Anonymous Witness Evidence before the European Court of Human Rights: Is It Still Possible to Speak of “Fair Trial”?

Simone Lonati

doi:10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-116

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–2
- 3–4 Editorial 1/2018 3–4
- 5–142 Articles 5–142
  - 5–38 (In)Effectiveness of Criminal Sanctions as Regards Irregular Immigrants Costanza Di Francesco Maesa Costanza Di Francesco Maesa 5–38
  - 39–61 Unity of Intent Effect on Sentencing: An EU Dimension to ne bis in idem and Proportionality? Nele Audenaert Nele Audenaert 39–61
  - 62–82 Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters: How About E-Evidence Instruments 2.0? Sofie Depauw Sofie Depauw 62–82
  - 83–115 Towards the EU Harmonization of Access to Cross-Border E-Evidence: Challenges for Fundamental Rights & Consistency Nathalie A. Smuha Nathalie A. Smuha 83–115
  - 116–142 Anonymous Witness Evidence before the European Court of Human Rights: Is It Still Possible to Speak of “Fair Trial”? Simone Lonati Simone Lonati 116–142
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

EuCLR European Criminal Law Review , page 116 - 142

Anonymous Witness Evidence before the European Court of Human Rights: Is It Still Possible to Speak of “Fair Trial”?

Autoren

Simone Lonati

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-116
- ISSN: 2191-7442
- ISSN online: 2193-5505
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to encourage a reflection on the use of anonymous witness evidence by the European Court of Human Rights. An analysis of the leading cases solved by the Strasbourg judges will provide an overview of the European case law developments on such a delicate topic, considering how the accused’s right of defence is seriously impaired when anonymous depositions are admitted in proceedings. The Court’s most recent decisions on this topic do create some concern. They represent a considerable step backward in the guaranteed right to confrontation, which, especially when dealing with anonymity, does not seem acceptable. While there is no question on the need to protect persons other than the accused in criminal proceedings and on the urgency to safeguard the safety of witnesses, when in danger, and preserve the source of evidence, on the other hand, it is hard to imagine what “counterbalancing procedures” could compensate for all that the accused is denied when the identity of the person making incriminating statements against him/her is concealed. It is, therefore, a matter of making a civilised choice, and of asking ourselves whether in a trial that still aspires to be defined as “fair”, anonymous incriminations may be tolerated.
Share