The cabinet is currently working on a legislative amendment that should allow judges to require suspects to participate in their trial by video link on the grounds of \"serious security risks\". The Council for the Judiciary has since indicated that it has no serious objections to the decision. Albeit that judges should use this power only in case of very concrete and exceptional security risks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Italy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Italy, the security of trials against suspects of mafia membership was a reason for introducing videoconferencing in criminal proceedings as early as the 1990s. However, quality requirements were imposed on the connection between the courtroom and the videoconference at the detention location. The authorities also had to ensure that the lawyer and his client could communicate confidentially. However, videoconferencing was restricted to situations where there was a high risk of escape and where the accused would be in the physical proximity of co-defendants or subordinates in court, with an undesirable effect on court proceedings, such as influencing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Legitimate purpose<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Italian and Russian cases in particular that have since been submitted to the ECtHR show that (mandatory) videoconferencing may only be used if it serves a legitimate purpose. These include the protection of public order, security measures, the risk of the detainee having a chance to make contact with connections, the prevention of crime, risk of flight, witness and victim protection., compliance with reasonable time requirements and the importance of expeditious handling of the criminal proceedings, also in view of the court's caseload. <\/p>\n\n\n\n ECHR<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The ECtHR also concluded in Marcello Viola v. Italy that the use of videoconferencing need not violate a right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR, provided that appropriate safeguards are provided It follows from the case-law that the accused must be able to see and hear those present in the courtroom and, conversely, the other parties must be able to see and hear the accused. The connection between the detention facility and the courtroom must be of sufficient quality for the accused to participate in his trial. Furthermore, the lawyer has the right to have counsel at both the location where he is, and in the courtroom. If the facility of confidential location is lacking, there is a violation of the right to an effective exercise of defence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Courts on location<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if the social and\/or criminal interests weigh so heavily, video conferencing remains a restriction of the right to be present. Being put on trial via video link is undesirable, especially in serious cases where prison sentences can be imposed for years. Both judges and defendants will then have to miss much of the non-verbal communication that is so important in the courtroom. A video link will also be at the expense of the quality of communication between the defence and the client. Therefore, the most obvious option is for courts to be set up on location. Plans for this are also in the works, for example in PI Vught. The accused can then be seated in the courtroom, without the need for transport with security risks. But this too is easier said than done, as in large trials multiple suspects will be in multiple locations. And then again, the choice is either transport or video link. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Especially in those cases, the option of having two lawyers will be used more often. One at the detention address and one in the courtroom. In that case, the video link must be completely fine and it must be possible to communicate confidentially with the defence, which would be at another location. Otherwise, there is no due process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. D.M. Penn<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Momenteel werkt het kabinet aan een wetswijziging waardoor rechters op grond van \u201cernstige veiligheidsrisico\u2019s\u201d verdachten moeten kunnen verplichten per videoverbinding aan hun proces deel te nemen. De Raad voor de Rechtspraak heeft inmiddels laten weten geen zwaarwegende bezwaren tegen het besluit te hebben. Zij het dat rechters van deze bevoegdheid alleen gebruik mogen maken in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-strafrecht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}