The right to cross-examine incriminating witnesses represents the core of the definition of a fair trial and is one of the key rights of defense. The European Convention on Human Rights defines it in Article 6, paragraph 3. This right has experienced great development throughout history. At the outset, it was clearly absolute, but in the newer case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), there is already a rush of absoluteness towards exceptions. A significant turning point in interpretation was experienced with the judgment of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom, where the court established a three-step test, which must be satisfied in order to accept the claim of a particular witness who was not cross-examined by the defense. Such proof, regarding this new doctrine, can be accepted if a reason behind the absence of a witness is justified, if the evidence was not exclusive or decisive for a conviction or if the procedural guarantees were sufficiently strong. With this last point, the court has already introduced an exemption from exceptions, as the two judges pointed out in a separate opinion, but the exceptions should be narrowly interpreted. In their articles, critics discussed the nature of justice, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and the practice in the United States, which cannot easily abolish absoluteness. Slovenia, through its judicial decisions, proved to be one of the countries that respect and follow the practice of the ECHR in its judgments.
|
