In a trial where an anonymous witness did not attend and the defense could only ask some questions through a judge, which of the following step descriptions best matches the grounds for a potential Article 6(3)(d) ECHR violation?

• A. There was a good reason for non-attendance; the testimony was not decisive; the defense had full cross-examination rights.
• B. There was no good reason for non-attendance; the testimony was decisive; it depends on what questions were refused by the judge.
• C. There was no good reason for non-attendance; the testimony was not decisive; the defense had strong cross-examination.
• D. There was a good reason for non-attendance; the testimony was decisive; the defense had limited cross-examination.

Answer: (B)

The important idea here is how Article 6(3)(d) protects the accused’s ability to challenge witnesses and test their credibility. If a witness remains anonymous or doesn’t attend, the defense must still have a meaningful opportunity to question that witness or to have the questions put to them. When there is no good reason for the witness’s non-attendance and the testimony is decisive for the outcome, restricting the defense’s ability to question through the judge undermines fairness. The impact then hinges on what questions were refused—the more essential the questions that were blocked (those that could reveal bias, unreliability, or important inconsistencies), the stronger the potential breach of the right to a fair trial.

So the description that best fits is the one where there was no good reason for non-attendance, the testimony was decisive, and the effect depends on which questions were refused by the judge. This combination captures the risk to a fair trial when a key witness cannot be cross-examined effectively. The other scenarios weaken the claim by asserting a good reason for absence, or claiming the testimony wasn’t decisive, or suggesting the defense already had broad cross-examination rights, which lessen the likelihood of a violation.