154 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights the witness had made a written statement to the police on the night of the alleged offence. The prosecution refused to provide the defence counsel with a copy of the statement, and the trial judge subsequently held that the defence had failed to put forward any reason why a copy of the statement should be provided. It transpired that, in the written statement, the witness had named another man as the one who had shot the victim in the proceedings. Even notwithstanding this, the Human Rights Committee took the view that the evidence of the witness, as the only eyewitness produced at trial, was of primary importance in the absence of any other corroborating evidence. It concluded, therefore, that the failure to make the police statement available seriously obstructed the defence in its cross-examination of the witness, thereby constituting a violation of Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR.695 6.7.4 Limitations on the right to call and examine witnesses The right to call and examine witnesses does not provide an unlimited right to obtain the attendance of any witness at any time or in any manner.696 The right is only to have witnesses admitted that are relevant for the defence, and to be given a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses.697 Within these limits, and subject to the limitations on the use of statements, confessions and other evidence obtained in violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR (See also 5.2.6), the Human Rights Committee has explained that “it is primarily for the domestic legislatures of States Parties to determine the admissibility of evidence and how their courts assess it”.698 The European Court of Human Rights has similarly reiterated on several occasions that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. In order to avoid the European Court taking on a role as a court of further appeal on admissibility issues (the fourth instance doctrine), the Court has its role as limited to ascertaining whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (See also 6.1.2). 699 In McLawrence v Jamaica, the applicant claimed a violation of article 14(1) of the ICCPR, on the basis that a witness deemed to be crucial to the defence was unavailable at trial. Reaffirming that the right to a fair trial does not encompass an absolute right to have a certain witness testify in court, and having regard to the fact that repeated efforts had been made to 695 Peart v Jamaica, HRC Communications 464/1991 and 482/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/464/1991 (1995) and CCPR/C/54/D/482/1991 (1995), para 11.5. 696 Johnson v Spain, HRC Communication 1102/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1102/2002 (2006), para 6.5; Vidal v Belgium [1992] ECHR 47, para 33. 697 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 39; and Khuseynova and Butaeva v Tajikistan, HRC Communications 1263/2004 and 1264/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1263–1264/2004 (2008), para 8.5. 698 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 39; and Khuseynova and Butaeva v Tajikistan, HRC Communications 1263/2004 and 1264/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1263–1264/2004 (2008), para 8.5. 699 Vidal v Belgium [1992] ECHR 47, para 33; Edwards v the United Kingdom [1992] ECHR 77, para 34; Teixeira de Castro v Portugal [1998] ECHR 52, para 34; Allan v the United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 702, para 42; Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands [1997] ECHR 22, para 51; Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 162.