Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights recently changed its position on the right to examine witnesses. This right was diminished in two ways. First, in the Al-Khawaja and Tahery judgment, the court abandoned the rule that it must be possible at all times to question a decisive witness and so created the possibility to test the reliability of a decisive witness statement in other ways. Secondly, the European Court of Human Rights' decision in Ellis, Simms and Martin opened the possibility to base a conviction solely, or to a decisive extent, on anonymous witness statements, which was previously not allowed. As a result, anonymous witness statements can now play a far larger part in the ruling on the evidence than previously possible.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
