employee
Ensuring the correctness and reliability of the conclusions of forensic identification examinations is one of the priority tasks of the forensic examination methodology. The conditions for obtaining conclusions that meet these requirements are determined by forensic methods, namely, their suitability for the intended use, which is confirmed by the validation procedure. The specificity of the identification method, which is the basic one in the structure of forensic identification techniques, does not allow using all the validation parameters recommended for performing this procedure. The article highlights sensitivity and specificity, correctness and precision from the set of evaluated indicators. In order to ensure reliable conclusions of forensic identification examinations, it is proposed to carry out a procedure for verifying the results of a comparative study and periodically monitoring the qualifications (competence) of an expert. It is recommended that the conclusions be verified by performing a blind check by a second expert. It is advisable to include verification of conclusions in the structure of identification methods as a stage of expertise. The qualification of experts performing forensic identification examinations should be monitored as part of regular interlaboratory and intralaboratory tests.
VALIDATION, VERIFICATION, IDENTIFICATION, METHODOLOGY, BLIND CHECK, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, STANDARDIZATION, FORENSIC EXAMINATION
1. Avetisyan V. R. Compilation of expert practice of forensic ballistic examinations in the system of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation when solving the task of identifying firearms with a rifled barrel by traces on a fired cartridge case. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 80-92, 2008. (In Russ.).
2. Saks M., Faigman D. Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Annual review of law and social science, 149-171, 2008. (In Eng.).
3. Averyanova T. V. Forensic examination. The course of general theory. Moscow: Norma; 2008: 480. (In Russ.).
4. Rossinskaya E. R. (et al.) Forensic examination: typical mistakes. Moscow: Prospect; 2019: 544. (In Russ.).
5. Khrustalev V. N. How to ensure the reliability of evidence obtained by expert means? Forensic Examination, 156-171, 2016. (In Russ.).
6. Omelianyuk G. G., Usov A. I. Risk management in forensic activities as a way to improve the quality of expert production. In: Development of criminalistics and forensic examination in the works of professor E. R. Rossinskaya. Materials of the International scientific and practical conference, to the anniversary of the scientist, expert, teacher, 27 November 2019, Moscow. Moscow: Prospekt; 2019: 337-343. (In Russ.).
7. Omelyanyuk G. G., Chesnokova E. V., Bishmanov B. M. The possibilities of applying the ILAC-G19:06/2022 manual "Modules in the Forensic Process" to improve forensic activities. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 70-79, 2022. (In Russ.).
8. Usov A. I., Omelyanyuk G. G., Bebeshko G. I. (et al.) Methodological features of validating forensic expert techniques. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 76-96, 2023. (In Russ.).
9. Smirnova S. A., Usov A. I., Omelianyuk G. G. (et al.) Experience of accreditation of forensic laboratories of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Theory and Practice of Forensic Examination, 40-56, 2011. (In Russ.).
10. Smirnova S. A., Omelianyuk G. G., Usov A. I., Bebeshko G. I. The specifics of applying the basic terms and definitions of the international standard GOST ISO/IEC 17025-2009 to the activities of forensic laboratories. Theory and Practice of Forensic Examination, 57-68, 2012. (In Russ.).
11. Biasotti A. A Statistical study of the individual characteristics of fired bullets. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34-50, 1959. (In Eng.).
12. Biasotti A., Murdock J. Firearm & toolmark identification. In: Faigman D., Kaye D., Saks M., Sanderson J. Modern scientific evidence: the law and science of expert testimony. Vol. 2. West Publishing Company; 1997: 131-151. (In Eng.).
13. Granovsky G. L. Probabilistic assessment of the suitability of linear (dynamic) traces for identification. Methodological recommendations for experts. Moscow: VNIISE MJ USSR; 1985: 19. (In Russ.).
14. Mailis N. P., Yarmak K. V., Bushuev V. V. Fingerprinting and fingerprint examination. Textbook for university students studying in the specialty "Forensic Examination". Moscow: Unity-Dana; 2017: 264. (In Russ.).
15. Nichols R. Firearm and toolmark identification: the scientific reliability of the forensic science discipline. London: Academic Press; 2018: 164. (In Eng.).
16. Nadort A., Hogg K., Paine D. (et al.) Every little bit helps: an overview of unpublished research towards validating forensic ballistics // AFTE Journal, 80-91, 2023. (In Eng.).
17. Kerkhoff W., Stoel R. D., Mattijssen E. J. A. T. (et al.) A part-declared blind testing program in firearms examination. Science & justice, 258-263, 2018. (In Eng.).
18. Monson K., Smith E., Peters E. Repeatability and reproducibility of comparison decisions by firearms examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1721-1740, 2023. (In Eng.).
19. Chesnokova E. V. Processes and forensic standard operating procedures in the production of forensic examination of vehicle markings. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 262-268, 2021. (In Russ.).
