De Hoge Raad gaat in dit arrest nader in op de uitspraak van het Europees hof voor de rechten van de mens (hierna: EHRM) in de zaak Keskin tegen Nederland1 en de betekenis van die uitspraak voor de beoordeling van verzoeken tot het oproepen en horen van getuigen door de Nederlandse strafrechter en voor het gebruik van verklaringen van getuigen voor het bewijs in gevallen waarin de verdediging niet een behoorlijke en effectieve mogelijkheid heeft gehad om het ondervragingsrecht uit te oefenen. Na een weergave van eerdere rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad en van de overwegingen van het EHRM in de zaak Keskin (2.2 en 2.3), bespreekt de Hoge Raad – in reactie op de uitspraak van het EHRM – enkele uitgangspunten van het Nederlandse stelsel met betrekking tot het oproepen en horen van getuigen (2.4-2.7). Vervolgens zet de Hoge Raad uiteen dat de uitspraak van het EHRM in de zaak Keskin aanleiding geeft tot het bijstellen van de eisen die in eerdere rechtspraak door de Hoge Raad zijn geformuleerd over de onderbouwing van verzoeken van de verdediging tot het oproepen en horen van getuigen (2.8-2.9). Ten slotte maakt de Hoge Raad enkele opmerkingen over het bieden van gelegenheid voor de uitoefening van het ondervragingsrecht (2.10-2.11) en de beoordeling van de ‘overall fairness’ van de procedure (2.12).

Eerdere rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad

De Hoge Raad heeft in het arrest van 4 juli 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1015 het volgende overwogen over de eisen die worden gesteld aan de onderbouwing van een verzoek tot het oproepen en horen van een getuige:

“3.5. De rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad houdt in dat een op ambtseed opgemaakt proces-verbaal houdende de ten overstaan van een opsporingsambtenaar afgelegde verklaring van een getuige, door de rechter ten laste van de verdachte voor het bewijs kan worden gebruikt, maar dat dit uitgangspunt slechts geldt voor zover het in art. 6 EVRM bedoelde recht van de verdachte op een eerlijk proces is gewaarborgd.

Met betrekking tot dit recht op een eerlijk proces ligt in de recente rechtspraak van het EHRM ter zake van het ondervragingsrecht de nadruk op de toetsing van de “overall fairness of the trial”, mede aan de hand van een aantal door het EHRM geformuleerde, met elkaar samenhangende subvragen (zoals genoemd in de (…) uitspraak in de zaak Schatschaschwili tegen Duitsland, § 107). Daarbij is beslissend of het strafproces als geheel beschouwd eerlijk is verlopen. Die uiteindelijke balans kan eerst achteraf worden opgemaakt.

Bij het betrekken van de rechtspraak van het EHRM bij de uitleg van de (nationale) regels inzake het oproepen dan wel horen van daartoe door de verdediging opgegeven getuigen, dient evenwel in ogenschouw te worden genomen dat de nationale rechter reeds tijdens de behandeling van de strafzaak beslissingen dient te nemen omtrent het oproepen en het horen van getuigen.

Zoals onder 3.5 is opgemerkt, neemt de nationale rechter reeds tijdens de behandeling van de strafzaak beslissingen omtrent het oproepen en het horen van getuigen. Dat laat onverlet dat hij voordat hij uitspraak doet, zich ervan dient te vergewissen dat de procedure in haar geheel voldoet aan het door art. 6 EVRM gewaarborgde recht op een eerlijk proces. Zo nodig zal hij hetzij ambtshalve – op de voet van art. 315, eerste lid, Sv dan wel art. 346, eerste en tweede lid, of art. 347, eerste lid, Sv – alsnog overgaan tot het oproepen en het horen van (een) getuige(n), hetzij bij zijn beslissing omtrent de bewezenverklaring onder ogen moeten zien of en zo ja, welke gevolgen moeten worden verbonden aan de omstandigheid dat de verdediging, ondanks het nodige initiatief daartoe, geen gebruik heeft kunnen maken van de mogelijkheid om de relevante getuige(n) in enig stadium van het geding te (doen) ondervragen.”

