In many cases, experts are not familiar with the basic institutions of procedural law, although this should be expected as a minimum, given their status on the register of experts. In particular, there is a general lack of knowledge about the exercise of procedural rights and the content of expert opinions. It is “essential that this opinion should meet the procedural, logical and professional requirements for taking evidence. Therefore, in addition to specialist knowledge, the expert’s scientific competence also requires a thorough knowledge of the relevant procedural law […]. An expert who is a recognised authority in his field but lacks knowledge of criminal procedure – generally and usually on the basis that a lack of legal knowledge or even a superficial knowledge of the law is sufficient to formulate an expert opinion – is hardly suited to this task.”2

Another common problem is that the secondment orders do not specify precisely or at all the technical issues to be examined, but in such cases the experts feel obliged to respond and, for reasons of professional pride, instead of calling on the competent authorities to correct these decisions, they issue unsubstantiated, incomplete or logically contradictory opinions. However, “this is impermissible under the spirit and the express provisions of the CPC.”3