Part of the responsibility lies with the experts, whose expertise can and must restore trust in the law and justice. Their sole loyalty must be directed toward the facts, science, and objectivity, and not toward the interests of the prosecution, defense, or the court.
The rating of the judiciary in the Republic of Macedonia, which according to surveys hovers around just two percent trust among citizens, represents an alarming indicator of the state of the judicial system. In public discourse, the blame is most often attributed exclusively to the judges, but this approach is one-sided and does not reflect the full picture. Judicial proceedings are not solely the product of judicial decisions; they also depend on the competence of prosecutors and lawyers, as well as the quality of the evidence, expert reports, and professional opinions on which those decisions are based.
Experts and professional individuals, as part of judicial practice, play an essential role in establishing the facts. Their independence, expertise, and scientific argumentation form the foundation of a fair and credible trial. When these principles are violated—when expert analysis is superficial, biased, or commissioned—the entire process loses its trustworthiness.
Therefore, responsibility must be shared. Not all judges deserve to bear the burden of the judiciary’s low rating; part of that burden also lies with those whose expertise influences judicial decisions.
The expert witness, as a professional involved in the judicial process, must remain disinterested in the outcome of the proceedings and in any of the parties, except for the factually proven truth. Their sole loyalty must be directed toward the facts, science, and objectivity, and not toward the interests of the prosecution, defense, or the court. Only such an approach ensures expert analysis that is not a tool in the hands of the parties, but a pillar of justice and truthfulness in the proceedings.
A classic negative example is two diametrically opposed expert reports. This can certainly be attributed to different approaches in data analysis, the use of different methodologies, lack of access to certain documentation, or subjective assessment of certain facts. However, if the two experts cannot agree, it is certainly a signal that it is the result of either insufficient competence or, in the worst case, intent due to well-known reasons, most often on the part of one expert.
I mentioned the division of responsibility, which is enormous because one opinion can influence the outcome of a process that affects people’s lives, property, or honor. Therefore, ethics, independence, and expertise are fundamental values in this profession.
It is necessary for the profession to be organized into a system that empirically identifies good and bad practices in expert analyses, positive and negative examples from practice. Shining the spotlight on our profession is healthy and positive, especially for those experts who prefer ethical and professional work.
My intention is to turn the public’s attention to us experts—the silent creators of trust in the judiciary. The independent expert, who respects science more than influences, is precisely the factor that can restore trust in the judiciary and raise the rating from the current symbolic two percent.
Society needs to recognize the importance of this profession as soon as possible, because expert analysis is not just a technical procedure. If we want a just legal system, we must invest in quality, ethical, and expert professionals.
Investment is not an individual approach; it requires coordinated support from the Ministry of Justice through harmonization and updating of outdated documentation (regulations, acts, etc.), as well as a proactive approach from the Chamber of Experts.
Finally, but no less importantly, I would highlight the need for networking, for which in the coming period we will witness significant activities that will contribute to increasing cohesion in the profession, which can undoubtedly have a positive impact on increasing trust in the judicial system.
Dr. Dimitar Anevski – Financial Expert and Expert Witness in the Economic Field