Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 153 was found to violate Article 14 of the ICCPR, particularly in circumstances where the court gave very considerable weight to the statement of that witness in its decision.689 All evidence adduced at trial must normally be produced in the presence of the accused, with a view to facilitating adversarial arguments (See also 6.1.2). This does not mean, however, that the statement of a witness must always be made in court.690 The use as evidence of statements obtained at the stage of a police inquiry or a judicial investigation without the appearance of the witness in person at the trial is not, in itself, inconsistent with the right of cross-examination, provided that the defendant has been given an adequate opportunity to challenge and question the witness when that witness made the statement, or at a later stage of the proceedings prior to the trial itself.691 However, where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the pre-trial stage or at the trial, this would be incompatible with the guarantees provided for by Article 6 of the ECHR.692 In Balsytė-Lideikienė v Lithuania, the editor of a company publishing calendars that were found to be inciting ethnic hatred was made subject to an administrative penalty, including the seizure of unsold copies of the calendar. The European Court of Human Rights recognized that the conclusions provided by the experts during the pre-trial stage played a key role in the proceedings against the applicant, who had been denied the opportunity to question the experts during the trial. The refusal to have the experts examined in open court was considered by the European Court to be a violation of Article 6.693 In Saïdi v France, the European Court took the view that, although there were undeniable difficulties in combating drug trafficking and severe consequences caused by it, such considerations did not justify restricting the rights of the defence. A witness’ testimony in that case constituted the sole basis for the applicant’s conviction, after having been the only ground for his committal for trial. Yet neither at the stage of the investigation nor during the trial was the applicant able to examine the witness concerned.694 To allow effective enjoyment of the right to cross-examination, it should be recalled that there is a right, applicable to both criminal and civil proceedings, to disclosure of all material relevant to the case (See also 6.3.5). In Peart v Jamaica, for example, it became apparent during the cross-examination by the defence of the main witness for the prosecution that 689 Dugin v Russian Federation, HRC Communication 815/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/815/1998 (2004), para 6.3; and Kulov v Kyrgyzstan, HRC Communication 1369/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1369/2005 (2010), para 8.7. 690 Asch v Austria [1991] ECHR 28, para 27. 691 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 163; Asch v Austria [1991] ECHR 28, para 27; Isgrò v Italy [1991] ECHR para 34; Kostovski v the Netherlands [1989] ECHR 20, para 41. 692 Unterpertinger v Austria [1986] ECHR 15 para 28, 33; Balsytė-Lideikienė v Lithuania [2008] ECHR 1195, para 62. 693 Balsytė-Lideikienė v Lithuania [2008] ECHR 1195, paras 64–66. 694 Saïdi v France [1993] ECHR 39, para 44.