De uitspraak van het EHRM in de Keskin-zaak

Het EHRM heeft in de zaak Keskin tegen Nederland geoordeeld dat artikel 6 leden 1 en 3, aanhef en onder d, van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden (hierna: EVRM) is geschonden. In deze uitspraak gaat het EHRM nader in op de beoordeling van verzoeken tot het oproepen en horen van getuigen door de rechter en op het gebruik voor het bewijs van getuigenverklaringen als de verdediging het ondervragingsrecht niet behoorlijk en effectief heeft kunnen uitoefenen. De overwegingen van het EHRM houden onder meer het volgende in:

“(a) Relevant principles

38. The Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, ECHR 2010, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 101, ECHR 2015). Compliance with the requirements of a fair trial must be examined in each case having regard to the development of the proceedings as a whole and not on the basis of an isolated consideration of one particular aspect or one particular incident. In evaluating the overall fairness of the proceedings, the Court will take into account, if appropriate, the minimum rights listed in Article 6 § 3, which exemplify the requirements of a fair trial in respect of typical procedural situations which arise in criminal cases. They can be viewed, therefore, as specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 251, 13 September 2016; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010; Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 100; and Boshkoski v. North Macedonia, no. 71034/13, § 37, 4 June 2020).

39. The Court reiterates that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law, and as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. As regards statements made by witnesses, the Court’s task under the Convention is not to give a ruling as to whether those statements were properly admitted as evidence, but rather – as already set out in paragraph 38 above – to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among many other authorities, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III, and Perna, cited above, § 29).

40. As is apparent from the text of Article 6 § 3 (d) (see paragraph 25 above), this provision sets out a right relating to the examination of witnesses against the accused. The Court has defined such witnesses, to whom it also frequently refers as “prosecution witnesses”, as persons whose deposition may serve to a material degree as the basis for a conviction and which thus constitutes evidence for the prosecution (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 41, ECHR 2001‑II). Paragraph 3 (d) also contains a right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on behalf of the accused, or “defence witnesses”, that is to say witnesses whose statements are in favour of the defendant (see, for instance, Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, § 31, 12 April 2007).

41. The case-law of the Court reflects the fact that paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 comprises those two distinct rights. The Court has developed general principles which relate exclusively to the right to examine, or have examined, prosecution witnesses, as well as general principles specifically concerning the right to obtain the attendance and examination of defence witnesses.

(i) The right to obtain the attendance and examination of defence witnesses

42. When it comes to defence witnesses, it is the Court’s established case-law that Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused’s behalf, the essential aim of that provision, as indicated by the words “under the same conditions”, being to ensure a full “equality of arms” in the matter (see, amongst many authorities, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 139, 18 December 2018, in which judgment the Court reaffirmed and further clarified the general principles concerning the right to obtain attendance and examination of defence witnesses). The concept of “equality of arms” does not, however, exhaust the content of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6, nor that of paragraph 1, of which this phrase represents one application among many others (see, among other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235‑B).

43. As a general rule, it is for the domestic courts to assess the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce, and Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call a particular witness (see Perna, cited above, § 29). It is not sufficient for a defendant to complain that he or she has not been allowed to question certain witnesses; he or she must, in addition, support the request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard, and their evidence must be capable of influencing the outcome of a trial or must reasonably be expected to strengthen the position of the defence (see Perna, cited above, § 29, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above, §§ 140 and 160). Whether the defendant has advanced “sufficient reasons” for his or her request to call a witness will depend on the role of the testimony of that witness in the circumstances of any given case (ibid., § 161). The Court has formulated the following three-pronged test where a request for the examination of a defence witness on behalf of the accused has been made in accordance with domestic law (ibid., § 158):

(i) Whether the request to examine a witness was sufficiently reasoned and relevant to the subject matter of the accusation?

(ii) Whether the domestic courts considered the relevance of that testimony and provided sufficient reasons for their decision not to examine a witness at trial?

(iii) Whether the domestic courts’ decision not to examine a witness undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings?

