Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022
Onder 3.29 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022
Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022, ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:1012.
“ 61. Thus, although the investigating authorities were already at an early stage of the investigation prepared for E. not to be examined at a court hearing, no steps were taken to give the defence an opportunity to have questions put to E. at that stage. The Court observes in this context that on 31 January 2008, that is before the video-recorded interview with E. took place, the applicant requested that a confrontation be held between him and E. He reiterated this request on 20 February 2008 (compare and contrast D.T. v. the Netherlands , cited above, §§ 14-15, where the applicant only appears to have requested the examination of the presumed victim before the court of appeal). While it is true that it was for the investigating authorities to decide on the use of investigative measures, it is noteworthy that they did not address the applicant’s requests, let alone offer any alternatives less disturbing for the victim, such as allowing the applicant’s counsel to take part in the interview, or giving the defence an opportunity to indirectly put questions to E. (see, for example, A.G. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 315/09, 10 January 2012, where the applicant’s defence counsel was present in an adjoining room during a police interview of the presumed victim and posed questions to her via the police inspector interviewing her). The Court reiterates in this context that paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3 requires the Contracting States to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him. Such measures form part of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner (see A.S. v. Finland , cited above, § 53, and Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1) , nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).
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/ca8ee5fa293a7d7332ebc964678afa3f3c3d2dce7b1f5a867ed22068c9fb6872. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt ca8ee5fa293a7d7332ebc964678afa3f3c3d2dce7b1f5a867ed22068c9fb6872, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 112734 tot 114809.
$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/ca8ee5fa293a7d7332ebc964678afa3f3c3d2dce7b1f5a867ed22068c9fb6872 | shasum -a 256