The study considers the problem of structuring expert judgments formed under conditions of uncertainty of different nature and in presence of conflicting expert evidence. The method of aggregating group expert judgments that are formed under conditions of various types of uncertainty helps synthesize the group opinion, taking into account various forms of representing the preferences of experts (interval, fuzzy and crisp expert judgments). The proposed procedure makes it possible to synthesize a group decision in the event that there is a group or several groups of experts in a group of experts who express their preferences using different forms of expert judgments. This approach allows reflecting accurately the expert preferences regarding the object being analysed, without restricting the experts to a rigid form of presenting assessments. In order to analyse the obtained expert information and to get individual expert ratings of the analysed objects, the method of pairwise comparison and its modification were used in the study. It has been established that for the aggregation of crisp expert estimates, more precise combined results can be obtained by applying rules for redistributing conflicts of the theory of plausible and paradoxical reasoning. To aggregate interval expert judgments, one of the combination rules of the theory of evidence is recommended. It has been determined that in order to improve the quality of the aggregate results, it is advisable to establish a procedure for combining expert inputs, for example, taking into account the degree of dissimilarity and the structure of expert evidence. The obtained results are intended to help improve the quality and efficiency of the processes of preparing and making decisions while solving the problems of analysing and structuring expert judgments.