(ii) The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses

44. As regards the right to the examination of prosecution witnesses, the Court has held that, before an accused can be convicted, all evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Lucà v. Italy, cited above, § 39, and Al‑Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).

45. Contrary to the situation with defence witnesses, the accused is not required to demonstrate the importance of a prosecution witness. In principle, if the prosecution decides that a particular person is a relevant source of information and relies on his or her testimony at the trial, and if the testimony of that witness is used by the court to support a guilty verdict, it must be presumed that his or her personal appearance and questioning are necessary (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 712, 25 July 2013, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), nos. 51111/07 and 42757/05, § 484, 14 January 2020).

(iii) Principles on the admission of untested evidence of prosecution witnesses absent from trial

46. In Al-Khawaja and Tahery (cited above, §§ 119) the Grand Chamber of the Court summarised and refined the principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and statements previously made by him or her were admitted as evidence. The compatibility of such proceedings with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention must be examined in three steps:

(i) whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of the witness and, consequently, for the admission of the absent witness’s untested statement as evidence (ibid., §§ 119-125);

(ii) whether the evidence of the absent witness was the sole or decisive basis for the defendant’s conviction (ibid., §§ 119 and 126-147); and

(iii) whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including strong procedural safeguards, to compensate for the handicaps faced by the defence as a result of the admission of the untested evidence and to ensure that the trial, judged as a whole, was fair (ibid., § 147).

47. In its Grand Chamber judgment Schatschaschwili (cited above, §§ 111-31) the Court reaffirmed and further clarified those principles. The Court noted that, as a rule, it will be pertinent to examine the three steps of the Al-Khawaja and Tahery test in the order defined in that judgment; it acknowledged, however, that in a given case, it may be more appropriate to examine the steps in a different order, in particular if one of the steps proves to be particularly conclusive as to either the fairness or the unfairness of the proceedings (ibid., § 118). In this latter context the Court made reference, inter alia, to a case in which the statement of the untested witnesses was neither “sole” nor “decisive” (Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 102 and 106, 2 October 2012).

48. The Court further explained that “good reason for the absence of a witness” must exist from the trial court’s perspective, that is, the court must have had good factual or legal grounds not to secure the witness’s attendance at the trial. If there was a good reason for the witness’s non‑attendance in that sense, it followed that there was a good reason, or justification, for the trial court to admit the untested statements of the absent witness as evidence (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 119). While the absence of a good reason for the non‑attendance of the witness could not of itself be conclusive of the unfairness of the applicant’s trial, it was a very important factor to be weighed in the balance when assessing the overall fairness of a trial, and one which might tip the balance in favour of finding a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (ibid., § 113).

49. As regards the question whether the evidence of the absent witness whose statements were admitted in evidence was the sole or decisive basis for the defendant’s conviction (second step of the Al-Khawaja and Tahery test), the Court reiterated that “sole” evidence is to be understood as the only evidence against the accused and that “decisive” should be narrowly interpreted as indicating evidence of such significance or importance as is likely to be determinative of the outcome of the case. Where the untested evidence of a witness is supported by other corroborative evidence, the assessment of whether it is decisive will depend on the strength of the supporting evidence; the stronger the corroborative evidence, the less likely that the evidence of the absent witness will be treated as decisive (ibid., § 123).

50. It further held that it is not for the Court to act as a court of fourth instance, its starting-point for deciding whether an applicant’s conviction was based solely or to a decisive extent on the depositions of an absent witness being the judgments of the domestic courts. The Court must review the domestic courts’ evaluation in the light of the meaning it has given to “sole” and “decisive” evidence and ascertain for itself whether the domestic courts’ evaluation of the weight of the evidence was unacceptable or arbitrary. It must further make its own assessment of the weight of the evidence given by an absent witness if the domestic courts did not indicate their position on that issue or if their position is not clear (ibid., § 124).

51. Furthermore, given that its concern is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, the Court should not only review the existence of sufficient counterbalancing factors in cases where the evidence of the absent witness was the sole or the decisive basis for the applicant’s conviction, but also in cases where it found it unclear whether the evidence in question was sole or decisive but nevertheless was satisfied that it carried significant weight and its admission might have handicapped the defence. The extent of the counterbalancing factors necessary in order for a trial to be considered fair would depend on the weight of the evidence of the absent witness. The more important that evidence, the more weight the counterbalancing factors would have to carry in order for the proceedings as a whole to be considered fair (ibid., § 116).”

