Konsultacinė išvada kaip įrodymas baudžiamajame procese

LTŠiame rašto darbe yra siekiama teoriniu lygmeniu paanalizuoti, ar pagrįstai proceso šalies užsakymu (sutartiniais pagrindais) atliktas tyrimas vadinamas konsultacine išvada ir vertinamas kaip dokumentas, nesuteikiant jam mokslinio įrodymo, o būtent specialisto išvados, reikšmės. Manytina, kad prie specialių žinių panaudojimo formų turėtų būti priskiriama ir konsultacinė išvada, kuri galėtų būti vertinama kaip specialisto išvada. Išsikeltą hipotezę siekiama pagrįsti atsižvelgiant tiek į galiojantį teisinį reguliavimą, tiek į teismų formuojamą praktiką. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Ekspertas; Konsultacinė išvada; Moksliniai įrodymai; Specialios žinios; Specialisto išvada; Conclusions that are issued by private experts or specialists; Expert; Scientific evidences; Special knowledge.

ENThe purpose of this paper is to analyse at a theoretical level whether a reasoned study by a party to the proceedings (on a contractual basis) is called a consultative conclusion and is considered as a document without giving it scientific evidence, namely the expert’s conclusion. In the light of the existing legal regulation and the case-law, the conclusion of a contract-based investigation is believed to be unreasonably referred to as a consultative opinion and considered and documented rather than as scientific evidence for which specific knowledge is required. The consultative conclusion does not meet the requirements of the document, and it is essentially in line with the requirements of the specialist’s conclusion, the person who has written it has special non-legal knowledge. Similarly, case-law has been used in cases where the advisory opinion is not recognized as evidence since the person who prepared it was not familiar with the entire file, but the person who drafted the document is not subject to this requirement, which confirms that the courts consider the consultative opinion as a specialist’s conclusion. In case law, the rule is that a person who has submitted a consultative opinion is questioned as a specialist, and in case of contradictions between the consultative conclusion and the experts (experts) of forensic institutions, there is an expert opinion, despite the fact that the consultative conclusion and the expert’s report (expert report) are given different legal status. Thus, the courts do not normally draw any distinction between the expert’s conclusion and the conclusion of the consultation, both when interviewing persons with specialist knowledge and when assessing the findings. [From the publication]