Pesukic c. Schweiz

Der EGMR billigt eine Verurteilung wegen vorsätzlicher Tötung, obwohl das Urteil hauptsächlich auf einer anonymen Zeugenaussage basierte (EGMR Nr. 25088/07, Pesukic v. Switzerland vom 06.12.2012; vgl. die in dieser Sache ergangenen Entscheidungen des Budnesgerichts BGE 133 I 33 und BGer 6B_77/2007 vom 19.04.2007 sowie meine früheren Beiträge hier und hier).

Der einstimmig ergangene Entscheid enthält im Wesentlichen folgende Begründung:

The Court further observes that the Federal Tribunal carefully examined the question as to whether the applicant’s defence counsel could be allowed to be present at the interrogation of the anonymous witness but considered that the risk that the witness’ identity became known to the applicant was inacceptably high (see paragraph 26, above). The defence was thus prevented from observing X’s demeanour under direct questioning, and thus from testing his reliability (see Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, § 59 and Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 42, Series A no. 166). On the other hand, the applicant’s counsel was able to put questions to the witness via a sound link, which the witness answered as long as he did not risk betraying his identity. All members of the jury court were able directly to observe the witness’ reaction (Rz. 51).

Einen strengeren Massstab wendete nur das gute alte Kassationsgericht des Kantons Zürich an.