Het EHRM overweegt verder het volgende over de vraag of in de strafzaak tegen Keskin een goede reden bestond voor het niet verschijnen van de getuigen op de zitting:

“53. The Court observes that on 30 September 2014 the Arnhem‑Leeuwarden Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of having been in de facto control of the fraud committed by a company on two other companies (see paragraph 11 above), on the basis, inter alia, of statements made to the police by seven witnesses, A to G (see paragraph 13 above at points 8 to 14). The Regional Court, in convicting the applicant at first instance, had relied on the statements of six of these seven witnesses (see paragraph 5 above). Counsel for the applicant had asked that these witnesses be summoned before the Court of Appeal or the investigating judge so that he could cross-examine them (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above); however, the Court of Appeal had rejected those requests (see paragraphs 8 and 12 above).

54. The Court observes that those requests were not rejected on grounds such as death or fear, absence on health grounds or the witnesses’ unreachability (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 119, with further references), nor on grounds related to the special features of the criminal proceedings (see, for instance, S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002‑V, and D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10 § 47, 2 April 2013); the Court of Appeal’s sole justification for the rejection of the requests lay in its finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate the defence’s interest in the examination of these witnesses.

55. In that context the Court of Appeal noted that the defence had not indicated on what points the statements of witnesses A to G were incorrect (see paragraphs 8 and 12 above) and, in addition, that the applicant had availed himself of his right to remain silent when he had been interviewed by police, and that he had not wished to reply to specific questions about his activities for company Fr. which had been put to him by the Court of Appeal at the hearing (see paragraph 12 above). To the extent that these additional observations of the Court of Appeal ought to be interpreted as meaning that it found those facts relevant for its refusal to secure the attendance of the witnesses, the Court considers that the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses against him or her cannot be made dependent on his or her renunciation of the right to remain silent.

56. As to any requirement for the defence to substantiate a request to examine prosecution witnesses, the Court reiterates, as already set out in paragraph 44 above, that the underlying principle of the right contained in Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention in relation to the examination of prosecution witnesses is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence against him or her. This principle requires that a defendant be able to test the truthfulness and reliability of evidence provided by witnesses which incriminates him or her, by having them orally examined in his or her presence, either at the time the witness was making the statement or at some later stage of the proceedings (see paragraph 46 above). Therefore, in a situation where the prosecution relies on such a witness statement and the trial court may use that statement to support a guilty verdict, the interest of the defence in being able to have the witness concerned examined in his or her presence must be presumed and, as such, constitutes all the reason required to accede to a request by the defence to summon that witness (see paragraph 45 above).

57. It does not appear that the Court of Appeal took the relevance of the testimony of witnesses A to G – or lack of it – into account when it decided not to accede to the requests of the applicant to call those witnesses, nor have the Government argued that the testimony of any of the witnesses would have been manifestly irrelevant or redundant.

58. The Court observes that the Court of Appeal’s refusal to accede to the request of the defence was in line with a leading judgment issued by the Supreme Court some three months earlier, in which the latter court had set out how the relevant provisions of the CCP were to be interpreted (see paragraph 19 above). In that ruling, the Supreme Court had held that, under Dutch law, a request by the defence to call a witness might be refused if that request was not substantiated, either at all or sufficiently, and that the defence was thus required to substantiate why the examination of a particular witness was important “with regard to any decision to be taken in the criminal case pursuant to Articles 348 and 350 of the CCP” (see paragraph 19 above at point 2.6).

