In the Schatschaschwili framework, what is Step 1 when evaluating potential unfairness due to witness non-attendance or anonymity?

• A. There was no good reason for non-attendance.
• B. The testimony was decisive.
• C. There were sufficient counter-balancing factors.
• D. The defense had right to cross-examine.

Answer: (A)

The key idea being tested is how a court first judges potential unfairness from a witness not attending or being anonymous. In the Schatschaschwili approach, the initial question is whether there was a good, legitimate reason for the witness not to be present. If there was no good reason, the absence is more likely to affect fairness and warrants closer scrutiny. If a good reason existed, the absence is less likely to signal unfairness and the analysis moves to how to mitigate any impact.

So the best description of Step 1 is that there was no good reason for non-attendance. The other factors—such as the testimony’s strength, whether there were counterbalancing factors, or whether the defense had cross-examination rights—are considerations that come into play in later steps of evaluating unfairness, not the initial Step 1 inquiry.