Title: wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Pathology (007.1) - BWBR0039077

Source: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039077/

Content:
{"title": "wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Pathology (007.1) - BWBR0039077", "content": "Standards Forensic Pathology (007.1)\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 temporary 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).\n                                             This makes it possible to trace which Standards are valid at any given moment at all\n                                             times.\n\nBelow, a description is given of the field of expertise of forensic pathology as defined\n                                          by the NRGD and the activities forensic pathologists registered in the NRGD engage\n                                          in.\n\nThe primary focus of the forensic pathologist is to conduct an external and internal\n                                          examination on the body of a deceased person, in principle in the context of criminal\n                                          law.\n\nA forensic pathologist conducts a post-mortem examination in order to (help) answer\n                                          medico-legal questions in cases of (suspected) unnatural death:2\n\na. homicide or suspected homicide;\n\nb. sudden, unexplained death, including sudden infant death;\n\nc. violation of human rights such as suspicion of torture or any other form of ill treatment\n\nd. suicide or suspected suicide;\n\ne. suspected medical malpractice;\n\nf. accidents, whether transportational, occupational or domestic;\n\ng. occupational disease and hazards;\n\nh. technological or environmental disasters;\n\ni. death in custody or death associated with police or military activities;\n\nj. unidentified or skeletalised bodies;\n\nk. euthanasia and assisted suicide.\n\nThe task of the forensic pathologist is:\n\n\u2013 to establish the cause and mechanism of death (including trigger and pre-existing\n                                                pathology);\n\n\u2013 to establish or to help establish the identity of the deceased;\n\n\u2013 to establish or to help establish the nature, cause and consequences of any injuries;\n\n\u2013 to establish or to help establish the manner of death.\n\nIn addition, a forensic pathologist is:\n\n\u2013 able to determine or evaluate the (methods of) determination of the approximate post-mortem\n                                                interval;\n\n\u2013 aware of the possibilities and limitations of answering various questions, such as\n                                                the survival time and the capacity of the person to act prior to death;\n\n\u2013 able to determine or evaluate the medico-legal findings of a crime scene;\n\n\u2013 aware of fundamental principles of forensic investigations (e.g. crime scene investigation,\n                                                chain of custody, principles of evidence);\n\n\u2013 is able to determine whether ancillary or additional investigation is needed (at least\n                                                post-mortem imaging/radiology, toxicology, biochemistry, tissue sampling and gunshot\n                                                residue examination).\n\nIn order to answer the abovementioned medico-legal questions, the forensic pathologist:\n\n\u2013 may need to visit the crime scene;\n\n\u2013 determines the need for and the appropriate method of radiological investigation;\n\n\u2013 performs an external examination and appropriate sampling;\n\n\u2013 performs a full internal examination and appropriate sampling;\n\n\u2013 performs an appropriate histopathological examination via microscopic techniques;\n\n\u2013 and makes a final report including an interpretation of findings within the context\n                                                of the case (e.g. findings on the crime scene, circumstances of death).\n\nA forensic pathologist is able to conduct the examination in cooperation with other\n                                          experts (e.g. forensic toxicologists, forensic anthropologists, forensic odontologists,\n                                          forensic geneticians etc.) and to refer to them where relevant.\n\nWithin the field of forensic and legal medicine, two distinct areas of practice exist:\n\n\u2013 Forensic clinical medicine (in the Netherlands performed by forensisch geneeskundigen) which has its primary focus on the examination of the living.\n\n\u2013 Forensic pathology which has its primary focus on the dead and to conduct a medico-legal\n                                                or forensic autopsies autopsy.\n\nThe activities of these fields of expertise show an overlap to a certain extent, but\n                                          for both fields of expertise specific knowledge and experience are needed that set\n                                          experts within these fields apart from each other. In principle, the activities within\n                                          the field of forensic clinical medicine fall outside of the field of forensic pathology\n                                          as defined by the NRGD for registration.\n\nThe following related fields of expertise also fall outside of the field of forensic\n                                          pathology as defined by the NRGD for registration:\n\n\u2013 forensic odontology;\n\n\u2013 forensic radiology;\n\n\u2013 forensic anthropology.\n\nThough the related fields of expertise fall outside of the field of forensic pathology,\n                                          a registered forensic pathologist has to have knowledge of the principles of the abovementioned\n                                          related fields of expertise, is able to adequately refer the commissioning party,\n                                          to adequately deal with sampling in the chain of investigations and to integrate the\n                                          findings in the final expert conclusion.