Methodical Support for Conducting an Expert Research to Establish the Statute of Limitations for the Execution of Documents’ Requisites: Problems of Expert and Judicial Practice

M. Zhizhina, V. B. Danilovich
{"title":"Methodical Support for Conducting an Expert Research to Establish the Statute of Limitations for the Execution of Documents’ Requisites: Problems of Expert and Judicial Practice","authors":"M. Zhizhina, V. B. Danilovich","doi":"10.30764/1819-2785-2021-4-49-56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article addresses the problems of methodical support for establishing the statute of limitations when conducting a forensic document examination, directly affecting the admissibility of an expert’s opinion as evidence in legal proceedings. Establishing the statute of limitations for the execution of documents’ requisites is one of the most demanded tasks when considering all categories of cases – administrative, arbitration, civil, criminal. Analysis of the forensic practice of this type of examination in legal proceedings shows the application of various methods and approaches. Such variety raises questions among both the judicial and legal communities. For example, what existing methods are scientifically substantiated, tested, certified, lead to reliable results, and can be used to solve expert tasks? Which are unsuitable for the use in expert practice, and for what reasons?To confirm the suitability of their author’s developments for forensic examination, individual non-state experts provide various patents and certificates. How legal and permissible is this practice?The article offers a competent analysis of the current situation on the example of the widely used method of “wet copying”","PeriodicalId":300595,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Forensic Science","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Forensic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-4-49-56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article addresses the problems of methodical support for establishing the statute of limitations when conducting a forensic document examination, directly affecting the admissibility of an expert’s opinion as evidence in legal proceedings. Establishing the statute of limitations for the execution of documents’ requisites is one of the most demanded tasks when considering all categories of cases – administrative, arbitration, civil, criminal. Analysis of the forensic practice of this type of examination in legal proceedings shows the application of various methods and approaches. Such variety raises questions among both the judicial and legal communities. For example, what existing methods are scientifically substantiated, tested, certified, lead to reliable results, and can be used to solve expert tasks? Which are unsuitable for the use in expert practice, and for what reasons?To confirm the suitability of their author’s developments for forensic examination, individual non-state experts provide various patents and certificates. How legal and permissible is this practice?The article offers a competent analysis of the current situation on the example of the widely used method of “wet copying”
对开展专家研究以确立文书执行要件的诉讼时效的方法支持:专家和司法实践的问题
该条讨论了在进行法医文件检查时为确定诉讼时效提供系统支持的问题,这直接影响到在法律诉讼中专家意见作为证据的可采性。在考虑所有类型的案件-行政、仲裁、民事、刑事案件时,为执行文件的必要条件确立诉讼时效是最需要的任务之一。分析这类检查在法律诉讼中的法医实践,显示了各种方法和途径的应用。这种多样性引起了司法和法律界的质疑。例如,哪些现有的方法是经过科学证实、测试、认证的,可以产生可靠的结果,并且可以用来解决专家任务?哪些不适合在专家实践中使用,原因是什么?为了确认其作者的开发是否适合法医检查,个别非国家专家提供各种专利和证书。这种做法是否合法,是否被允许?本文以被广泛应用的“湿复制”方法为例,对其现状进行了有力的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书