Alinea 52 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 maart 2021

59. It appears from the examples given in its judgment that, according to the Supreme Court, requests to call and examine witnesses require substantiation, regardless of whether they concern witnesses for the prosecution or for the defence (see (…) [HR 1 juli 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1496, A-G] at point 2.6). The Supreme Court subsequently stated this explicitly in two further leading judgments of 4 July 2017 – that is, after the conclusion of the domestic proceedings in the present case – in which it explained how the requirement that such requests be substantiated related to the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention (see (…) [HR 4 juli 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1015 and ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1219, A-G]). It considered that that requirement did not run counter to Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, and in that connection it attached relevance to the fact that the Court had also articulated in its case-law an obligation for the defendant to substantiate a request to call a witness (see (…) [HR 4 juli 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1015 and ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1219, A-G] at point 3.6). At this point in its judgment, in a footnote, the Supreme Court referred to two judgments of the Court: Perna [§ 29] and Poropat [§ 42]. It further noted that the provisions of the CCP concerning the calling and examination of witnesses did not distinguish between witnesses who (could) testify against the accused and witnesses who (could) testify on behalf of the accused ((…) at point 3.7.1], and it held that, as regards the requirements to be met by a request to examine a witness, it made no difference in principle whether that request concerned a witness for the prosecution or a witness for the defence ((…) at point 3.7.2).

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/0ebfbb727a89f661ecf198ce0b2b58af8e267db2d1f59c0c197c677a9dadf709 | shasum -a 256