C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y regarded as having had a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge the witness statement which was of decisive importance for his conviction and, consequently, he did not have a fair trial”.618 In its judgment on the case of Topic619 the Court also noted that: ”(…) the applicant’s request for the eyewitnesses to the event to be heard was not vexatious, it was relevant to the subject matter of the accusation, and that it could arguably have strengthened the position of the defence or even led to the applicant’s acquittal, had it been confirmed that he had in fact thrown a beer can and not the package containing drugs into the rubbish bin.(…) However, the trial court dismissed the applicant’s request by merely noting that all the relevant facts had been sufficiently established (…) which cannot be considered a reasoned decision in itself, and could suggest that the witness statements heard by the domestic court were one-sided.(…) The Court therefore considers that by dismissing all requests by the defence and accepting all the prosecution arguments and evidence the trial court created an unfair advantage in favour of the prosecution and consequently deprived the applicant of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the charges against him”.620 In this case ECHR emphasised the importance of the words “under the same conditions” and “equality of arms” in the matter: “With this proviso, it leaves it to the competent national authorities to decide upon the relevance of proposed evidence, in so far as this is compatible with the concept of a fair trial, which dominates the whole of Article 6 (…). It is accordingly not sufficient for a defendant to complain that he has not been allowed to question certain witnesses; he must, in addition, support his request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth (…). Thus, when the applicant has made a request to hear witnesses which is not vexatious, and which is sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation and could arguably have strengthened position of the defence or even led to the applicant’s acquittal, the domestic authorities must provide relevant reasons for dismissing such request(…).The Court notes that the applicant contended that the package found in the rubbish bin did not belong to him, which was why he had refused to sign the seizure record of the package and requested a forensic analysis in order to obtain evidence as to whether he had had any contact with the package(…). He also argued that he had in fact thrown a beer can into the bin, and in support of his arguments he insisted that three persons, eyewitnesses to the event, be questioned. In denying the charges against him the applicant insisted throughout the proceedings that he had thrown a beer can into the rubbish bin and not the package containing drugs. (..)In this respect the Court notes that one of the police officers who testified before the trial court, in fact the one, who found the package, confirmed Ibid. §26, §32. Topic v. Croatia, no. 51355/10, ECHR, 10 October 2013. 620 Ibid. §46, §47, §478. 618 619 135