DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "SPECIALIST'S OPINION" AND "EXPERT RESEARCH OPINION" IN CASES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS
Authors: Povstyani Vitalii , Mishalov Volodymyr 
Published: March 2024

The article presents topical issues related to the appointment of forensic medical examinations and research at the request of the defense in criminal proceedings, as well as procedural features of the participation of specialists in expert work at the pre-trial investigation stage. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed.

Aim of the work. The purpose of the work is to determine the differences between the "Specialist's Opinion" and the "Expert Research Conclusion" in cases of forensic medical examinations on a contractual basis.

Results. It was established that "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to the expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed.

Conclusions. If, in order to obtain a specialist's opinion, all the requirements inherent in an expert's opinion must be followed, then the question arises of the feasibility of obtaining such an opinion, instead of evaluating the evidence in a method proven by practice, namely, conducting a forensic medical examination. "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to an expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. It is expedient to amend Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the procedure for warning an expert about responsibility for a knowingly false conclusion and refusal without valid reasons to perform the duties assigned to him in the case of providing the conclusions of an expert study, on a contractual basis. Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should be supplemented with paragraph 71 of the following content: "A copy of the agreement with the expert institution on conducting the examination, a copy of the receipt for payment of the appointed examination shall be attached to the decision of the investigating judge on the commission of the examination. In Article 71 "Basics of the legislation of Ukraine on health care" it is necessary to introduce a provision on the possibility of conducting a forensic medical examination at the request of the defense party or the victim.We consider it expedient to: 1) create in higher education institutions (medical universities) advisory groups of scientific and pedagogical workers (docents, professors), 2) have them undergo thematic improvement cycles in medical jurisprudence and the basics of forensic medicine.