An experimental probe of the quality of document authentication in the Czech Republic
Document authentication is a public administration service confirming the existence of an original document. The authentication officer is legally obliged to recognize the original document through an authentication element (Act No. 21/2006 Coll. and Article 73 of Act No. 358/1992 Coll., Notarial Code) and to recognize an obvious forgery (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 30 Cdo 1966/2013).
To assess the error rate of the verification, we conducted two experiments: one in 2017 and a follow-up (control) experiment in 2024. The results revealed a serious systemic failure. In 2017, a manifestly implausible document bearing only a printed signature (a forgery) was certified in 77 % of cases (51 of 66 offices). The 2024 control experiment showed that the situation improved only slightly over many years: the forgery was certified in 60 % of cases (39 of 65 offices). In practice, a certified copy may then be used as evidence that an original document exists—even where such an original never existed. This is why such a high error rate among public offices is dangerous.
We published the results of the 2017 experiment in the professional journal Státní zastupitelství, and the findings were also widely covered in the media. The conclusions were subsequently incorporated into training materials for officials performing vidimace and legalizace (signature authentication) within the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by our 2024 control experiment, there has been no substantial improvement in the error rate. We are currently preparing the results for publication in the professional press.

Research on adolescent delinquency
We have completed a research project on atypical delinquent adolescents with the publication of two case studies. This is research on children from functional families, providing a unique perspective on juvenile delinquency in an unusual context. In other words, even a child from a functional family may exhibit delinquent behavior even within a limited period of adolescence (Moffit’s taxonomy). Thus, we complement the deeper explanations of delinquency motives included in quantitative studies.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Addressed conclusion of expert´s opinion
If the name of the writer is mentioned in the conclusion of the expert’s report, the expert must state in the data production section (§ 41 (2) Regulation No. 503/2020 SB) that he personally carried out a handwriting experiment in which he saw the writer in question write. At the same time, in the data processing section, the expert must state that he has carried out a thorough validation (§ 55(2)) of the entire comparative sample, i.e. both the collected and requested handwriting samples. Otherwise, the expert can only formulate a conclusion (§ 58) that is non-addressed, i.e. signed/unsigned by the writer of the comparative samples.

New legal regulation of expert performance
The previous legal regulation of expert performance did not provide sufficient conditions for the expert report assessment. Based on the assignment of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, a study proposing a structure-based expert procedure was formulated by a member of our institute Dr. Jiří Závora and published in 2017. On the basis of this study, Decree No. 503/2020 Coll. modified the mandatory procedure of the expert. The IFSP prepares professional workshops and creates didactic materials on the structure-based expert procedure for lawyers and experts.

Institute of Forensic Sciences Prague – justification is essential…
Copyright © 2021 IFSP | Web spravuje Marketingová garáž – tvorba webových stránek Praha