This article explores, using arbitrazh proceedings as an example, causes and effects of attaching special evidentiary significance to forensic examination findings due primarily to strictly prescribed procedural form of how research is to be conducted and that an expert is able to provide explanations on the questions that a court is unable to answer on its own.
The authors analyse the problem of evaluating an expert report as to its credibility based on existing case law and experience in judicial work. In particular, the authors have identified three standalone criteria for evaluation: compliance with formal requirements contemplated by existing laws as to how forensic examination must be initiated and conducted; good faith and impartiality and requisite expertise of an expert; reasoning of an expert report, credibility and verifiability of examination findings. The articles also offers practical recommendations how to apply legal mechanisms of a forensic expert report’s rebuttal if his evidence is false. Given that basic principles of legal regulation of forensic examination both in arbitrazh and civil proceedings are similar, the authors’ conclusions apply to civil proceedings as well.