In Support of Expert’s Right to Provide Explanations before Commissiong a Repeated Expert Examination
( Pp. 68-73)
More about authors
Svetlana A. Smirnova
Dr. Sci. (Law), Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Head of the Department of Forensic Expert Activity of the Law Institute
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Moscow, Russian Federation Maksim V. Mozgov Cand. Sci. (Hist.)
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Moscow, Russian Federation
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Moscow, Russian Federation Maksim V. Mozgov Cand. Sci. (Hist.)
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Moscow, Russian Federation
Abstract:
Abstract: The purpose of the research. The research pays attention to inadequacy of procedural legislation, which allows the commissioning of repeated expert examinations without expert’s involvement, what affects the business reputation of an expert and further commissioning of the expert in other court proceedings. The purpose of the study is to identify the existing gaps of legal regulation in course of commissioning of repeated examinations, as well as to make proposals for their settlement by modification of the legislation. Results. It is suggested that experts should be given the opportunity to provide written or oral explanations to the court, which could lift any doubts or contradictions raised by the court in the course of analysing the expert report. In order to decrease the risks of delaying the court proceedings it is suggested to use online interrogation of an expert and receipt of written expert explanations by the court via electronic communications.
How to Cite:
Smirnova, S.A., Mozgov, M.V. (2026). In Support of Expert’s Right to Provide Explanations before Commissiong a Repeated Expert Examination. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 19(1), 68-73. DOI: 10.33693/2072-3164-2026-19-1-68-73. EDN: KJBXLU
Reference list:
Lukashin A.A. On the question of the expediency of online communication of the court with an expert and a specialist in the civil process. Bulletin of the O.E. Kutafin University (MGUA). 2023;(10):200–206. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311–5998.2023.110.10.200–206.
Mikhail Barshchevsky on the work of judges: It’s a conveyor belt, there’s no time to figure it out.. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/radio/16/09/2025/68c93c3e9a79473c07bbb73f. Date of access to the source: 09/16/2025.
Mikhail Barshchevskiy o rabote sudey: eto konveyer, razbirat sya net vremeni. // URL: https://www.rbc.ru/radio/16/09/2025/68c93c3e9a79473c07bbb73f. Data obrashcheniya k istochniku: 16.09.2025.
Mikhail Barshchevsky on the work of judges: It’s a conveyor belt, there’s no time to figure it out.. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/radio/16/09/2025/68c93c3e9a79473c07bbb73f. Date of access to the source: 09/16/2025.
Mikhail Barshchevskiy o rabote sudey: eto konveyer, razbirat sya net vremeni. // URL: https://www.rbc.ru/radio/16/09/2025/68c93c3e9a79473c07bbb73f. Data obrashcheniya k istochniku: 16.09.2025.
Keywords:
forensic, commissioning of expert study, expert explanations, business reputation of an expert, repeated expert examination.
