Scholarly record
WITNESS TESTIMONY: GUARANTEE OF A QUALITY JUDICIAL DECISION, ISSUES, AND SOLUTIONS
Abstract
Many may have considered the witness’s role in the court’s function of administering justice as delegated by many national constitutions. Why is a witness important to the court and the participants in the proceedings? Must the witness be summoned to appear in court? What rights and obligations does a witness have? The public has these and many other questions when discussing this actor. When a person’s rights or legally protected interests are violated, he or she has the right to seek redress via courts. This is possible only if the legally relevant facts of the case are established correctly. The parties have to substantiate them with evidence, which determine the outcome of the case. Failure to meet the burden of proof, or failure to meet it properly, may lead to adverse consequences for the person providing evidence; the court may declare that the relevant facts to be proved have not been proven. A committed criminal offence leaves certain traces in the physical environment (objects, documents), and those who observed or were otherwise involved in the offence may remember certain details and talk about them. During criminal proceedings, people able to testify about the offence are questioned while material objects are subject to examination. In a criminal case, the court’s decision (judgement) is based on the data obtained during interviews, examinations, and investigations, known as evidence. Evidence allows for a conclusion that a particular offence has been committed by a particular person or persons. This article examines additional criteria for evaluating the reliability of testimonies given by certain groups of witnesses, which are not laid down in the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure but formulated by case law. Case law identifies the following groups of witnesses whose reliability calls for a more careful (rigorous) evaluation: Witnesses whose credibility calls for a more careful (rigorous) evaluation due to their personal characteristics; witnesses whose credibility calls for a more careful (rigorous) evaluation due to their procedural status. The evaluation of testimonies by these witnesses involves additional procedures (e.g., the use of technical means, acoustic and/or visual barriers, etc.), which provide for a more reliable testimony. It is equally important to ensure that the defence is given adequate opportunities to exercise its procedural functions, and to ensure that basing the judgement on the testimonies provided by witnesses subject to a more rigorous evaluation of the reliability is, to a decisive extent, a measure of last resort rather than the rule.
Publication Impact Profile
- Captures
- Mendeley - Readers: 3
Publication details
References14
Atochem / Commission (T-3/89, ECR 1991 p. II-1177)
JURKA, R. Liudytoju saugumas kaip priemone uztikrinant ju parodymu patikimuma. Jurisprudencija. 2005, 75(67), p. 30.
Van Mechelen and others v. The Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H.R 22007/03 (1997).
Case 34209/96 S. N. v. Sweden, Eur. Ct. H. R., (2002).
The ruling of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 28 May 2015 in criminal case No 2K-290/2013; Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 13 March 2013 in criminal case No 2K-423/2014.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Marring progress on the European Union Agenda on Procedural safeguards for Suspects or Accused persons – Strengthening the Foundation of the European Area of Criminal Justice, COM/2013/0820.
Quas, J. A.; McAuliff, B. D. Accommodating Child Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System: Implications for Death Penalty Cases. In: Mental Disorder and Criminal Law. Responsibility, Punishment and Competence (eds. Schopp, R.F., Wiener, L. R., Bornstein, B.H. et al). New York: Springer, 2009, p. 79–103; Hill, T. Victim Impact Statements: A Modified Perspective. Law & Psychology Review. Vol. 29, 2005, p 211– 221;
Schulz, J. Beitraege zur nebenklagen. Berlyn, 1982, p. 23.
Explanatory Memorandum. Recommendation No. R (97) 13 Concerning Intimidation of Witnesses and the Rights of the Defence (Council Of Europe).
Cour Eur. D. H., arret Van Mechelen et autres c. Pays-Bas, Recueil 1997– III)
Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 20 June 2003 “On the Case Law in the Application of the Norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Governing the Drafting of the Judgement.” Teismu praktika. 2003, No 19.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. Concerning Intimidation of Witnesses and the Rights of the Defense. Recommendation No R (97) 13 of 10 September 1997.
Case 21427/93 and 21363/93, Van Mechelen and others v. The Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H. R., (1997).
The ruling of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 10 February 2009 in criminal case No 2K-7-48/2009.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.