\n\nThe register will state the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field\n                                          of 007.1 Forensic Pathology.\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 a successfully completed medical education and a currently registered medical practitioner;\n\n\u2013 current experience with reporting in forensic pathology at the time of the application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the recent publications and literature in the field of expertise\n                                                            and abreast of state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of causes of death, causes and consequences of injuries, changes\n                                                            which occur after death, and the possibilities and limitations of pathological findings\n                                                            to answer medico-legal questions;\n\n\u2013 be aware of the possibilities and limitations of answering various questions, such\n                                                            as the survival time and the capacity of the person to act prior to death;\n\n\u2013 at least 60 months of relevant postgraduate training. The postgraduate training\n                                                            has to include at least the following elements:\n\na) clinical pathology (at least 6 months);\n\nb) forensic pathology;\n\nc) forensic-juridical.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 personally performed and reported, under collegial review, at least 150 medico-legal\n                                                            or forensic autopsies \u00b9 in the previous 5 years, second opinions excluded.\n\n\u2013 These autopsies should preferably cover the full spectrum of forensic practice,\n                                                            and should at least involve 60 medico-legal or forensic autopsies falling under a)\n                                                            through c):\n\na) asphyxiation cases (strangulation, choking, mechanical or positional asphyxiation);\n\nb) mechanical injuries cases (shot \u2013 or stab wounds, blunt force trauma);\n\nc) specific post mortal changes cases (alleged drowning, decayed bodies, burnt remains);\n\nd) unexplained deaths (intoxications e.g. CO, drug overdose, generalizes diseases\n                                                            e.g. generalized atherosclerosis, sepsis, alleged maltreatment).\n\nIn case the applicant is also acting as a supervisor, at least 30 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 The medico-legal or forensic autopsy [is the type of autopsy] which is performed\n                                             on the instructions of the legal authority responsible for the investigation of sudden,\n                                             suspicious, obscure, unnatural, litigious or criminal deaths. This legal authority\n                                             may be a coroner, a medical examiner, a procurator fiscal, a magistrate, a judge,\n                                             or the police, the systems varying considerably from country to country. Saukko, P. & Knight, B., (2004). Knight\u2019s Forensic Pathology. Hodder Arnold Publishers, 3rd edition, p. 2.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 a successfully completed medical education and a currently registered medical practitioner;\n\n\u2013 current experience with reporting in forensic pathology at the time of the application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the recent publications and literature in the field of expertise\n                                                            and abreast of state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of causes of death, causes and consequences of injuries, changes\n                                                            which occur after death, and the possibilities and limitations of pathological findings\n                                                            to answer medico-legal questions;\n\n\u2013 be aware of the possibilities and limitations of answering various questions, such\n                                                            as the survival time and the capacity of the person to act prior to death;\n\n\u2013 at least 60 months of relevant postgraduate training. The postgraduate training\n                                                            has to include at least the following elements:\n\na) clinical pathology (at least 6 months);\n\nb) forensic pathology;\n\nc) forensic-juridical.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 personally performed and reported, under collegial review, at least 100 medico-legal\n                                                            or forensic autopsies \u00b9 in the previous 2 years, second opinions excluded. These autopsies\n                                                            should preferably cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, and should at least\n                                                            involve 60 medico-legal or forensic autopsies falling under a) through c):\n\na) asphyxiation cases (strangulation, choking, mechanical or positional asphyxiation);\n\nb) mechanical injuries cases (shot \u2013 or stab wounds, blunt force trauma);\n\nc) specific post mortal changes cases (alleged drowning, decayed bodies, burnt remains);\n\nd) unexplained deaths (intoxications e.g. CO, drug overdose, generalizes diseases\n                                                            e.g. generalized atherosclerosis, sepsis, alleged maltreatment).\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 Ibid.