The Sentence 4625/2021 of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court reiterates de Court’s doctrine regarding the psychological expert evidence of credibility in adult testimonies: it is impertinent and unnecessary when only revolving around their credibility, as it is the Court’s job to, according to rationality rules and immediacy, evaluate the existing contradictions and to determine which is the credibility degree given to the testimony.

Exceptionally it will be pertinent the practice of this kind of evidence when scientific knowledge is needed to evaluate specific personality features of adult testimonies, usually when there are existing signs that the declarant has a pathological personality. Even in this case, this type of expert evidence can’t displace the Court’s credibility judgment of the testimonies.

According to the Second Chamber, the expert evidence’s value is not the same when the testimonies are minors, as in these cases the intervention of experts is mandatory for their exploration and declaration, even if this measure is adopted mainly to protect them and not to assess their credibility.