Title: wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Drugs Analysis and Interpretation (005.00), Drugs Comparison (005.01), Drugs Production (005.02) - BWBR0039079

Source: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039079/

Content:
{"title": "wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Drugs Analysis and Interpretation (005.00), Drugs Comparison (005.01), Drugs Production (005.02) - BWBR0039079", "content": "Standards Drugs Analysis and Interpretation (005.00), Drugs Comparison (005.01), Drugs\n                                    Production (005.02)\n\nReporting forensic experts play a crucial role in the administration of justice. The\n                                          NRGD aims to ensure justified confidence in forensic expertise for stakeholders. This\n                                          confidence must be based on the demonstrable independently safeguarded quality of\n                                          forensic investigators and their reports on the basis of (inter)national forensic-specific\n                                          standards.\n\nThe NRGD is managed by the Board of Court Experts (hereinafter: Board). The Board\u2019s\n                                          core task is to rule on the applications for registration or repeat registration in\n                                          the register of the NRGD (register). To that end the Board first defines the field\n                                          of expertise. This is important in order to inform applicants, assessors and users\n                                          of the register (e.g. judge, public prosecutor and attorney) about the activities\n                                          an expert in the field of expertise in question engages in and about the activities\n                                          that fall outside the field of expertise. The demarcation of the field of expertise\n                                          is set out in Part II of these Standards.\n\nThe Board also determines the criteria on the basis of which an assessment is made\n                                          for each field of expertise as to whether an application complies with the quality\n                                          requirements. The generic requirements are set out in the Register of Court Experts\n                                          in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken). These requirements are elaborated further for each field of expertise. This elaboration\n                                          is set out in Part III of these Standards.\n\nFurthermore the Board determines the assessment procedure. This procedure is described\n                                          in Part IV of these Standards.\n\nThe NRGD has a system of periodic repeat registration. Court experts must demonstrate\n                                          every five years that they still meet the requirements in force at that time. The\n                                          Standards are dynamic and are being developed further in order to enhance the quality\n                                          of the experts. These Standards set out the current state of the (sub-)field of expertise.\n\nThe NRGD distinguishes two types of applicants: the initial applicant and the repeat\n                                          applicant. The initial applicant is a reporter who at the time of submission of the\n                                          application is not yet registered in the register for the field of expertise to which\n                                          the application relates. The repeat applicant is an expert who is already registered\n                                          in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates.\n\nThese two types of applicants are subdivided as follows:\n\nInitial applicant:\n\n(i) independent reporter: a reporter who has independently written and signed the required\n                                                number of case reports;\n\n(ii) reporter without work of his own: a reporter who has not independently written and\n                                                signed the number of case reports required for registration.\n\nIf the assessment is favourable, the reporter without work of his own will only qualify\n                                                   for conditional registration.\n\nRepeat applicant:\n\n(i) Repeat applicant after unconditional registration (before: full registration);\n\n(ii) Repeat applicant after conditional registration (before: temporary registration).\n\nThe initial applicant is an applicant who at the time of submission of the application\n                                          does not have an NRGD registration. An initial applicant could be:\n\n\u2013 the independently reporting expert;\n\n\u2013 the newly-trained expert;\n\n\u2013 the applicant whose earlier application has been rejected by the Board;\n\n\u2013 the applicant whose registration was previously stricken.\n\nIn respect of initial applicants, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between\n                                          the independent reporter and the reporter without work of his own. An example of a\n                                          reporter without work of his own is the newly-trained expert. This expert has completed\n                                          the forensic training (reporter\u2019s training), but has not yet been able to independently\n                                          write the number of reports required for the assessment because these are written\n                                          under the supervision of a tutor during the training. Another example of a reporter\n                                          without work of his own is the reporter whose earlier application was rejected and\n                                          who has been working (partly) under supervision following this rejection.\n\nThe Board adopts the following principle. Every applicant must draw up a List of Case\n                                          Information. This list must include a specific number of cases in a period specified\n                                          by the Board immediately preceding the application. If the List of Case Information\n                                          includes one or more cases which have been prepared under supervision, the applicant\n                                          will be qualified as a \u2018reporter without work of his own\u2019. An additional requirement\n                                          applies to the applicant who was rejected earlier: the case reports included in the\n                                          List of Case Information must have been drawn up after the date of the Board\u2019s decision\n                                          rejecting the earlier application (Policy Framework on Application after Rejection).1\n\nThe distinction between the various types of repeat applicants is important in the\n                                          context of the assessment procedure: the documents a repeat applicant must submit,\n                                          the composition of the Advisory Committee on Assessment and the assessment method.\n\nThese Standards have been established by the Board in accordance with the Register\n                                          of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken) and the Experts in Criminal Cases Act (Wet deskundige in strafzaken). Representatives from the various domains were consulted; users (judges, public\n                                          prosecutors and lawyers) and subject matter experts in the field (professional organisations,\n                                          representative associations, experts both at home and abroad). The draft of the Standards\n                                          has also been published on the NRGD website for public consultation.\n\nThe Standards are valid from the date shown on the cover. The validity runs until\n                                          the moment of publication of a new version. In principle it will be checked annually\n                                          as being up-to-date. This check can lead to a new version. The aim is to publish the\n                                          new version no more than once a year.