DOORSON versus THE NETHERLAND
39
38
DOORSON proti HOLANDSKU
73. V tomto prípade anonymných svedkov vypoèúval v odvolacom tá-
diu v prítomnosti obhajcu vyetrujúci sudca, ktorý poznal ich totonos
(pozri odsek 25), i keï obhajoba ich totonos nepoznala. Vyetrujúci sud-
ca uviedol v úradnom zázname svojich poznatkov z 19. novembra 1990
okolnosti, na základe ktorých odvolací súd mohol vyvodi závery, pokia¾
ide o dôveryhodnos dôkazov predloených anonymnými svedkami (pozri
odseky 32 a 34). V tejto súvislosti musí by tento prípad odlíený od prípa-
du Kostovski (str. 21, ods. 43). Obhajca bol nielen prítomný, ale bol aj v po-
zícii klás svedkom akéko¾vek otázky, o ktorých sa domnieval, e sú v záuj-
me obhajoby, s výnimkou tých, ktoré by mohli vies k odhaleniu totonosti
svedkov a vetky tieto otázky boli zodpovedané (pozri odsek 25). V tejto sú-
vislosti sa tento prípad takisto líi od prípadu Kostovski (str. 20, ods. 42).
73. In the instant case the anonymous witnesses were questioned at the
appeals stage in the presence of counsel by an investigating judge who was
aware of their identity (see paragraph 25 above), even if the defence was
not. She noted, in the official record of her findings dated 19 November
1990, circumstances on the basis of which the Court of Appeal was able to
draw conclusions as to the reliability of their evidence (see paragraphs 32
and 34 above). In this respect the present case is to be distinguished from
that of Kostovski (loc. cit., p. 21, § 43). Counsel was not only present, but
he was put in a position to ask the witnesses whatever questions he consi-
dered to be in the interests of the defence except in so far as they might
lead to the disclosure of their identity, and these questions were all answe-
red (see paragraph 25 above). In this respect also the present case differs
from that of Kostovski (loc. cit., p. 20, § 42).
74. Aj keï pre saovate¾a bolo zrejme výhodnejie zúèastni sa na výslu-
chu svedkov, na druhej strane bol, pod¾a názoru Súdu, amsterdamský odvo-
lací súd oprávnený domnieva sa, e záujmy saovate¾a boli v tejto súvislos-
ti preváené potrebou zabezpeèi bezpeènos svedkov. Veobecnejie pove-
dané, Dohovor nebráni identifikácii na úèely èlánku 6 ods. 3 písm. d)
obalovaným s jeho obhajcom (pozri, mutatis mutandis, rozsudok vo veci Ka-
masinski v. Rakúsko z 19. decembra 1989, Séria A, è. 168, str. 40, ods. 91).
74. While it would clearly have been preferable for the applicant to have
attended the questioning of the witnesses, the Court considers, on balance,
that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that the inte-
rests of the applicant were in this respect outweighed by the need to ensure
the safety of the witnesses. More generally, the Convention does not
preclude identification for the purposes of Article 6 § 3 (d) of an accu-
sed with his counsel (see, mutatis mutandis, the Kamasinski v. Austria
judgment of 19 December 1989 Series A no. 168, p. 40, § 91).
75. Naviac, hoci je obvykle elate¾né, aby svedkovia identifikovali osobu
podozrivú zo spáchania závaných trestných èinov osobne, ak existuje po-
chybnos o jej totonosti, v tomto prípade by sa malo poznamena, e Y.15
a Y.16 identifikovali saovate¾a z fotografie, ktorú sám saovate¾ spoznal
ako fotografiu jeho samého (pozri odsek 12); naviac, obidvaja poskytli opis
jeho zjavu a obleèenia (pozri odsek 25).
75. In addition, although it is normally desirable that witnesses should
identify a person suspected of serious crimes in person if there is any
doubt about his identity, it should be noted in the present case that Y.15
and Y.16 identified the applicant from a photograph which he himself had
acknowledged to be of himself (see paragraph 12 above); moreover, both
gave descriptions of his appearance and dress (see paragraph 25 above).
Z horeuvedených úvah vyplýva, e za daných okolností vyvaujúci
postup prijatý súdnymi orgánmi pri získavaní dôkazov od svedkov Y.15 a
Y.16 treba povaova za dostaèujúci na to, aby umonil obhajobe namieta
dôkazy anonymných svedkov a pokúsi sa spochybni dôveryhodnos ich
výpovedí, èo obhajoba urobila na verejnom súde, medzi iným, poukazova-
ním na skutoènos, e obidvaja svedkovia boli narkomani (pozri odsek 33).
It follows from the above considerations that in the circumstances the
counterbalancing procedure followed by the judicial authorities in obtai-
ning the evidence of witnesses Y.15 and Y.16 must be considered sufficient
to have enabled the defence to challenge the evidence of the anonymous
witnesses and attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of their statements,
which it did in open court by, amongst other things, drawing attention to
the fact that both were drug addicts (see paragraph 33 above).
76. Nakoniec treba pripomenú, e i keï vyvaujúce postupy dosta-
toène kompenzujú nevýhody, proti ktorým musí obhajoba bojova, odsú-
denie by nemalo by zaloené èi u výluène, alebo v rozhodujúcej miere na
anonymných výpovediach. Toto vak neplatí v tomto prípade: je dostatoè-
ne jasné, e vnútrotátny súd svoje rozhodnutie o vine nezaloil výluène
alebo v rozhodujúcej miere na dôkaze poskytnutom Y.15 a Y.16 (pozri od-
sek 34).
76. Finally, it should be recalled that even when counterbalancing
procedures are found to compensate sufficiently the handicaps under
which the defence labours, a conviction should not be based either solely
or to a decisive extent on anonymous statements. That, however, is not the
case here: it is sufficiently clear that the national court did not base its
finding of guilt solely or to a decisive extent on the evidence of Y.15 and
Y.16 (see paragraph 34 above).
Naviac s dôkazmi získanými od svedkov za podmienok, v ktorých ne-
môu by zabezpeèené práva obhajoby v miere bene poadovanej Dohovo-
rom, by sa malo zaobchádza s výnimoènou opatrnosou. Súd je presvedèe-
Furthermore, evidence obtained from witnesses under conditions in
which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally
required by the Convention should be treated with extreme care. The
