Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017

Alinea 64 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017, ECLI:NL:PHR:2017:92.

70. The Government distinguished the present case from Jalloh v. Germany [GC] (cited above), where the use as evidence of drugs obtained by forcible administration of emetics to that applicant had rendered his trial as a whole unfair. In the present case the applicant’s statements as well as those of M. and N. had been given voluntarily (as also shown by the fact that their statements were confirmed on oath before the magistrate conducting the inquiry), the applicant had been able to, and actually did, cross-examine M. and N. Further, the finding of guilt had been the result of an assessment of various pieces of evidence which corroborated the impugned statement, as also confirmed by the Court of Appeal, thus the impugned measure had not proved decisive to obtaining a conviction. It followed that the applicant had had a fair hearing.

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/ceb6cac03cd7a677ee1bceed8660a539fe745b65955622776d696db75935e63d. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt ceb6cac03cd7a677ee1bceed8660a539fe745b65955622776d696db75935e63d, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 31385 tot 32245.