Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017

Alinea 58 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2017, ECLI:NL:PHR:2017:96.

65. The applicant considered that the fact that he did not object to the witnesses during the criminal proceedings did not mean that he was renouncing his rights under Article 6. He referred to Damir Sibgatullin v. Russia (no. 1413/05, § 48, 24 April 2012), where the Court reiterated “that as a matter of principle the waiver of the right must be a knowing, voluntary and intelligent act, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).”

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/f71c93168190b69e86e06e8afea4a18560c244c9b211ba7d36ff5a49da829f44. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt f71c93168190b69e86e06e8afea4a18560c244c9b211ba7d36ff5a49da829f44, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 27234 tot 28057.