CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. April 1997 Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands - 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 et al. Judgment 23.4.1997 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Obtain attendance of witnesses Reliance on the evidence of anonymous police officers: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (D) OF THE CONVENTION The balancing of the interests of the defence against arguments in favour of maintaining the anonymity of witnesses raises special problems if the witnesses in question are members of the police force of the State, who owe a general duty of obedience to the State's executive authorities and usually have links with the prosecution - for these reasons alone their use as anonymous witnesses should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances - in addition, it is in the nature of things that their duties, particularly in the case of arresting officers, may involve giving evidence in open court. On the other hand, the Court has recognised in principle that, provided that the rights of the defence are respected, it may be legitimate for the police authorities to wish to preserve the anonymity of an agent deployed in undercover activities, for his own or his family's protection and so as not to impair his usefulness for future operations. Having regard to the place that the right to a fair administration of justice holds in a democratic society, any measures restricting the rights of the defence should be strictly necessary - if a less restrictive measure can suffice then that measure should be applied. In the present case, the defence was not only unaware of the identity of the police witnesses but was also prevented from observing their demeanour under direct questioning, and thus from testing their reliability - it has not been explained to the Court's satisfaction why it was necessary to resort to such extreme limitations on the right of the accused to have the evidence against them given in their presence, or why less far-reaching measures were not considered - it cannot be said that the handicaps under which the defence laboured were counterbalanced by the procedures followed. Moreover, the only evidence relied on by the Court of Appeal which provided positive identification of the applicants as the perpetrators of the crimes were the statements of the anonymous police officers - that being so the conviction of the applicants was based "to a decisive extent" on these anonymous statements. The present case distinguished from that of Doorson v. the Netherlands . Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: question reserved. B.   Costs and expenses: sums awarded in respect of the Strasbourg proceedings. Conclusion :   respondent State to pay applicants specified sums in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes