Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36117/04

More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter" (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 38-39, § 91 and Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36117/04

More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter" (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 38-39, § 91 and Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36117/04

The Court reiterates that as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36117/04

In the Court's view, such reasoning may be considered sufficient and reasonable (see, a contrario, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 34, Series A no. 235-B).