CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 1992

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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. August 1992 Artner v. Austria - 13161/87 Judgment 28.8.1992 Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Criminal conviction based in part on statements made to the police and the investigating judge by a witness and then read out at the trial following the disappearance of the witness: no 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.] 1.   Reference to Court's case–law on concept of "witness" and on production of evidence. 2.   Applicant's prolonged absence had made any confrontation between him and the victim impossible - the latter having disappeared in her turn, the court, as it had not succeeded in securing her attendance, could take her testimony into consideration, subject to the rights of the defence being respected. 3.   The contested statements had not been the only evidence on which the court had based its finding of guilt, so that the infringement of the rights of the defence had not been such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Conclusion : no violation of paragraphs   1 and 3   (d), taken together, of Article   6 (five votes to four).   © 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