Puls parents ask court to define limits of each expert report and experts' competence
Families say a defence expert limited to construction cannot rebut multidisciplinary prosecution findings and ask the court to judge any request for super-expertise carefully.
At today's hearing in the Puls case prosecutors put the defence's construction expert, Petre Ruseski, through cross-examination.
Ruseski maintained that, from a construction point of view, the building had not undergone reconstruction or change of use but only interior finishing. He also said the facility had been designed and built for commercial use from the start.
Parents question scope and expertise
Parents of the victims reacted to the defence's announcement that it will seek a super-expertise. They voiced concern that a single defence expert limited to construction issues cannot meaningfully dispute a multi-discipline expert report presented by the prosecution.
"The logical question is: if the defence's expert speaks only from a construction aspect and from his answers it is clear that he cannot respond to all the questions arising from the prosecution's expertise, how can his opinion be used to challenge the overall expert findings? The prosecution's expertise does not cover only the construction aspect, but several areas – urbanism, construction, the Protection and Rescue Directorate, fire protection and other questions related to the case. Therefore, if the defence expert cannot professionally comment on all those areas, then his opinion is limited to what he was called for and for which he has professional competence. And now, when the defence requests a super-expertise, it is up to the court to assess whether there truly exist essential and insoluble contradictions between the expert findings or whether a new expertise is being sought again just because the existing one does not confirm the defence's theses. We, the parents, expect the court to carefully determine the boundary of each expert finding and the expertise of each expert, because in this case it is not an ordinary technical debate, but the determination of responsibility for the greatest tragedy that happened to us," said Naunov before reporters.
Parents emphasised that the court must assess whether disputed issues reflect genuine, irreconcilable differences between expert reports or whether a new examination is being requested merely because the existing findings do not support the defence's position.
Photo: press material from the event
