Practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Shaping Standards for the Ordering and Conduct of Forensic Examinations in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

The Article Purpose is to single out standards governing the ordering and conduct of forensic examinations in criminal proceedings, shaped by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and to contextualize their significance for ensuring the right to a fair trial and streamlining the national practice of applying special knowledge. To accomplish this goal, we employed a range of general scientific and legal methods, including analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as dialectical, systemic-structural, comparative legal and generalisation approaches. It has been clarified that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights already encompasses a multifaceted system of procedural standards applicable to the ordering and conduct of forensic examinations, although these are not explicitly enshrined in provisions of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has been concluded that the ECHR regards forensic examination not as an isolated procedural tool for applying special knowledge, but rather as a component of the proof procedure, and any violation of this procedure is capable of affecting the overall fairness of criminal proceedings. The following standards have been recognised as fundamental in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights: sufficiency of case materials, adversarial proceedings, principle of equality of arms, reasonableness of ordering a forensic examination, promptness, independence of a forensic expert, and investigation efficiency. It has been observed that the respective standards constitute an interrelated system of procedural requirements covering the stages of ordering, conducting and evaluating forensic examinations. Reasoned arguments have been put forward to show that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights covers both common procedural approaches and specific forensic rules governing the application of special knowledge. More specifically, ensuring sufficient evidence is provided to a forensic expert should be regarded as a core procedural safeguard for the parties’ right to examine evidence; repeated ordering of forensic re-examinations without proper justification may point to an ineffective investigation and a forensic expert’s independence should be determined not only through their procedural status, but also by taking into account any institutional or functional links that could affect credibility of research findings. It has been proven that enhancing the efficiency of forensic examinations used in criminal proceedings requires the systematic consideration of ECHR standards during the implementation of provisions of Art. 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the refinement of the practice of providing reasons for procedural decisions on the ordering of forensic examinations, the assurance of effective adversarial nature of proceedings, and the strengthening of independence guarantess in forensic expert activities.