The Role of the Council of Europe in the International Cooperation between Russian and European Forensic Organizations

The globalization processes in Europe have allowed international crime to become more global and diversified. The appliance of various forms of forensic knowledge and expertise plays an essential role in current judicial proceedings. Among multiple European cooperation formats, the Council of Europe holds a special place as an international organization that promotes cooperation among its members in standards of the rule of law, human rights, democratic development, and cultural interaction. The year 2021 marks a quarter of a century since the Russian Federation’s participation in the Council of Europe. The authors perceive this date’s significance through the interaction of Russian and European forensic organizations within the framework of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). It was Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe that allowed the lead forensic institutions of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Justice to join ENFSI and actively participate in its work for many years. The article observes the chronology of the key ENFSI events highlighting its evolvement as the lead pan-European forensic expert organization, the basic principles of which were predetermined by the Council of Europe. As an illustrative example of previous cooperation in solving challenging expert problems is proposed the international program initiated by the Russian party and implemented by ENFSI in 2005–2008 to validate complex methods to identify the products containing platinum group metals produced by mining and metallurgical companies. Subsequently, the consolidated position of European and Russian forensic experts at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum venue in 2013–2015 served as a powerful impetus for practical development of standardization and accreditation issues in forensic science in Russia. Current problematics of cooperation is mainly devoted to the issues of ensuring the quality of forensic examination, reliability of its conclusions, consolidation of expert databases. The authors also note some interaction problems between forensic organizations resulting from different legal systems, cultural traditions, and scientific schools.

1. Kopp I., Sprangers W. History of European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. Problems of Forensic Sciences. 2002. Vol. 50 (L). P. 203–217. http://www.forensicscience.pl/component/option,com_jbook/task,view/Itemid,2/catid,37/id,273/lang,pl/

2. Kjeldsen T., Neuteboom W. 20 Years of Forensic Cooperation in Europe. The History of ENFSI 1995–2015. The Hahue: ENFSI, 2015. https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/History-of-ENFSI.pdf

3. Khaziev Sh.N. International Forensic Organizations (Reference Guide, Part 1). Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2009. No. 1 (13). P. 156–177. (In Russ.)

4. Malkoc E., Neuteboom W. The Current Status of Forensic Science Laboratory Accreditation in Europe. Forensic Science International. 2007. Vol. 167. No. 2–3. P. 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.064

5. Neuteboom W., Shakel N.V. History of Cooperation between Forensic Institutions in the Framework of ENFSI. Forensic Examination of Belarus. 2016. No. 2 (3). P. 21–25. (In Russ.)

6. Fesenko A.V., Kuchkin A.V., Bogatyrev V.S., Bogdanov A.V., Milovzorov N.G., Pavlov A.O., Shumskaya T.V., Perelygin A.S., Khar’kov N.E., Karpov Yu.A. Forensic Analysis of the Products Containing Platinum Group Metals Produced by Mining and Metallurgical Companies. Forensic Examination. 2006. No. 3 (7). P. 20–31. (In Russ.)

7. PerelyginA., KuchkinA., KharkovN. Criminalistic Identification of PGM-Containing Products of Mining and Metallurgical Companies. Forensic Science International. 2008. Vol. 174. No. 1. P. 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.027

8. De Kinder Y. Regional and International Cooperation in the Field of Forensic Expertise. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No. 3 (31). P. 171.

9. Geradts Z. Digital Evidence: National and International Experience. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No. 3 (31). P. 172– 173.

10. Neuteboom W. National and International Models for Forensic Institutions Organization: Current Status and Perspectives. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No. 3 (31). P. 172–173.

11. Iveson S. Legal Basis for Quality Management in Forensic Science. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No. 3 (31). P. 170.

12. Govorina N.V., Kuz’min S.A., Usov A.I. Main Activities of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes at the Present Stage. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 116–120. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-1-116-120

13. Usov A.I., Gradusova O.B., Kuz’min S.A. The Use of Probabilistic and Statistical Methods to Test the Significance of Scientific Evidence: Comparative Analysis of Current Forensic Practices in Russia and Abroad. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 6–15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-4-6-15

14. Aitken C., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Champod C., Curran J., Dawid A.P., Evett I.W., et al. Expressing Evaluative Opinions: A Position Statement. Science and Justice. 2011. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002

15. Adam C. Forensic Evidence in Court: Evaluation and Scientific Opinion. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, 2016. 336 p.