zneje to celkom cesko-anglicky...

"The right to cross examine prosecution witnesses; and the right to call witnesses for the defence: Article 6(3)(d);"

the right to confront witnesses
http://www.humanrights.coe.int/aware/GB/publi/materials/1062...
Úmluva o ochraně lidských práv a základních svobod
Čl.6
Právo na spravedlivý proces


d) vyslýchat nebo dát vyslýchat svědky proti sobě a dosáhnout předvolání a výslech svědků ve svůj prospěch za stejných podmínek, jako svědků proti sobě;




Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
1. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.


http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2011-08-14 13:42:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The right to confront witnesses: Article 6(3)(d)
The wording and the case-law of Article 6(3)(d) support the principle of
equality of arms which underlies Article 6 in its entirety. For example, in the
case of Bönisch v. Austria (1985), the Court held that a trial court must follow
that same pattern of interrogation in examining its own expert witnesses and
those called by the defence. The right to call or confront witnesses is not an
unlimited right. Courts may determine the number of witnesses a party may
call or the necessity of hearing a particular witness in order to establish the
facts of the case or otherwise contribute to a fair adjudication (Perna v. Italy
(2003) (no violation of Article 6(1) and 6(3)(d) for not calling a witness whose
testimony would consist of a denial of allegations against him)). However, in
the event that a court refuses to admit evidence proposed by a party, it must
provide reasons for the refusal (Pisano v. Italy (2000) and Suominen v.
Finland (2003)).



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2011-08-14 13:43:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.humanrights.coe.int/aware/GB/publi/materials/1062...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2011-08-14 14:08:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

……the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been adopted by virtually all European countries, guarantees certain trial rights typical of the common law style, most importantly the defendant's right to present evidence in his defense and to confront witnesses against him (European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms of Nov. 4, 1950, art. 6 sec. 3 lit. d).

………the presiding judge frequently confronts witnesses with prior statements contained in the dossier and asks them to explain contradictions between their trial testimony and what they had earlier told the police or the prosecutor

http://law.jrank.org/pages/901/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ...

the witness was never confronted and cross-examined