C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y lived) on the grounds of reasonable suspicion that the applicant was involved in drug trafficking. During the search, more than 2000 kg of heroin was found in a cellar which belonged to another apartment, no. 10, of the same building, and which was opened with a key confiscated during the personal search of the applicant. According to the expert report the locking system of the padlock to the cellar of apartment no. 10 had been damaged and it could be opened with any object, including with all of the keys confiscated from the applicant. Another expertize confirmed that a fingerprint of the applicant’s middle finger was found on the package with drugs. The applicant claimed violation of Article 6 of ECHR because the decision was based on illegal evidence and that the domestic courts refused his request to call witnesses and to order a separate expertize. The ECtHR in its decision reiterated that “While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts. It is not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence – for example, unlawfully obtained evidence – may be admissible or, indeed, whether the applicant was guilty or not. The question which must be answered is whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, were fair. This involves an examination of the “unlawfulness” in question.”616 However, the Court further reiterated that: “In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, it must be taken into consideration whether the rights of the defence were respected. It must be examined in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy.”, as well as that: “Although it is normally for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6.” So, in this particular case the Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on the account of the domestic courts’ refusal to hear the defence witnesses and admit alternative expert evidence. In the Kovač617 case the applicant complained that in the criminal proceedings against him he was deprived of a fair trial since he was not able to put questions to M.V. as a witness against him, which is a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. The applicant in 2002 was charged with indecent act against a minor, a twelve-year old girl 616 617 Ibid. § 42. Kovač v. Croatia, no. 503/05, ECHR, 12.10.2007. 133