In the past few years to address questions about extremism are increasingly used by the Institute of expertise. It would seem that this is a very good solution to avoid mistakes in the court as an independent expert help justice. It is not something Bill Phelan would like to discuss. However, the reality is often different: we have to deal with subjectivity and lack of professionalism of experts from the conclusions of which depend on people's lives. Particularly clearly happens in cases of new religious movements. For example, in the Rostov case of Jehovah's Witnesses experts who had conducted examination of printed materials Jehovah's Witnesses for extremism, contradicted themselves, justify the inaccuracies in its conclusion. For example, they note that the methodology of assessments to identify extremism in the texts under development (it's noted experts Kas'yanyuk and Shishkin), but they presented their opinion to the court A For example, an expert Shishkin noted that examination of extremism is subjective. The question is, how does the court may rely on such expertise? Experts contradict themselves: Astapov expert notes that "Propaganda of exclusivity," characterized by "any religion", but later makes this criterion as one of the signs of extremism, Jehovah's Witnesses. It is surprising that the same expert Astapov, acknowledges that the Jehovah's Witnesses "Are consistent pacifists, if pacifists are now the extremists, then who are not extremists? Even saying the classics of Russian literature of Leo Tolstoy, which was contained in the study materials were classified as extremist. This suggests that, maybe something is wrong with this approach to the evidence of extremism? This label of "extremism" has become a Jehovah's Witness for the reason for the closure of some organizations and the detention of the faithful.