CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30356/06 Paul ROBINSON against the United Kingdom lodged on 27 July 2006   QUESTIONS   1.     Was there a good reason for S.M.’s non-attendance as a witness? Why were special measures considered to be inappropriate in this case (cf. Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and   22228/06, § 125, ECHR 2011)? In particular, if S.M.’s whereabouts were unknown to the applicant, and her fear was that she would be followed from court, could special measures not have included being escorted by police to and from court?   2.     If there was no good reason for S.M.’s non-attendance, was there, by that fact, a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) ( Al-Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, § 120, and references therein)?   3.     If there was a good reason for S.M.’s non-attendance, was her evidence sole or decisive, and were there sufficient counterbalancing factors including strong procedural safeguards to ensure that the applicant’s trial, judged as a whole, was fair within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) ( Al-Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, §§,   47 and 152)?