\n\nAll changes made to the Standards lead to a new version. Newer versions of (parts\n                                          of) the Standards are designated with a higher version number.\n\nIn the case of editorial changes the old version number is increased by 0.1. Editorial\n                                             changes have no substantive impact. In the case of substantive changes the version\n                                             number is increased by 1.\n\nThe revision history starts with version 1.0 as the first formally approved version.\n                                             Substantive changes made are briefly described in the revision history (Annex C). This makes it possible to trace which Standards are valid at any given moment at\n                                             all times.\n\nWithin the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation, a distinction\n                                          must be made between four types of examinations:\n\n1. identification and quantification;\n\n2. trace examination;\n\n3. production process examination;\n\n4. comparative examination.\n\nIn respect of these four types of examinations, different questions are of relevance\n                                          in two different stages: the stage of the chemical-physical examination and the interpretation\n                                          stage. In all types of examination it is important that the expert has the skills\n                                          to conduct a proper sampling and to analyze samples in a correct manner. Additionally,\n                                          all types of examination must include an interpretation within the framework of the\n                                          relevant legislation, i.e. the Dutch Opium Act, the European guidelines referred to\n                                          in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act and the Dutch Medicines Act. The expert\n                                          must be aware of his limited knowledge in this respect.\n\nIdentification aims to determine the presence of:\n\n\u2013 any agents listed in the Dutch Opium Act or the European guidelines referred to in\n                                                   the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;\n\n\u2013 a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances and/or\n                                                   a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting agents\n                                                   and falsified medicines;\n\n\u2013 or chemicals used in production processes.\n\nQuantification aims to determine the concentration and/or amount present of the above-mentioned\n                                             agents.\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2018Can drugs or related substances be identified, if so which?\u2019\n\n\u2018What is the concentration and/or amount of the agent present?\u2019\n\nTrace examinations are also intended to determine the presence of agents and substances\n                                             listed under 1.1.1. These examinations are carried out on trace carriers (anything\n                                             on which a trace is available or could be present) or specific samples obtained from\n                                             a suspected trace carrier.\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2018Can traces of drugs or related substances be identified?\u2019\n\n\u2018If so, where are these traces to be demonstrably identified on the trace carrier?\u2019\n\nWhen requested, the probability of the results of the chemical-physical examination\n                                                is evaluated by the expert within the context of the proposed activity scenarios that\n                                                could have led to the transfer/movement of traces of drugs.\n\nA comparative examination is carried out in order to provide an answer to the question\n                                             whether, and to what degree or at which level, different samples/batches of drugs\n                                             or drug precursors are from the same origin. In this context the term origin refers\n                                             to a pre-existing quantity of substance that has been divided into different parts.\n                                             The possibly corresponding origin is investigated by comparing features like physical\n                                             characteristics and chemical composition.\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2018What are the external features and physical qualities of the material for examination?\u2019\n\n\u2018What chemical components (e.g. major component, cutting agents, by-products, solvents)\n                                                   are demonstrably identified and in what (relative) concentrations?\u2019\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2018Do the examined samples or any processed materials contain drugs that are from the\n                                                   same origin?\u2019\n\n\u2018Are the examined samples or any processed materials from the same origin as previously\n                                                   examined materials (database)?\u2019\n\nIn this stage the expert comments on the probability of the measured results within\n                                                the context of the various hypotheses.\n\nThe production process examination aims at determining what agent has been produced\n                                             and in what manner, and which waste material has been created during these processes.\n                                             The drug related production processes examination is primarily carried out on material\n                                             which has been secured at a crime scene. By combining the achieved results with information\n                                             on the circumstances and materials found at the crime scene, comments can be made\n                                             on possible processes and manufactured agents.\n\nExamples of such processes are:\n\n'Production of synthetic drugs and precursors\u2019\n\n'Extraction/conversion lab of cocaine\u2019\n\n\u2018Production of cutting agents e.g. in connection with heroin\u2019\n\n\u2018Cutting, (re)packing or making pharmaceutical forms of drugs (e.g. tablets, powders)\u2019\n\n\u2018Hash/hash oil production\u2019\n\n\u2018Cultivation and production of cannabis products\u2019\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2013 \n\u2018Can the presence of an agent listed in the Dutch Opium Act or an agent listed in\n                                                         the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;\n\n\u2013 \nor a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances\n                                                         and/or a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting\n                                                         agents and falsified medicines;\n\n\u2013 \nor chemicals used in production processes be demonstrated and if so, in what concentration\n                                                         or what quantity?\u2019\n\nThe following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:\n\n\u2018Was an agent as referred to under 1.1.4.a manufactured2?\u2019\n\n\u2018Which production processes have been used or could have been applied?'\n\n\u2018Which agents (precursors) and equipment for the production of the agent were present\n                                                   at the crime scene?\u2019\n\n'What is the production capacity of the equipment found at the crime scene?'\n\n\u2018What do the expected proceeds of drugs amount to, according to the equipment and\n                                                   agents found at the scene?