Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 maart 2021

Alinea 44 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 maart 2021

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 maart 2021, ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:231.

48. The Court further explained that “good reason for the absence of a witness” must exist from the trial court’s perspective, that is, the court must have had good factual or legal grounds not to secure the witness’s attendance at the trial. If there was a good reason for the witness’s non-attendance in that sense, it followed that there was a good reason, or justification, for the trial court to admit the untested statements of the absent witness as evidence (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 119). While the absence of a good reason for the non-attendance of the witness could not of itself be conclusive of the unfairness of the applicant’s trial, it was a very important factor to be weighed in the balance when assessing the overall fairness of a trial, and one which might tip the balance in favour of finding a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (ibid., § 113).”

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/0ebfbb727a89f661ecf198ce0b2b58af8e267db2d1f59c0c197c677a9dadf709. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 0ebfbb727a89f661ecf198ce0b2b58af8e267db2d1f59c0c197c677a9dadf709, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 21928 tot 22855.