Alinea 46 Raad van State 3 juli 2013

35. The Court further reiterates that Article 6 § 3 (d) enshrines the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II, and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X). As regards the exceptions, the Court, in Al-Khawaja and Tahery (cited above), referred to two requirements. First, there must be a good reason why the witnesses could not be examined by the accused and second, when a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, must be provided (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, §§ 119-47)."

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/7dca3305e0ec706b13a13dcd5a2fdbd6e40ee009cd7b1af27a836aa127d618e8 | shasum -a 256