\u2019\n\n\u2018Which production process can be linked to the discarded materials? (in the event\n                                                   of illegal waste dumping)\u2019\n\nDrugs examination is concerned with samples that are expected to contain:\n\n\u2013 agents listed in the Dutch Opium Act and the European guidelines referred to in the\n                                                Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;\n\n\u2013 a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances and/or\n                                                a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting agents\n                                                and falsified medicines;\n\n\u2013 or chemicals used in production processes that are not of human origin.\n\nWithin the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation a distinction must\n                                          be made between two categories for registration: Drugs Comparison and Drugs Production.\n\nFor both categories experts will be able to answer the questions of identification, quantification and trace examination in the chemical-psychical examination\n                                             stage (see 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a).\n\nIn addition experts with a registration for Drugs Comparison are involved with answering\n                                          questions related to comparative examination in the interpretation stage (see 1.1.3.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer questions of comparative examination in the chemical-physical examination stage (see 1.1.3.a).\n\nExperts with a registration for Drugs Production are involved with answering questions\n                                          related to production process examination in the interpretation stage (see 1.1.4.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer the questions of production process examination in the chemical-physical examination stage (see 1.1.4.a).\n\nExperts in the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation must be aware\n                                          of the opportunities and limitations of their answers to questions concerning trace examinations in the interpretation stage (1.1.2.b).\n\nExperts must be aware that standard equipment and routine methods will not automatically\n                                          detect and identify all new and previously unknown substances or detect low dosed\n                                          substances.\n\nThe register will record the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field\n                                             of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation.\n\nWithin the field of expertise Drugs Analysis and Interpretation experts can be registered\n                                             for:\n\n005.1 Drugs Comparison; and /or\n\n005.2 Drugs Production\n\nThe general (repeat) registration requirements are given in the next paragraphs in\n                                       italics with a reference to Article 12 paragraph 2 in the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).\n\nAn expert will only be registered as an expert in criminal cases upon submission of\n                                       the application if, in the opinion of the Board, the expert:\n\na. has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application\n                                             relates;\n\nb. has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently\n                                             familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field;\n\nc. is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning\n                                             party\u2019s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order\n                                             to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise;\n\nd. is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation\n                                             plan in accordance with the applicable standards;\n\ne. is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data\n                                             in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards;\n\nf. is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance\n                                             with the applicable standards\n\ng. is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any\n                                             other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the\n                                             commissioning party, both orally and in writing;\n\nh. is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.\n\ni. is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously,\n                                             competently, and in a trustworthy manner.\n\n(...) has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the\n                                             application relates.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 function to the equivalent level of a person possessing a University master Degree\n                                                            (for example in chemistry, pharmacy, pharmaceutical science);\n\n\u2013 possess a University master Degree which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS \u00b9) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS) or an equivalent qualification from\n                                                            a College of Higher Education which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS);\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the most prevalent:\n\n\u2022 illicit and recreationally used drugs as cocaine, heroin,\n\n\u2022 amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis, GHB and\n\n\u2022 benzodiazepines or related substances (occurrence,\n\n\u2022 effects, use);\n\n\u2022 cutting agents;\n\n\u2022 (medicinal) products appearing in the drug users market;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of analytical techniques (both in quality and in quantity) including\n                                                            gas and liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, infrared spectroscopy and be able\n                                                            to apply these techniques adequately while being acquainted with other related analytical\n                                                            techniques;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the synthetic routes for common synthetic drugs and precursors\n                                                            and the by-products and waste streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the manufacturing of cocaine and heroin, the by-products and waste\n                                                            streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in interpreting and reporting cases, which means that the\n                                                            applicant has reported in this field of expertise at least once over the past year;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the proposed literature and guidelines (see Annex A) and must keep up to date with developments inter alia regarding new drugs, analytical techniques, the law;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the answers to questions\n                                                            within the framework of the interpretation stage of the trace examination (see Demarcation 1.1.2.b.).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Comparison:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of comparativeexamination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.3.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and comparative examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination (see\n                                                            Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, and 1.1.3.a).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Production:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of production process examination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.4.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and production process examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination\n                                                            (see Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, 1.1.4.a).\n\nFor both subfields:\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 12 case reports not older than 5 years which have been subjected\n                                                            to collegial review. For each subfield the applicant should have at least 6 case reports.