Author (s): Rutskyi О., Haryha-Hrykhno М.

Work place:

Rutskyi О.,

Head of Scientific Department,

Chernihiv NDECC Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Chernihiv, Ukraine

Haryha-Hrykhno М.

Forensic expert, Head of Scientific Department,

Chernihiv NDECC Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Chernihiv, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0003-2397-6383

Language: Ukrainian

Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Law 2019 No 2(7): 83-92


The legislator has compared the parties to the procedural possibilities of forensic examinations appointment, having published in the new edition of article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, but it led not only to the overload of the judicial system, but also to the formal consideration of the appeals of the prosecution party on a judicial expert involvement, since, consideration of such appeals takes place without a defense, sometimes without an accused (the investigating judge individually) that is, the exclusion of the parties of criminal proceedings, and the sole source of information for the investigating judge or judge is the accused.

Changing the procedure for appointment of forensic examination and involvement of a judicial expert in criminal proceedings allowed to resolve the disputed, in the scientific circles, issue of implementation by the defence of the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 102 CPC of Ukraine in practice. The specified norm obliges the judicial expert to state in the conclusion that he has been warned about criminal liability for a knowingly false conclusion and the refusal without valid reasons to the duties assigned to him. That is, with the involvement of a judicial expert, the defence on contractual terms, had a question in what form to be warned of criminal liability, since the Criminal Procedure Code did not specify the form of the document (statement, petition, contract, etc.), which should be initiated by such expertise and its contents. The mentioned problematic issue could be the reason for the court to attribute the expert’s conclusion to inadmissible evidence, in accordance with Art. 86 CPC of Ukraine.

Despite the innovations, the application of the CPC norms of Ukraine by the defence regarding the appointment of forensic examination and the involvement of a judicial expert by this time have a number of problematic issues that adversely affect the equality of the criminal process parties. The first is the collection and provision to the judicial expert of research objects and samples for comparative research by the defence. Secondly, there is a provision for the study of objects and samples, if they are temporarily seized and are in the criminal proceedings materials and recognized as real evidence by the pre-trial investigation body.

Key words: judicial expert, defense, criminal process, equality, competition.



  1. Krushynskyi, S. А., and Kalinovska, M. О. (2018), “The procedure for involving an expert in the implementation context of the competition principles in criminal proceedings”, Pravo, № 1 (59), Kyiv, P. 155–160.
  2. Klymenko, N. І. (2001), “As to the Institute of Competitive (Alternative) Examination”, Theory and practice of forensic examination and forensic science, № 11, Kyiv, P. 211–216.
  3. Krushynskyi, S. А. (2017), Submission of evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine: monograph,
  4. Lehkykh, К. V. (2013), “Samples obtaining by the defence for the expert investigation, which are in the materials of the criminal proceedings, Legal journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, № 2, Kyiv, P. 198.
  5. Klimenko, N. І. (2012), “The Issue of Reforming the Institute of Forensic Examination in the CPC of Ukraine” materials of the 4th International Scientific and Practical Conference devoted to the 95th anniversary of the birth of Professor Saltevskyi, M. V. (November 2, 2012), Feniks, Odesa, P. 356–359.

Full text .pdf

©2024. Penitentiary academy of Ukraine