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.

64. The Court considers that although several other witnesses were examined at the court hearing (E.’s friend, teachers and the school psychologist) and the applicant could put questions to them, these statements only provided indirect support to E.’s testimony (compare Al-Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, § 163). As regards the experts, the Court notes that, unlike in the case of D.T. v. the Netherlands , in the present case the psychological and psychiatric experts who examined the child did not give an opinion on the truthfulness of her video-recorded testimony, and their opinions were given in writing without them being questioned at the court hearing. The Court also notes that the other forensic expert examinations (concerning DNA and E.’s internal examination) yielded no conclusive evidence against the applicant.

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 116904 tot 117822.