\n\n\u2013 These case reports should cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, e.g. research\n                                                            type, different substances and specifically for the subfields:\n\n\u2022 Drugs Comparison: comparative examination and trace examination if applicable;\n\n\u2022 Drugs Production: comparative production process examination and trace examination\n                                                            if applicable;\n\nIn case the applicant is also acting as a supervisor, at least two reports on the\n                                                               List of Case Information should be independently prepared reports.\n\n\u2013 have spent an average of 40 hours a year over the past 5 years on forensically relevant\n                                                            professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses).\n\n\u00b9 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 function to the equivalent level of a person possessing a University master Degree\n                                                            (for example in chemistry, pharmacy, pharmaceutical science);\n\n\u2013 possess a University master Degree which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS \u00b9) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS) or an equivalent qualification from\n                                                            a College of Higher Education which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS);\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the most prevalent:\n\n\u2022 illicit and recreationally used drugs as cocaine, heroin,\n\n\u2022 amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis, GHB and\n\n\u2022 benzodiazepines or related substances (occurrence,\n\n\u2022 effects, use);\n\n\u2022 cutting agents;\n\n\u2022 (medicinal) products appearing in the drug users market;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of analytical techniques (both in quality and in quantity) including\n                                                            gas and liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, infrared spectroscopy and be able\n                                                            to apply these techniques adequately while being acquainted with other related analytical\n                                                            techniques;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the synthetic routes for common synthetic drugs and precursors\n                                                            and the by-products and waste streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the manufacturing of cocaine and heroin, the by-products and waste\n                                                            streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in interpreting and reporting cases, which means that the\n                                                            applicant has reported in this field of expertise at least once over the past year;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the proposed literature and guidelines (see Annex A) and must keep\n                                                            up to date with developments inter alia regarding new drugs, analytical techniques, the law;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the answers to questions\n                                                            within the framework of the interpretation stage of the trace examination (see Demarcation 1.1.2.b.).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Comparison:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of comparative examination in the interpretation stage\n                                                            (see Demarcation 1.1.3.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and comparative examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination (see\n                                                            Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, and 1.1.3.a).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Production:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of production process examination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.4.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and production process examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination\n                                                            (see Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, 1.1.4.a).\n\nFor both subfields:\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 6 reports not older than 2 years which have been subjected\n                                                            to collegial review and/or supervision and of which at least one report has been drawn\n                                                            up under supervision. For each subfield the applicant should have at least three case\n                                                            reports.\n\n\u2013 These case reports should cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, e.g. research\n                                                            type, different substances and specifically for the subfields:\n\n\u2022 Drugs Comparison: comparative examination and trace examination if applicable;\n\n\u2022 Drugs Production: comparative production process examination and trace examination\n                                                            if applicable;\n\n\u2013 have spent an average of 40 hours a year over the past 2 years on forensically relevant\n                                                            professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses).\n\n\u00b9 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 function to the equivalent level of a person possessing a University master Degree\n                                                            (for example in chemistry, pharmacy, pharmaceutical science);\n\n\u2013 possess a University master Degree which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS \u00b9) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS) or an equivalent qualification from\n                                                            a College of Higher Education which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS);\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the most prevalent:\n\n\u2022 illicit and recreationally used drugs as cocaine, heroin,\n\n\u2022 amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis, GHB and\n\n\u2022 benzodiazepines or related substances (occurrence,\n\n\u2022 effects, use);\n\n\u2022 cutting agents;\n\n\u2022 (medicinal) products appearing in the drug users market;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of analytical techniques (both in quality and in quantity) including\n                                                            gas and liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, infrared spectroscopy and be able\n                                                            to apply these techniques adequately while being acquainted with other related analytical\n                                                            techniques;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the synthetic routes for common synthetic drugs and precursors\n                                                            and the by-products and waste streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the manufacturing of cocaine and heroin, the by-products and waste\n                                                            streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in interpreting and reporting cases, which means that the\n                                                            applicant has reported in this field of expertise at least once over the past year;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the proposed literature and guidelines (see Annex A) and must keep up to date with developments inter alia regarding new drugs, analytical techniques, the law;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the answers to questions\n                                                            within the framework of the interpretation stage of the trace examination (see Demarcation 1.1.2.b.).