Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test
The ‘right to (cross)-examination’ is regulated in Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, this right is not absolute and can, under circumstances, be limited. This is notably the case when evidence given by anonymous or absent witnesses is presented in court. In...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Groningen Press
2024-02-01
|
| Series: | Groningen Journal of International Law |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ugp.rug.nl/GROJIL/article/view/41496 |
| _version_ | 1827346554098286592 |
|---|---|
| author | Candan Yilmaz |
| author_facet | Candan Yilmaz |
| author_sort | Candan Yilmaz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The ‘right to (cross)-examination’ is regulated in Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, this right is not absolute and can, under circumstances, be limited. This is notably the case when evidence given by anonymous or absent witnesses is presented in court. In the prominent Al-Khawaja and Tahery judgement, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) listed three principal requirements which was later called the three-step test for the admissibility of testimonies of absent witnesses. Although the situation generated by the admission as evidence of testimonies by absent witnesses and by anonymous witnesses differs, the ECtHR appears to have gradually applied the same test to both types of testimonies to assess whether their admissibility violates the defence rights under Article 6(3)(d) ECHR. Even though the three-step test is important, the ECtHR has contradictory judgments on the admissibility of evidence by absent and anonymous witnesses. This study will thus analyse and evaluate this judicially-created test by discussing the differences between anonymous and absent witnesses. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T23:32:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-aa49f3c274414d99a357789a7cc130d7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2352-2674 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T23:32:53Z |
| publishDate | 2024-02-01 |
| publisher | University of Groningen Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Groningen Journal of International Law |
| spelling | doaj.art-aa49f3c274414d99a357789a7cc130d72024-02-20T11:48:46ZengUniversity of Groningen PressGroningen Journal of International Law2352-26742024-02-01102315010.21827/GroJIL.10.2.31-5031162Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step TestCandan Yilmaz0University of GroningenThe ‘right to (cross)-examination’ is regulated in Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, this right is not absolute and can, under circumstances, be limited. This is notably the case when evidence given by anonymous or absent witnesses is presented in court. In the prominent Al-Khawaja and Tahery judgement, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) listed three principal requirements which was later called the three-step test for the admissibility of testimonies of absent witnesses. Although the situation generated by the admission as evidence of testimonies by absent witnesses and by anonymous witnesses differs, the ECtHR appears to have gradually applied the same test to both types of testimonies to assess whether their admissibility violates the defence rights under Article 6(3)(d) ECHR. Even though the three-step test is important, the ECtHR has contradictory judgments on the admissibility of evidence by absent and anonymous witnesses. This study will thus analyse and evaluate this judicially-created test by discussing the differences between anonymous and absent witnesses.https://ugp.rug.nl/GROJIL/article/view/41496anonymous witnessabsent witnesseuropean court of human rightseuropean convention on human rightsechrecthral-khawaja testthree-step test |
| spellingShingle | Candan Yilmaz Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test Groningen Journal of International Law anonymous witness absent witness european court of human rights european convention on human rights echr ecthr al-khawaja test three-step test |
| title | Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test |
| title_full | Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test |
| title_fullStr | Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test |
| title_full_unstemmed | Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test |
| title_short | Should the European Court of Human Rights Treat the Anonymous and the Absent Witness Equally? The Application of the Same Three-Step Test |
| title_sort | should the european court of human rights treat the anonymous and the absent witness equally the application of the same three step test |
| topic | anonymous witness absent witness european court of human rights european convention on human rights echr ecthr al-khawaja test three-step test |
| url | https://ugp.rug.nl/GROJIL/article/view/41496 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT candanyilmaz shouldtheeuropeancourtofhumanrightstreattheanonymousandtheabsentwitnessequallytheapplicationofthesamethreesteptest |