Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 151 The right to call witnesses also applies in civil proceedings. The case of Dombo Beheer B.V. v the Netherlands, for example, concerned civil proceedings centred around the question of whether or not an oral agreement had been reached between the applicant company and its bank to the effect that the bank would extend certain credit facilities. The agreement was said to have been made by two individuals, one representing the company and the other representing the bank. At trial, however, the judge only allowed the individual representing the bank to give evidence about the discussions that took place. The European Court of Human Rights held that it was difficult to see why the company should not have also been allowed to give evidence and concluded that the company was, therefore, put at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the bank, thus violating the principle of equality of arms (See also 6.1) and so of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.676 It should also be noted that some legal systems exempt individuals from the obligation to testify against close relatives, the rationale being that an obligation to testify would be inhumane and, thus, unacceptable. Due to the lack of a generally recognized principle in this respect, however, the Human Rights Committee has not given weight to this principle in ruling on claims before it under Article 14(3)(e).677 In Unterpertinger v Austria, the applicant claimed that he had been convicted exclusively on the basis of the statements made to the police by his former wife and his stepdaughter, who had refused, as close relatives, to give evidence at the trial. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was a breach of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, in that the applicant was convicted on the basis of testimony in respect of which he had not had an opportunity to examine at any stage of the proceedings (See also 6.7.3).678 6.7.2 The right to call expert witnesses The right to call witnesses extends to a right to call expert witnesses. The European Court of Human Rights has clarified that the right to call expert witnesses is not absolute, and it should be counterbalanced by the interests of the proper administration of justice. It is primarily for the national court to decide whether the requested measure is relevant and essential for deciding a case.679 However, if the domestic court decides that an expert examination is needed, the defence should have an opportunity to formulate questions to the expert, to challenge the expert and to examine her/him directly at the trial. In certain circumstances, therefore, the refusal to allow an ex-parte expert examination of material evidence has been regarded by the European Court as a breach of the principle of equality of arms.680 In Khomidova v Tajikistan, for example, the author claimed that his confession of guilt had been obtained as a result of being subjected to torture (See also 5.2.6). His lawyer, therefore, requested to call and examine a doctor as an expert witness, to evaluate the injuries sustained as a result of the alleged torture. Without giving reasons, the trial judge refused 676 Dombo Beheer B. V. v the Netherlands [1993] ECHR 49, para 35. 677 See the individual opinion of Committee member in Campbell v Jamaica, HRC Communication 307/1988, UN Doc CCPR/C/47/D/307/1988 (1993). 678 Unterpertinger v Austria [1986] ECHR 15 para 28. 679 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 189–191.  680 Stoimenov v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [2007] ECHR 257, paras 41–42.