a conclusion of an expert study, which involves an analysis of all case materials, studies and conclusions on issues”.

The expert also noted that the leading lawyers and advocates as well as representatives of the court support the settlement process of the review process.

In general, the event contributed to the systematization of practice of experience in the formation of methodological bases of the review experts’ conclusions and the use of reviews as evidence in the judicial process.