59. It appears from the examples given in its judgment that, according to the Supreme Court, requests to call and examine witnesses require substantiation, regardless of whether they concern witnesses for the prosecution or for the defence (see paragraph 19 above at point 2.6). The Supreme Court subsequently stated this explicitly in two further leading judgments of 4 July 2017 – that is, after the conclusion of the domestic proceedings in the present case – in which it explained how the requirement that such requests be substantiated related to the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 20 above). It considered that that requirement did not run counter to Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, and in that connection it attached relevance to the fact that the Court had also articulated in its case-law an obligation for the defendant to substantiate a request to call a witness (see paragraph 20 above at point 3.6). At this point in its judgment, in a footnote, the Supreme Court referred to two judgments of the Court: Perna (cited above, § 29) and Poropat (cited above, § 42). It further noted that the provisions of the CCP concerning the calling and examination of witnesses did not distinguish between witnesses who (could) testify against the accused and witnesses who (could) testify on behalf of the accused (see paragraph 20 above at point 3.7.1), and it held that, as regards the requirements to be met by a request to examine a witness, it made no difference in principle whether that request concerned a witness for the prosecution or a witness for the defence (see paragraph 20 above at point 3.7.2).

60. The Court observes that in the cases which led to the Perna and Poropat judgments, the accused applicants had sought the attendance and examination of witnesses whose testimony they believed could arguably have strengthened the position of their defence, or even led to their acquittal (see Perna, cited above, §§ 17 and 31, and Poropat, cited above, §§ 13 and 46); accordingly, their requests concerned witnesses on their behalf. This is consequently not the same situation as the one which pertains where an accused is confronted with witness testimony which incriminates him or her (see paragraph 45 above).

61. Moreover, the Perna judgment – to which reference is made in paragraph 42 of the Poropat judgment – pre-dates the Al-Khawaja and Tahery judgment (cited above), in which the Grand Chamber consolidated and clarified its case-law as regards the examination of witnesses for the prosecution under Article 6 § 3 (d). This also applies to the four other Court rulings to which the Government refer in their submissions of 4 September 2017 (see paragraph 37 above) and which were issued between 2005 and 2010. Accordingly, in so far as those four rulings are not in line with the principles enunciated in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, they were superseded by that Grand Chamber judgment, which was rendered in 2011 and thus before the present case was decided in the domestic courts (see paragraphs 5, 11 and 17 above). In addition, it is to be noted that none of the four cases referred to by the Government concerned a situation like that in the present case, where a request to call prosecution witnesses was rejected at the domestic level for the reason that it lacked substantiation. The Court takes this opportunity to reaffirm the general principles relating to the right of an accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him or her, as set out in paragraphs 44‑45 above, from which it follows that the interest of the defence in being able to have those witnesses examined in its presence must in principle be presumed (see also paragraph 60 above).

62. The above considerations lead the Court to the conclusion in the present case that it cannot be said that the Court of Appeal established good factual or legal grounds for not securing the attendance of prosecution witnesses A to G.

63. The absence of a good reason for the non-attendance of the witnesses is not of itself conclusive of the unfairness of the applicant’s trial. However, it constitutes a very important factor to be weighed in the overall balance together with the other relevant considerations, notably whether the evidence of the witnesses was the sole or decisive basis for the conviction and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 113).”

Uitgangspunten met betrekking tot het oproepen en horen van getuigen

Het horen van getuigen kan op verschillende momenten in de strafprocedure plaatsvinden. Getuigen kunnen allereerst worden gehoord tijdens het opsporingsonderzoek door een opsporingsambtenaar, waarbij de betreffende verklaring wordt vastgelegd in een – bij de processtukken te voegen – proces-verbaal. De in een proces-verbaal opgenomen verklaring van de getuige kan nadien door de rechter voor het bewijs worden gebruikt.3

