Everybody, who were present at the last judicial sitting in the Budapest city court, point to the firmness, displayed by the Judge. Remaining correct, Vashkuti Andrash made it clear that he would harshly block any attempt of biased approach from judicial experts. The psychologist, who had studied the results of judicial-psychological examination of the defendant's condition, felt that harshness on himself. Neutral observers were quite doubtful about the psychologist's impartiality. It is easy to guess the reasons that made the expert insist on the version of "partial insanity" of Ramil Safarov. Connections between the psychologist and the defense are proved once again by the fact that during the breaks advocate Adil Ismailov whispered about something with the Hungarian expert. Armenian TV reporters who captured that fact, were "honored" with, mildly saying, not the most courteous epithets from the Azeri lawyer.

The judicial expert obviously went too far with his eagerness to prove the defendant's partial insanity and it did more harm than good. Demonstrating his openly biased approach, the psychologist only strengthened the Judge's and prosecutor's trust to the authors of the first examination, which confirmed that Safarov murdered his sleeping colleague deliberately, in his right mind. It is worth mentioning that the expert was not required to make any conclusions and estimations. He would keep his reputation and the rates of career advance if he did what he was really asked to do. The court had assigned him to compare the documents of the first two examinations and express his opinion about the expediency of conducting a new examination. Vashkuti Andrash several times urged the expert to stay within the limits of the mission assigned to him. Moreover, he threatened the expert with a 10.000 forint fine. However, ignoring all the warnings of the Judge, the expert continued insisting on the point that the crime was committed in consequence of a psychological shock, caused by a posttraumatic syndrome. The expert's answers to Judge's, prosecutor's and even the advocate's questions confirmed that he was unprepared. As a result, the Judge had to dismiss the expert and reject his report.

Thus, the third examination was nullified, which can be considered the success of prosecution and advocates, protecting the interests of the injured party because the approval of the third examination results could tell upon the harshness of the verdict. The murderer's advocate does not conceal his sorrow for the Judge's decision. The murderer himself looked quite depressed after listening to the statement of Vashuti Andrash. The chances of Azeris to convince the court in the presence of extenuating circumstances become vaguer and vaguer.