In the article the pressing issues of responsibility of the judicial expert are considered. V. Averyanova,R.S. Belkin, A.M. Zinin, Н.P. Majlis, A.J. Paliashvili, A.I. Petruhina, I.L. Petruhin, Е.R. Rossinskaya, and other scientists discussed theproblems of responsibility for wrongful actions in the professional work of judicial experts in their works. In literature it is noticed thatresponsibility as a public relation has a complicated structure and reveals itself, first of all, in interrelation, interaction of a person withother persons, persons with a group and a society. It is formed on the basis of consecutive interaction of three components: sense ofduty, estimation of behaviour, and imposition of sanctions. From this three-member responsibility structure it is possible to draw a conclusionthat the basic element in the responsibility of the judicial expert is the estimation of his/her decisions and actions in the course ofexpert research acts. Certainly, as a rule, investigating bodies and courts eliminate the experts erroneous statement as a source of proofsor correct it by appointing a repeating examination. The expert, who has drawn the erroneous, inexact conclusion, should bear a disciplinaryresponsibility for it irrespective of its consequences, though the latter and can be considered at defining the measure of punishment.The basic sign distinguishing the experts error from an obviously false expert's statement consists in the definition of an error. Incase of an error, the expert sincerely believes that s/he thinks and operates correctly. The comprehension of falsity of the conclusions orabnormality of actions excludes error. The judicial expert as the subject of judicial-expert activity and as the subject of responsible professionaland moral actions is obliged to mean, realize, feel and remember the responsibility. Relations of responsible dependence,which the judicial expert enters in the course of judicial examination, have an objective character that is especially clear when analysingthe experts activity in the area of great responsibility; they should express and show a responsibility measure. It is expressed in severity,accuracy, wealth of argument, depth, objectivity and truthfulness of expert research, in the positive influence of the experts conclusionon truth determination in criminal legal proceedings.

Keywords

Authors

References