Getuigen kunnen ook, al dan niet op verzoek van de verdediging, op een later moment in de procedure (opnieuw) worden opgeroepen en gehoord. Voorafgaand aan de aanvang van het onderzoek ter terechtzitting in eerste aanleg gaat het dan om het horen van getuigen door de rechter-commissaris.4 Het horen van getuigen kan verder plaatsvinden in eerste aanleg of in hoger beroep door de zittingsrechter5 of lopende het onderzoek ter terechtzitting door de (gedelegeerd) rechter-commissaris of de (gedelegeerd) raadsheer-commissaris.6 Ook bestaat de mogelijkheid van het horen van getuigen door de rechter-commissaris of de raadsheer-commissaris nadat hoger beroep is ingesteld maar voordat het onderzoek ter terechtzitting is aangevangen.7 Bij het horen van getuigen door de rechter-commissaris of de raadsheer-commissaris mag de verdediging in beginsel aanwezig zijn en vragen (doen) stellen aan de getuige.8 Een verklaring die de getuige aflegt tegenover de rechter-commissaris of de raadsheer-commissaris, wordt vastgelegd in een proces-verbaal dat bij de processtukken wordt gevoegd.9 Ook de in zo’n proces-verbaal opgenomen verklaring van de getuige kan door de rechter voor het bewijs worden gebruikt.10

In het Nederlandse stelsel, waarin om de onder 2.6.1 genoemde redenen het onderzoek ter terechtzitting zich concentreert op de beoordeling van de bevindingen uit het vooronderzoek, is het van belang dat al voor de aanvang van het onderzoek ter terechtzitting gelegenheid bestaat voor de uitoefening van het ondervragingsrecht. In dit verband zijn in het bijzonder van belang de onder 2.5 genoemde mogelijkheden van het horen van getuigen door de rechter-commissaris of de raadsheer-commissaris in aanwezigheid van in ieder geval de raadsman en op zijn verzoek in beginsel ook de verdachte. Dat vergt dat bij de gerechten voldoende capaciteit beschikbaar is voor het langs deze wegen horen van getuigen.

Het initiatief tot het bieden van een dergelijke ondervragingsgelegenheid kan tijdens het vooronderzoek worden genomen door het openbaar ministerie en in bepaalde gevallen ook door de rechter-commissaris. Aanleiding daarvoor kan bestaan in gevallen waarin een getuige al een verklaring met een belastende strekking heeft afgelegd en aan die verklaring – voor zover zich dat laat vaststellen in de stand van het onderzoek – een meer dan gering gewicht kan toekomen voor een eventuele bewezenverklaring. Het bieden van een dergelijke ondervragingsgelegenheid aan de verdediging voorafgaand aan het onderzoek ter terechtzitting, zonder daartoe een verzoek van de verdediging af te wachten, ligt vooral ook in de rede in gevallen waarin het voorzienbaar is dat de getuige op een later moment mogelijk niet meer beschikbaar zal zijn voor een verhoor of moeilijk zal kunnen worden getraceerd, of als de belangen van de getuige ermee zijn gediend dat een (nadere) ondervraging op korte termijn plaatsvindt. Onder omstandigheden kan dat ook aanleiding vormen om al bij het verhoor van een getuige door de politie gelegenheid tot ondervraging te bieden.22

Daarnaast kan de verdediging op diverse momenten in de strafrechtelijke procedure een verzoek doen om een getuige te horen met het oog op de uitoefening van het ondervragingsrecht. Voor een effectief gebruik van deze mogelijkheid is tijdens het vooronderzoek wel van belang dat de verdediging al in voldoende mate toegang heeft tot de processtukken en bekend is met de beschuldiging die door het openbaar ministerie in de strafzaak centraal wordt gesteld.

De verdediging kan ook tijdens het onderzoek ter terechtzitting in eerste aanleg of in hoger beroep verzoeken doen tot het (opnieuw) oproepen en horen van getuigen. De omstandigheid dat de verdediging geen gebruik heeft gemaakt van een eerder bestaande gelegenheid om wensen met betrekking tot de ondervraging van getuigen kenbaar te maken of dat de verdediging niet zelf in een eerder stadium van het onderzoek gebruik heeft gemaakt van de hiervoor genoemde mogelijkheden om een verzoek te doen een getuige te horen, terwijl daarvoor op dat moment geen beletsel bestond, biedt op zichzelf geen grond voor de afwijzing van zo’n verzoek. Dat neemt niet weg dat een dergelijke inactiviteit van de verdediging, als daarvoor geen gegronde reden bestaat, een rol kan spelen bij de, onder 2.12 nader te bespreken, beoordeling of het proces als geheel eerlijk is verlopen.

Beoordeling van de ‘overall fairness’ van de procedure