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Comparison:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of comparativeexamination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.3.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and comparative examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination (see\n                                                            Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, and 1.1.3.a).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Production:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of production process examination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.4.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and production process examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination\n                                                            (see Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, 1.1.4.a).\n\nFor both subfields:\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 12 reports not older than 5 years, which have been subjected\n                                                            to collegial review. For each subfield the applicant should have at least six case\n                                                            reports.\n\n\u2013 These case reports should cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, e.g. research\n                                                            type, different substances and specifically for the subfields:\n\n\u2022 Drugs Comparison: comparative examination and trace examination if applicable;\n\n\u2022 Drugs Production: comparative production process examination and trace examination\n                                                            if applicable\n\n\u2013 an average of 40 hours a year over the past 5 years on forensically relevant professional\n                                                            development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending courses).\n\n\u00b9 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 function to the equivalent level of a person possessing a University master Degree\n                                                            (for example in chemistry, pharmacy, pharmaceutical science);\n\n\u2013 possess a University master Degree which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS \u00b9) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS) or an equivalent qualification from\n                                                            a College of Higher Education which should contain minimally both Organic Chemistry\n                                                            (12 ECTS) and Analytical Chemistry (12 ECTS);\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the most prevalent:\n\n\u2022 illicit and recreationally used drugs as cocaine, heroin,\n\n\u2022 amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis, GHB and\n\n\u2022 benzodiazepines or related substances (occurrence,\n\n\u2022 effects, use);\n\n\u2022 cutting agents;\n\n\u2022 (medicinal) products appearing in the drug users market;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of analytical techniques (both in quality and in quantity) including\n                                                            gas and liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, infrared spectroscopy and be able\n                                                            to apply these techniques adequately while being acquainted with other related analytical\n                                                            techniques;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the synthetic routes for common synthetic drugs and precursors\n                                                            and the by-products and waste streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the manufacturing of cocaine and heroin, the by-products and waste\n                                                            streams deriving therefrom;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in interpreting and reporting cases, which means that the\n                                                            applicant has reported in this field of expertise at least once over the past year;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the proposed literature and guidelines (see Annex A) and must keep up to date with developments inter alia regarding new drugs, analytical techniques, the law;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the answers to questions\n                                                            within the framework of the interpretation stage of the trace examination (see Demarcation 1.1.2.b.).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Comparison:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of comparative examination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.3.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and comparative examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination (see\n                                                            Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, and 1.1.3.a).\n\nIn addition for the field of Drugs Production:\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of production process examination in the interpretation stage (see Demarcation 1.1.4.b);\n\n\u2013 be able to reply to questions of identification and quantification, trace examinations\n                                                            and production process examination in the stage of the chemical-physical examination\n                                                            (see Demarcation 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, 1.1.4.a).\n\nFor both subfields:\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 3 reports per year during the registration period which have\n                                                            been subjected to collegial review. For each subfield the applicant should have at\n                                                            least three case reports.\n\n\u2013 These case reports should cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, e.g. research\n                                                            type, different substances and specifically for the subfields: \\\n\n\u2022 Drugs Comparison: comparative examination and trace examination if applicable;\n\n\u2022 Drugs Production: comparative production process examination and trace examination\n                                                            if applicable;\n\n\u2013 an average of 40 hours per year during the registration period on professional development\n                                                            (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending courses).\n\n\u00b9 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.\n\n(...) has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and\n                                             is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field.\n\n\u2013 In general an applicant should have adequate knowledge of Dutch criminal law:\n\n\u2022 context of criminal law:\n\n\u25cb Trias Politica, distinction between civil law, administrative law and criminal law.\n\n\u2022 criminal law procedure:\n\n\u25cb pre-trial investigation;\n\n\u25cb coercive measures;\n\n\u25cb stages of the proceedings;\n\n\u25cb actors in the criminal justice system (tasks/powers/responsibilities);\n\n\u25cb regulations concerning experts laid down in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (position\n                                                            and powers of commissioning party, legal position of expert, position and powers of\n                                                            lawyer, forms of counter-analysis, register of experts in the context of criminal\n                                                            law);\n\n\u25cb legal decision-making framework of the court in criminal cases (decision-making schedule\n                                                            laid down in Section 350 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure), also with a view\n                                                            to the relevance of the commission to the expert and to the question at issue;\n\n\u25cb course of the criminal trial;\n\n\u25cb position of the expert in the court procedure.\n\n\u25cb substantive criminal law:\n\n\u25cb sanctions and grounds for exemption from criminal liability (very basic).