nfringement of the right to fair trial (cross-examination of witnesses)-ECHR:

reasons for absence

There has to be an interference of the right by the state.
In the Schatschaschwili v Germany case → for the absence of the witness to be not infringing on the right to fair trial there are few requirements:
There has to be a good reason for the absence of the wintesss
Death
Fear (it has to be based on an objective proven grounds and evidence to prove it) -
Specific fear - fear attributed to the defendant or those acting in his behalf - have to be threatened and need evidence.
General fear - fear of death or injury to another person or financial loss - no threats by the defendant by there are objective grounds + evidence.
Health - traumatized victims (victims of SA)
Unreachability
Legal reasons → like self-incrimination
The lack of good reason in itself is not enough to establish infringement.

sole or decisive

•Sole: only evidence against the accused, or,
•Decisive: evidence of such significance or importance as is likely
to be determinative of the outcome of the case.
→ the stronger the corroborative evidence, the less likely that the evidence of the absent witness will be treated as decisive

Are there any counterbalancing factors?

Value of evidence -e.g. approaching the untested evidence of an absent witness with caution; less gravity in reasoning, or jury instructions (directions to the approach –the jury is told that the evidence cannot be challenged because the witness is not there) - judge needs to show in reasoning of the judgment [126]
Video recording
Corroborative evidence supporting the absent witness statement
Indirect questioning
Cross examine - prosecutor does not have a right to cross-examine
Putting forward other evidence with will contest the reliability of the witness

Two types of fear

; 1, specific fear → when the person on trial has threatened the witness . Evidence is needed 2 prove this
General fear; 1. objective proven grounds (acts of accused OR more general fear of what will happen)
2. needs to be substantiated
the threat needed to be linked to testimony

anonymous witness

Ellis, Simms and Martin v UK - anonymous witness - good reason for anonymous witness, sole or decisive basis for the conviction, must be satisfied that there are sufficient counterbalancing factors (including existence of strong procedural safeguards) [para 76-8]: three steps apply

Hearsay in different jurisdiction:

England:
There is no hearsay allowed, however there are some exceptions mentioned in CJA 2003
The netherlands:
Hearsay is forbidden under article 342 DCCP
Germany:
Hearsay is allowed in germany