English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

An expert conclusion is evaluated according to the criteria of its relevance, admissibility and reliability. In the judicial practice of the RA the legality or validity of a conclusion, as well as the contradictions in the conclusions, are directly related to the need for the description of the methodology in the expert conclusion. Therefore, the question often arises about the judge’s actions in the light of the absence of a note on the methods used during the examination. This article also examines the question of the possibility of assessment of an expert conclusion as appropriate evidence in a situation where the expert testifies about the methods used in making up the conclusion, but does not make the corresponding note in the conclusion.The authors of the article analyze some judicial precedents, which had an important influence on this issue in the judicial practices of the Republic of Armenia and the USA, and referred to different, sometimes conflicting positions of judges of the Court of Appeal.

SOME FEATURES OF EVALUATION OF EXPERT CONCLUSION IN THE CIVIL PROCESS (COMPARISON OF FORENSIC PRACTICES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA AND THE USA)