\n\n\u2022 knowledge of the legal context of safeguarding the quality of the expert and the analysis/investigation:\n\n\u25cb position and role of the co-operating organisations in the criminal justice system\n                                                            in safeguarding the quality of the reports;\n\n\u25cb professional codes and relevant regulations in relation to the NRGD Code of Conduct.\n\n- In addition to the above requirements, an applicant for the field of expertise Drugs\n                                                Analysis and Interpretation:\n\n\u2022 should be aware of the possible effects of the specific Dutch regulations on the conclusions\n                                                      of their examination. Therefore applicants should have a working knowledge of the\n                                                      Dutch Opium Act, the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention\n                                                      Act and the Dutch Medicines Act (articles 1, 18, 38 and 40).\n\n(...) is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent\n                                             the commissioning party\u2019s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation\n                                             in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the limitations of his own examination and must know when another\n                                                expert in the same or a different field of expertise should be asked for advice or\n                                                when follow-up examination must be recommended;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of other fields of expertise such as dactyloscopy/DNA and the aspects\n                                                which may affect the own field of expertise (such as the order and planning of the\n                                                examination).\n\n(...) is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an\n                                             investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the pros and cons of the various scientific methods (including sample\n                                                preparation and chemical analysis) applied in the field of expertise, be aware of\n                                                the possibilities and limitations of these methods, be able to explain them;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the (current) guidelines (see Annex A).\n\n(...) is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and\n                                             data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 be able to take samples in an appropriate manner (e.g. safety, contamination and technical\n                                                protocol such as Drug Sampling (see Annex A));\n\n\u2013 be able to evaluate samples according to the guidelines and be aware of the possibility\n                                                of contamination;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the logistic processes regarding the material for examination (chain\n                                                of custody).\n\n(...) is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in\n                                             accordance with the applicable standards.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of quality and controlling systems for the examination;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of the uncertainty of the measurements of his own quantitative examination;\n\n\u2013 have knowledge of selection procedures for sampling;\n\n\u2013 be able to modify existing examination methods while preserving validity.\n\n(...) is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment\n                                             and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible\n                                             to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 be able to report to a layman on the interpretation and conclusions (both orally and\n                                                in writing) and to provide statistical evidence insofar as relevant, on the basis\n                                                of the results;\n\n\u2013 be able to formulate hypotheses and interpret results;\n\n\u2013 be able to indicate the evidential value of the examination (supporting information,\n                                                assumptions and limitations);\n\n\u2013 \u2013 In addition to the required administrative data (principal\u2019s name, date of the assignment,\n                                                date of the report, references of the principal, own references, number and nature\n                                                of annexes, etc.) a report must contain the following items:\n\n\u2022 a description of the received material, including information on the date and manner\n                                                      of delivery;\n\n\u2022 a detailed description of the material under investigation;\n\n\u2022 any and all relevant background information possibly affecting the interpretation\n                                                      of the results of the examination with notification of when taken and from whom and\n                                                      this information comes;\n\n\u2022 the questions asked by the commissioning party, if at all possible by means of hypotheses,\n                                                      and where relevant the related connected communication;\n\n\u2022 the examination method(s) applied;\n\n\u2022 the results of the examination;\n\n\u2022 the interpretation of the results of the examination;\n\n\u2022 the conclusions, including the probability scale applied.\n\n(...) is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.\n\n(...) is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially,\n                                             conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 comply with the NRGD Code of Conduct determined by the Board of Court Experts and\n                                                published on the website of the NRGD.\n\nThe Board may decide not to apply or deviate from a registration requirement if application\n                                          of such requirement would produce very unreasonable results. The hardship clause may\n                                          only offer a solution in certain exceptional situations. It is up to the applicant\n                                          himself to submit facts and circumstances showing that a certain registration requirement\n                                          is unreasonable in his specific case.\n\nIn all fields of expertise the assessment will be based on the written information\n                                          provided, including as a minimum requirement case reports and items of evidence, supplemented\n                                          in principle with an oral assessment. However, such an oral assessment will not be\n                                          necessary if the applicant's expertise has already been clearly demonstrated by the\n                                          written information.\n\nThe assessment will in principle be carried out on the basis of the information provided\n                                          by the applicant:\n\n\u2013 general information as part of the application package\n\n\u2013 documentary evidence of competence.\n\nIf it is felt necessary in the context of the assessment an additional case report\n                                          and/or information, for example information about the way collegial review and/or\n                                          supervision is organized within the organization, can be requested.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 a clearly legible copy of a valid passport or identity card;\n\n\u2013 a curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 documentary evidence of the current working level;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Drugs;\n\n\u2013 certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case information Drugs;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports not older than 5 years selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the\n                                                            applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\uf06c proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Drugs \u00b9.