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 a currently registered medical practitioner;\n\n\u2013 current experience with reporting in forensic pathology at the time of the application\n                                                         for registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the recent publications and literature in the field of expertise\n                                                         and keep abreast of state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of causes of death, causes and consequences of injuries, changes\n                                                         which occur after death, and the possibilities and limitations of pathological findings\n                                                         to answer medico-legal questions;\n\n\u2013 be aware of the possibilities and limitations of answering various questions, such\n                                                         as the survival time and the capacity of the person to act prior to death.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 personally performed and reported, under collegial review, at least 150 medico-legal\n                                                         or forensic autopsies \u00b9 in the previous 5 years, second opinions excluded. These autopsies\n                                                         should preferably cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, and should at least\n                                                         involve 60 medico-legal or forensic autopsies falling under a) through c):\n\na) asphyxiation cases (strangulation, choking, mechanical or positional asphyxiation);\n\nb) mechanical injuries cases (shot \u2013 or stab wounds, blunt force trauma);\n\nc) specific post mortal changes cases (alleged drowning, decayed bodies, burnt remains);\n\nd) unexplained deaths (intoxications e.g. CO, drug overdose, generalizes diseases\n                                                         e.g. generalized atherosclerosis, sepsis, alleged maltreatment).\n\nIn case the applicant is also acting as a supervisor, at least 30 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 Ibid.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 a currently registered medical practitioner;\n\n\u2013 current experience with reporting in forensic pathology at the time of the application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the recent publications and literature in the field of expertise\n                                                            and abreast of state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 thorough knowledge of causes of death, causes and consequences of injuries, changes\n                                                            which occur after death, and the possibilities and limitations of pathological findings\n                                                            to answer medico-legal questions;\n\n\u2013 be aware of the possibilities and limitations of answering various questions, such\n                                                            as the survival time and the capacity of the person to act prior to death.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 personally performed and reported, under collegial review, an average of 30 medico-legal\n                                                            or forensic autopsies \u00b9 per year during the registration period, second opinions excluded.\n                                                            These autopsies should preferably cover the full spectrum of forensic practice, and\n                                                            should at least involve 60 medico-legal or forensic autopsies falling under a) through\n                                                            c):\n\na) asphyxiation cases (strangulation, choking, mechanical or positional asphyxiation);\n\nb) mechanical injuries cases (shot \u2013 or stab wounds, blunt force trauma);\n\nc) specific post mortal changes cases (alleged drowning, decayed bodies, burnt remains);\n\nd) unexplained deaths (intoxications e.g. CO, drug overdose, generalizes diseases\n                                                            e.g. generalized atherosclerosis, sepsis, alleged maltreatment).\n\nIn case the applicant is also acting as a supervisor, at least 30 reports on the\n                                                               List of Case Information should be independently prepared reports.\n\n\u2013 have spent an average of 40 hours per year during the registration period on forensically\n                                                            relevant professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running\n                                                            or attending courses).\n\n\u00b9 Ibid.\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\no Trias Politica, distinction between civil law, administrative law and criminal law.\n\n\u2022 criminal law procedure:\n\no pre-trial investigation;\n\no coercive measures;\n\no stages of the proceedings;\n\no actors in the criminal justice system (tasks/powers/responsibilities);\n\no 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\no 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\no course of the criminal trial;\n\no position of the expert in the court procedure.\n\n\u2022 substantive criminal law:\n\no 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\no position and role of the co-operating organisations in the criminal justice system\n                                                            in safeguarding the quality of the reports;\n\no professional codes and relevant regulations in relation to the NRGD Code of Conduct.\n\n\u2013 In addition to the above requirements, an applicant for the field of expertise Forensic\n                                                Pathology:\n\n\u2022 should have adequate knowledge of principles of evidence in the context of the Dutch\n                                                      criminal law;\n\n\u2022 should have adequate knowledge of the Wet op de lijkbezorging, the Besluit op de lijkbezorging, Wet toetsing levensbe\u00ebindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding and the Wet op de orgaandonatie.