## Facts

- Désiré Doorson was prosecuted in the Netherlands for drug-dealing based largely on statements from drug users who said he had sold them narcotics and identified him from photographs.
- Eight witnesses identified Doorson; six were kept anonymous due to stated fears of reprisals, and two witnesses (N. and R.) were not anonymous.
- The trial court refused to call the anonymous witnesses; N. testified but retreated from earlier incriminating statements, and R. did not appear.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal twice ordered an investigating judge to (1) assess whether anonymity was necessary and (2) assess the reliability of the anonymous witnesses.
- The investigating judge examined anonymous witnesses while Doorson’s lawyer was present and permitted to ask questions; Doorson himself was excluded to preserve anonymity.
- The investigating judge accepted that witness safety concerns were real (including claimed threats and prior retaliation) and maintained anonymity while reporting on reliability.
- R. briefly appeared during appellate proceedings but later disappeared; his earlier statement was read into evidence.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, relying in part on anonymous testimony and on R.’s earlier statement, together with other evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting testimony from anonymous witnesses, with limits on direct confrontation, rendered the proceedings unfair under Article 6(1) in conjunction with Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether admitting and relying on the prior statement of an absent witness (R.), without further cross-examination, violated Article 6(1) and Article 6(3)(d).

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(d) regarding the anonymous witnesses.
- The Court found no violation of Article 6(1) and Article 6(3)(d) regarding use of R.’s prior statement.
- The Court held that the domestic proceedings, assessed as a whole, contained sufficient safeguards to preserve overall fairness.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6(3)(d) protections are specific aspects of the broader right to a fair trial under Article 6(1); fairness is assessed by examining the proceedings as a whole.
- Anonymous witness testimony is not automatically incompatible with Article 6 when there are adequate reasons to protect witness identity (including credible fears of reprisals).
- Where anonymity is allowed, counterbalancing safeguards must exist, including judicial scrutiny of the need for anonymity, opportunities for defense questioning (even if indirect), and careful evaluation of reliability.
- A conviction should not be based solely or to a decisive extent on anonymous testimony or on statements from absent witnesses; corroboration and cautious judicial use are required.
- Use of an absent witness’s prior statement may be compatible with Article 6 where authorities are not responsible for the absence and the statement is not decisive when weighed with the total evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that protecting witnesses in a drug case through anonymity and admitting an absent witness’s prior statement did not breach Article 6 because anonymity was justified, the defense could test reliability through counsel before a judge, and the conviction was supported by other evidence such that the contested material was not decisive.


Doorson v. Netherlands, 22 Eur. Ct. H.R. 330 (1996)