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible\n                                                            supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a lawyer and\n                                                            two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has already been\n                                                            clearly established in phase b;\n\nphase d. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nIf the ACA has to assess an application after an earlier rejection, a new ACA will\n                                                               be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the advice given by\n                                                               the previous ACA.\n\n\u00b9 It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g.\n                                             in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 a clearly legible copy of a valid passport or identity card;\n\n\u2013 a curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 documentary evidence of the current working level;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Drugs;\n\n\u2013 Certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case information Drugs;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports not older than 2 years selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the\n                                                            applicant\u2019s competencies.\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Drugs \u00b9.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible\n                                                            supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a lawyer and\n                                                            two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has already been\n                                                            clearly established in phase b;\n\nphase d. decision by the Board: registration for a conditional registration or no\n                                                            registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nIf the ACA has to assess an application after an earlier rejection, a new ACA will\n                                                               be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the advice given by\n                                                               the previous ACA.\n\n\u00b9 It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g.\n                                             in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 a clearly legible copy of a valid passport or identity card;\n\n\u2013 an updated curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 documentary evidence of the current working level;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Drugs;\n\n\u2013 Certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case information Drugs;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports not older than 5 years selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the\n                                                            applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Drugs \u00b9.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least two people on the basis of the available written material. This ACA will in\n                                                            principle consist of a lawyer and a professional assessor;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b to which one professional assessor\n                                                            is added, drawn from the same field of expertise as the applicant, on the basis of\n                                                            the available written material. This will not be necessary if the ACA unanimously\n                                                            gives a positive recommendation to the Board in phase b;\n\nphase d. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase c by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has been clearly\n                                                            established in phase c;\n\nphase e. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nA new ACA will be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the\n                                                               advice given by the previous ACA.\n\n\u00b9 It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g.\n                                             in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 An updated curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 Copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 Documentary evidence of the current working level;\n\n\u2013 Overview of Continuing Professional Development Drugs;\n\n\u2013 Certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case information Drugs;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports not older than 2 years selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the\n                                                            applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Drugs \u00b9.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material. In principle this\n                                                            ACA consists of a lawyer and two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has already been\n                                                            clearly established;\n\nphase d. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nA new ACA will be formed if possible. This ACA will be allowed to inspect the advice\n                                                            given by the previous ACA.\n\n\u00b9 It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g.\n                                             in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.\n\n\u2018Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines, deel I-VI (serie)\u2019:\n\nAalberg, L. Andersson, K., Bertler, C. Bor\u00e9n, H. (2005). Development of a harmonised\n                                 method for the profiling of amphetamines I: Synthesis of standards and compilation\n                                 of analytical data. Forensic Science International (149) 2-3, p. 219-229.\n\nAalberg, L., Andersson, K., Bertler, C., Cole, M.D. e.a. (2005). Development of a\n                                 harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines II: Stability of impurities in\n                                 organic solvents. Forensic Science International (149) 2-3, p. 231-241.\n\nAndersson, K., Jalava, K., Lock, E., Finnon, Y. e.a.(2007). Development of a harmonised\n                                 method for the profiling of amphetamines III: Development of the gas chromatographic\n                                 method. Forensic Science International, (169) 1, p. 50-63.\n\nAndersson, K., Jalava, K., Lock, E. Huizer e.a. (2007). Development of a harmonised\n                                 method for the profiling of amphetamines IV: Optimisation of sample preparation. Forensic Science International (169) 1, p. 64-76.\n\nAalberg, L., Andersson, K., Dahl\u00e9n, J., Lock, E. e.a. (2007) Development of a harmonised\n                                 method for the profiling of amphetamines V: Determination of the variability of the\n                                 optimised method. Forensic Science International (169) 1, p. 77-85.\n\nAndersson, K., Lock, E., Jalava, K., Huizer H. e.a. (2007). Development of a harmonised\n                                 method for the profiling of amphetamines VI: Evaluation of methods for comparison\n                                 of amphetamine. Forensic Science International, (169) 1, p. 86-99.\n\nDeursen, M.M. van, Lock, E.R.A., Poortman- van der Meer, A.J. (2006). Organic impurity\n                                 profiling of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tablets seized in the Netherlands.\n                                 Science & Justice (46), p. 135 -152.\n\nDonnell jr., C. R. (2003), Forensic Investigation of Clandestine Laboratories. Professional Business Solutions, USA: O'Fallon.