\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 have:\n\n\u2013 sufficient basic knowledge of forensic anthropology, forensic neuropathology, forensic\n                                                toxicology and forensic paediatric pathology to be able to adequately refer the commissioning\n                                                party when relevant;\n\n\u2013 sufficient knowledge of the principles of related fields of expertise, including forensic\n                                                odontology and forensic radiology to be able to adequately refer the commissioning\n                                                party when relevant.\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 be able to determine whether ancillary or additional investigation is needed (at least\n                                                post-mortem imaging/radiology, toxicology, biochemistry, tissue sampling and gunshot\n                                                residue examination.\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 adequately deal with and describe the information presented to him by the\n                                                police and other experts;\n\n\u2013 have sufficient basic knowledge of forensic anthropology, forensic neuropathology,\n                                                forensic toxicology and forensic paediatric pathology to adequately deal with sampling\n                                                in the chain of investigation;\n\n\u2013 have sufficient knowledge of the principles of related fields of expertise, including\n                                                forensic odontology and forensic radiology to adequately deal with sampling in the\n                                                chain of investigation.\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 be able to establish the cause and mechanism of death (including trigger and pre-existing\n                                                pathology);\n\n\u2013 be able to establish or to help establish the identity of the deceased;\n\n\u2013 be able to establish or to help establish the nature and cause of any injuries;\n\n\u2013 be able to establish or to help establish the manner of death;\n\n\u2013 be able to determine or to evaluate the (methods of) determination of the approximate\n                                                post-mortem interval;\n\n\u2013 be aware of fundamental principles of forensic investigations (e.g. crime scene investigation,\n                                                chain of custody, principles of evidence);\n\n\u2013 be able to determine the need and the appropriate method of radiological investigation;\n\n\u2013 be able to conduct a post-mortem examination in all types of forensic cases as mentioned\n                                                in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1999) Recommendation no. R(99)3 including\n                                                performing an external examination and appropriate sampling, performing a full internal\n                                                examination and appropriate sampling, performing an appropriate histopathological\n                                                examination via microscopic techniques;\n\n\u2013 have sufficient knowledge of the pros and cons of various scientific methods used\n                                                in the field, is aware of and able to explain the possibilities and limitations of\n                                                these methods and follows up on developments thereof.\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 make a final report including an interpretation of findings within the context of\n                                                the case (e.g. findings on the crime scene, circumstances of death);\n\n\u2013 report the involvement of (other) experts;\n\n\u2013 have sufficient basic knowledge of forensic anthropology, forensic neuropathology,\n                                                forensic toxicology and forensic paediatric pathology to be able to integrate the\n                                                findings in a final conclusion;\n\n\u2013 have sufficient knowledge of the principles of related fields of expertise, including\n                                                forensic odontology and forensic radiology, to be able to integrate the findings in\n                                                a final conclusion;\n\n\u2013 report all particulars of the manner in which the investigative material is collected\n                                                by or presented to him where relevant for his examination (for instance the collection\n                                                and preservation of biological samples);\n\n\u2013 include and distinguish in the final report the following elements:\n\n\u2013 listing of all documents and sources of information used;\n\n\u2013 objective findings;\n\n\u2013 a discussion of the findings;\n\n\u2013 conclusions.\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 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports not older than 5 years selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information Forensic Pathology. These case reports should provide a clear and\n                                                            broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies. If possible the case reports should\n                                                            also contain the testimony delivered in court.\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Pathology.\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\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 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports drawn up in the past 2 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information Forensic Pathology. These case reports should provide a clear\n                                                            and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies. If possible the case reports should\n                                                            also contain the testimony delivered in court.