should have the same powers as the prosecution to cross examine witnesses.699 This should include the ability to challenge a witness statement. 700 114. Evidence produced in trial should have been in the presence of the accused, although statements can have been made during the police investigation, for example.701 All material relevant to the case should be disclosed.702 115. The right to call witnesses is subject to certain limitations: a. It only applies to those witnesses relevant for the defence. b. There is a proper opportunity to question witnesses.703 c. It is primarily within the discretion of the national legislature to determine the rules for admissibility of evidence.704 116. As regards anonymous witnesses, in theory this will violate the principle of equality of arms unless, exceptionally, this is balanced against the interest of the defence.705 There may be certain instances, for example involving children as victims of sexual abuse, where additional protection will be required to protect them from intimidation.706 Anonymous evidence from law enforcement officers will have to be very strictly justified.707 117. The right also includes the right to call expert witnesses, provided there is an appearance of neutrality.708 This is not an absolute right and needs to be considered in light of what is appropriate in the administration of justice and within the discretion of the national court.709 Where expert witnesses are admitted, the defence should be able to examine that witness. For example, where the court refused an individual’s request for a doctor who could verify injuries he claimed were the result of torture, this amounted to a violation of Articles 14 of the ICCPR.710 M. Victim and witness protection 118. Courts have an obligation to protect witnesses and those who participate in the proceedings from any reprisals711 and the UN Convention Against Torture 699 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 39. European Court, Bricmont v Belgium, 7 July 1989. 701 European Court, Asch v Austria, 26 April 1991. 702 Human Rights Committee, Communications 464/1991 and 482/1991, Peart v Jamaica, 19 July 1995. 703 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 39. 704 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 39. Human Rights Committee Communications 1263/2004 and 1264/2004, Khuseynova and Butaeva v Tajikistan, , 20 October 2008. 705 Kostovski v the Netherlands [1989] ECHR 20; Doorson v Netherlands, [1996] ECHR 14. 706 See e.g. UN ECOSOC, Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, UN Doc E/Res/2005/20 (2005). 707 Van Mechelen and others v Netherlands, 23 April 1997. 708 See e.g. before the European Court, Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 178 709 Ibid. 710 Communication 1117/2002, Khomidova v Tajikistan, 29 July 2004. 711 UN General Assembly Resolution, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN Doc GA Res 40/34 (1985). 700 120