Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 29 januari 2013

Alinea 99 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 29 januari 2013

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 29 januari 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BX5539.

145. Also, in cases concerning the withholding of evidence from the defence in order to protect police sources, the Court has left it to the domestic courts to decide whether the rights of the defence should cede to the public interest and has confined itself to verifying whether the procedures followed by the judicial authorities sufficiently counterbalance the limitations on the defence with appropriate safeguards. The fact that certain evidence was not made available to the defence was not considered automatically to lead to a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II). Similarly, in the case of Salduz, cited above, § 50, the Court reiterated that the right to legal assistance, set out in Article 6 § 3 (c) was one element, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in Article 6 § 1.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/9ffaffeb120ec00fd4d1a33a661ead093488ae5e3e5419422e8d385487057300. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 9ffaffeb120ec00fd4d1a33a661ead093488ae5e3e5419422e8d385487057300, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 50834 tot 51759.