See Schatschaschwili v. Germany, case no. 9154/10, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. The United Kingdom, case nos 26766/05 and 22228/06. The Swedish Supreme Court has come to the similar conclusion with reference to the ECHR, in a matter decided by Stefan Lindskog when he was at the court; see NJA 2017 s. 955, 24 Nov. 2017, case no. B 279-17. In the case, which concerned a criminal case, the Supreme Court found that the lower court’s decision to allow for the victim (and accuser of the crime) to participate in the hearing by telephone had not violated the prosecuted person’s right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring due process in these respects. In this regard, the court should consider the requirements for a fair trial under the ECHR.
Hänvisas från p. 13 (s. 413)
See Schatschaschwili v. Germany, case no. 9154/10, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. The United Kingdom, case nos 26766/05 and 22228/06. The Swedish Supreme Court has come to the similar conclusion with reference to the ECHR, in a matter decided by Stefan Lindskog when he was at the court; see NJA 2017 s. 955, 24 Nov. 2017, case no. B 279-17. In the case, which concerned a criminal case, the Supreme Court found that the lower court’s decision to allow for the victim (and accuser of the crime) to participate in the hearing by telephone had not violated the prosecuted person’s right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring due process in these respects. In this regard, the court should consider the requirements for a fair trial under the ECHR.s. 413