\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u25cb proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Pathology.\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: 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\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 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 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports drawn up in the past 5 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information Forensic Pathology. These case reports should provide a clear\n                                                            and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies. If possible the case reports should\n                                                            also contain the testimony delivered in court.\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u25cb proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Pathology\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\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 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Pathology;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports drawn up in the past 2 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information Forensic Pathology. These case reports should provide a clear\n                                                            and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies. If possible the case reports should\n                                                            also contain the testimony delivered in court.\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Pathology\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\nPostgraduate training Forensic Pathologists\n\nCountry\n\nForensic Medicine\n\nForensic pathology\n\nBelgium\n\nTotal of 5 years\n\n\u2018specialist in forensic medicine\u2019 (master after master structure)\n\ncomprises at least the following items:\n\n\u2013 12 months theoretical instruction about medical expertises\n\n\u2013 18 months practical instruction in the pathological anatomy\n\n\u2013 30 months theoretical and practical instruction in forensic medicine\n\n(p. 42)\n\nDuring training:\n\n\u2013 75 forensic autopsies as 1st \u2018obducent\u2019\n\n\u2013 150 complete external examinations\n\n\u2013 150 forensic clinical investigations.\n\n(registratie door FOD Volksgezondheid met getuigschrift specialisatieopleiding \u2018Specialist\n                                                in Gerechtelijke Geneeskunde\u2019)\n\nGermany\n\nAt least five years:\n\n\u2013 6 months clinical pathology\n\n\u2013 6 months psychiatry/forensic psychiatry\n\n\u2013 6 months in pathology/public health/pharmacology/toxicology/psychiatry\n\n\u2013 3,5 years in forensic medicine\n\nOther regulations of the medical councils:\n\n\u2013 400 complete external examinations of bodies with detailed description\n\n\u2013 25 crime scene investigations\n\n\u2013 300 forensic autopsies\n\n\u2013 2000 histological investigations\n\n\u2013 200 cases oral of written report for court\n\n\u2013 10 cases stains have to be analysed\n\n\u2013 25 forensic osteological and odontological investigations\n\nExamination: local medical council, oral exam on the basis of written reports\n\n(Registration as \u2018Specialist in Forensic Medicine\u2019, Facharzt f\u00fcr Rechtsmedizin)\n\nPostgraduate training Forensic Pathologists\n\nCountry\n\nForensic Medicine\n\nForensic pathology\n\nThe Netherlands\n\n\u2013 5 years clinical pathology\n\n\u2013 NFI: 12-18 months on forensic elements including final exam\n\nNumber of forensic autopsies:\n\n\u2013 100 forensic autopsies in 1,5 years\n\n(MSCR- registration as \u2018Patholoog\u2019)\n\nUK\n\nTotal of 5 years and 6 months\n\n\u2013 basic clinical pathology: Stage A (1 year) and Stage B (1-1,5 years)\n\n\u2013 forensic pathology: Stage C (2 \u00bd years) and Stage D (6 months)\n\nNumber of forensic autopsies\n\nStage A: 20\n\nStage B: 20 adult, 2 pediatric\n\nStage C/D: 80 per year (3 ped, 3 neuro)\n\n(UK registration in the GMC List of Registered Medical Practioners with a sub speciality\n                                                Histopathology (Forensic Pathology)):\n\nReferences:\n\n\u2013 B. Madea and P. Saukko (eds), Forensic Medicine in Europe, Schmidt-R\u00f6mhild L\u00fcbeck,\n                                       2008\n\n\u2013 KNMG Besluit Pathologie, 12 april 2010, Opleidingsplan NVVP november 2010 en NFI,\n                                       Curriculum Inwerktraject Forensisch Patholoog\n\n\u2013 The Royal College of Pathologists 2011\n\nVoorstel voor Ministerieel besluit tot vaststelling van de bijzondere criteria voor\n                                 de erkenning van artsen-specialisten, houders van de bijzonder beroepstitel in de\n                                 gerechtelijke geneeskunde, evenals van stagemeesters en van stagediensten voor de\n                                 opleiding in deze discipline\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 met within that period. In principle the period to\n                                                be specified by 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\n2.0\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 hours CPD for all types of applicants\n\n\u2013 number of case reports adjusted because of extending the registration period;\n\n\u2013 Continued Professional Development (CPD) mandatory for all types of applicants\n\n\u2013 possibility to submit profiles that were interpreted and reported on under supervision\n\n\u2013 possibility to submit profiles that were interpreted and reported on under the supervision\n                                                of the applicant\n\n\u2013 integration of several NRGD policy frameworks in Standards\n\n\u2013 selection of case reports by applicants themselves\n\n1.1\n\n1.3.2014\n\nEditorial changes\n\n1.0\n\n1.1.2014\n\nFirst edition"}