\n\nInternational Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) (2002). Guidelines for Forensic Science Laboratories. ILAC, Rhodes, Australia.\n\nMoffat, A.C., Osselton, D. M. and Widdop, B., (2011). Clarke\u2019s Analysis of Drugs and\n                                 Poisons: in pharmaceuticals, body fluids, and postmortem material.\n\nLondon: Pharmaceutical Press.\n\nUnited Nations Division of Narcotic Drugs (1986). Recommended Methods for Testing Cocaine. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nations Division of Narcotic Drugs (1989). Recommended Methods for Testing Lysergide (LSD). New York; United Nations.\n\nUnited Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2005). Methods for Impurity Profiling of Heroin and Cocaine. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2006). Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Amphetamine, Methamphetamine\n                                    and their Ring-Substituted Analogues in Seized Materials. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2009). Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of cannabis and cannabis products. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nations in cooperation with the Drugs Working Group of the European Network\n                                 of Forensic Science Institutes (2009). Guidelines on Representative Drug Sampling. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nations International Drug Control Programme (1998). Recommended Methods for Testing Opium, Morphine and Heroin. New York: United Nations\n\nUnited Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2005). Methods for Impurity Profiling of Heroin and Cocaine. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2001). Drug Characterization/Impurity Profiling: Background and Concepts. New York: United Nations.\n\nUnited Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2013). Clandestine Manufacture of Substances under International Control. New York: United Nations.\n\nWebsite:\n\nhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/scientists/publications.html\n\nAdvisory Committee for Assessment\n\nA committee appointed by the Board which advises the Board on the (repeat) applicant\u2019s\n                                                (degree of) suitability for (repeat) registration.\n\nApplicant\n\nNatural person submitting an application to the NRGD in order to be (re-) registered\n                                                in the register.\n\nAssessor\n\nA member of an Advisory Committee for Assessment.\n\nBoard\n\nThe Board of Court Experts is the body as referred to in Section 51k(2) of the Code\n                                                of Criminal Procedure and is charged with managing the register.\n\nBrdis\n\nRegister of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).\n\nBureau\n\nThe NRGD Bureau that supports the Board.\n\nCollegial review\n\nThe assessment of another person\u2019s work for the purpose of continuous quality control\n                                                of a person\u2019s expertise. There is thereby not a hierarchical but a horizontal relationship\n                                                between colleagues specialised in the same subject area. The reviewer does not sign\n                                                the report.\n\nConditional registration\n\nThe registration of an expert for a period specified by the Board and possibly under\n                                                certain conditions which must be\n\nmet within that period. In principle the period to be specified\n\nby the Board is two years.\n\nContinuous professional development\n\nAll (training) activities that contribute to the ongoing development of knowledge\n                                                and skills, which is desirable and necessary in order to be able to continue performing\n                                                the role of court expert in a professional manner.\n\nIndependent reporter\n\nA reporter who has independently prepared and signed the required number of case reports\n\nInitial applicant\n\nAn applicant who makes an application to be entered in the register and does not or\n                                                not yet have an NRGD registration at the time when the application is made.\n\nIntervision\n\nIntervision is a structured (interdisciplinary) meeting between people who are working\n                                                or training in the same professional area. The subject of discussion is in any case\n                                                the forensic work carried out and the associated problems. The aim is to enhance the\n                                                expertise of those involved and improve quality of work. Unlike supervision, there\n                                                is no hierarchical relationship between the participants.\n\nNRGD\n\nThe Netherlands Register of Court Experts of which the Board and the Bureau form part.\n\nRegister\n\nThe national public register as referred to in Section 51 k(1) of the Code of Criminal\n                                                Procedure, which lists the court experts which the Board deems suitable.\n\nRegistered expert\n\nAn expert who is entered in the register.\n\nRegistration\n\nEntry in the register.\n\nRepeat applicant\n\nAn expert who at the time of submitting a repeat application already has a NRGD registration,\n                                                possibly for a conditional registration.\n\nReporter\n\nAn individual who issues a report for the administration of justice and/or gives testimony\n                                                in court.\n\nReporter training\n\nA coherent and structured arrangement of organised training activities in which the\n                                                necessary knowledge and experience are acquired to report as a court expert in criminal\n                                                law proceedings and that is completed by an exam.\n\nReporter with no own work\n\nA reporter who has not independently completed and signed the number of case reports\n                                                required for registration.\n\nSupervision\n\nThe assessment of another person\u2019s work, the joint consideration of the work and the\n                                                supervision of a supervisee as part of a training or additional training process.\n                                                Supervisor and supervisee are thereby in a hierarchical relationship. The supervisor\n                                                will observe the subject of the investigation (the investigated person) in such a\n                                                way that they can check the supervisee\u2019s investigation, and can endorse and take responsibility\n                                                for the conclusions thereof. The supervisor will sign the report in all cases.\n\nUser\n\nSomeone who uses the register in order to find and potentially engage a registered\n                                                expert.\n\nVersion\n\nDate\n\nRevisions made\n\n3.0\n\n12.12.2016\n\nGeneric adjustments:\n\n\u2013 addition: generic introduction for all fields of expertise in Part I\n\n\u2013 adjusted description of types of applicants: independent/work of his own\n\n\u2013 differentiation per types of applicants to provide an immediate overview of respective\n                                                requirements (Part III) and assessment procedure (Part IV)\n\n\u2013 number of case reports adjusted because of extending the registration period;\n\n\u2013 possibility to submit case reports that were interpreted and reported on under the\n                                                supervision of the applicant\n\n\u2013 integration of several NRGD policy frameworks in Standards selection of case reports\n                                                by applicant themselves.\n\n2.0\n\n01.11.2014\n\nThe specialism has been divided into two different categories: Drugs Comparison and\n                                                Drugs Production. Experts can register for one or both categories;\n\nRenewal registration:\n\n\u2013 collegial reviewed reports mandatory;\n\n\u2013 40 hours per year on continued professional development .\n\n1.0\n\n01.04.2011\n\nFirst standards documents Drugs Analysis and Interpretation"}