Problems Using the Anonymous Witness

Abstract

The article examines the procedural issues of using anonymous witnesses in national legislation and international Law. The study aims to improve the scientific and practical foundations for using anonymous witnesses. The countries' legislation allows exceptions from the direct examination of evidence in court, and anonymous witnesses should also be attributed to these exceptions, fulfilling specific requirements defined in the case law of the ECHR.

The term “pseudonym” should be enshrined in the CPC governing the participation of an anonymous witness in criminal proceedings. A pseudonym must meet the requirements of anonymisation and exclusion of identification and be distinguished by reliability. There may be cases when a pseudonym is chosen by a witness who, when selecting, cannot subconsciously choose a surname and letters that he often used, which increases the risk of recognising the witness.

During the trial, anonymous witnesses are usually located in a particular room for witnesses under a pseudonym. They remain invisible to the participants in the process but also to the court. This circumstance deprives the court of verifying the voluntariness of testimony and the absence of pressure on the witness. Various ways induce a witness to perjury and give the necessary testimony. Anonymising a witness may also arise after they have given evidence in the usual manner. Laws that allow anonymous witnesses do not consider the court's right to verify the testimony's circumstances, the voluntariness of the testimony and the absence of pressure on the witness. Classifying witnesses is regulated mainly by subordinate acts for official use. The method of classifying witnesses should be held by a particular law or supplemented by the CCP governing the use of anonymous witnesses. The court should have the right to check the voluntariness of testimony and the absence of pressure on a witness to give false testimony.