attempted to increase the independence of forensic experts, and to restrict the role of forensic assessment agencies affiliated to the police. The 2010 rule on the examination and judgement of evidence in death penalty cases also emphasised DNA testing, fingerprint analysis, or any other methods of testing biological evidence such as bloodstains, fingerprints or bodily fluids at the scene of the crime. In 2015, the NPCSC revised the “Administration of Forensic Identification and Evaluation” and the Ministry of Justice ordered a revised “General Rules on the Procedures for Forensic Identification and Evaluation” in February 2016, which also placed greater emphasis on the cross-examination of forensic evidence and expert reports in courts. However, the training of police, judges and lawyers on different types of evidence is reported to be deficient. Some universities only provide this as an elective rather than a mandatory class. There are no nationally applicable standards for validating identification reports and expert opinions.27 Judges must authenticate evidence in court, but either lack the expertise to contest evidence provided by the police or remain unwilling to do so. In Chinese law, government institutions monopolise the initiation and granting of forensic examinations. The public security bureau, the procuratorate, and the people’s court all have the authority to initiate forensic assessments. The defence cannot initiate forensic evidence assessments; they can only apply for re-assessment or supplementary assessment. The Criminal Procedure Law, article 192, allows all parties to apply to the court to have new witnesses called, new physical evidence submitted or request a new forensic evaluation or crime scene investigation. However, the court is not obliged to grant such a request and there are no remedies such as appeal procedures available to the defence. The defence can initiate private forensic examinations and submit them as evidence, and judges can consider them as evidence in their sentencing, although this cannot be authenticated. The cost of these examinations is also a significant barrier for the defence and there are cases of families of defendants spending large amounts for private mental health assessments, for example (see Chapter 2). There is also no law that clearly standardises how judges shall review and verify expert conclusions; whether or not an expert opinion is considered depends on the court. Judges remain reluctant to rely on forensic evidence and lawyers say that it is difficult to convince the court to take a forensic identification or expert opinion into consideration. Experts with experience giving evidence at criminal trials speak of the difficulties, with one Chinese forensic expert calling the system chaotic. There is, however, some limited evidence to suggest that there is an increasing awareness among criminal defence lawyers and forensic experts of the importance of understanding one another’s role to strengthen defence in death penalty cases. 27 Qiao, Cong Rui. ‘Emerging Role of Expert Opinions in Chinese Criminal Justice.’ Forensic Res Criminal Int J. 4(6) p.192-193. 2017. DOI: 10.15406/frcij.2017.04.00137 31