The correct answer is C. In most inquisitorial jurisdictions, expert witnesses are often appointed or closely supervised by the court, and the judge typically has a central role in defining the expert’s mission, the materials the expert may review, and the issues to be addressed. Even so, the parties are usually allowed to challenge the expert in meaningful ways, including raising concerns about the expert’s bias, neutrality, qualifications, methodology, or conclusions. That makes C the most accurate statement.

Option A is incorrect because, in inquisitorial systems, the parties do not ordinarily control the scope of the expert’s authority in the same way they often do in adversarial systems; the judge commonly exercises that control. Option B is too absolute because although the judge plays the dominant role, it is not generally true that only the judge may question the expert’s analysis. Option D is also inaccurate because the ultimate decision about the weight to assign to expert testimony is generally for the judge, not jointly for the judge and the parties.

Thus, the best statement is that the parties are usually permitted to raise objections concerning the expert’s possible biases, making C the correct choice.