152 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights the request, leading the Human Rights Committee to conclude that there had thereby been a violation of Articles 14(1) and 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR, as well as the right under Article 14(3) (g) of not to be compelled to confess guilt (See also 5.2).681 Compared to the ex-parte experts, experts appointed by a domestic court must be neutral. Because the opinion of the court-appointed expert is likely to carry significant weight in the court’s assessment of the case, the lack of an expert’s neutrality may give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms (See also 6.1.2).682 Even the lack of the appearance of neutrality, where this can be objectively justified, may amount to a breach of the principle of equality of arms. This will be especially so, as in Mirilashvili v Russia, if it was the expert’s report that prompted the bringing of a prosecution.683 However, as the European Court of Human Rights noted, in Brandstetter v Austria, the fact that the court-expert is employed by the same institute or laboratory as the expert on whose opinion the indictment is based, does not, in itself, justify fears that s/he will be unable to act with proper neutrality. What is decisive is whether the doubts raised by appearances can be held objectively justified.684The expert’s procedural position and her/his role in the proceedings have to be taken into account while assessing the court-appointed expert’s neutrality.685 6.7.3 The right to cross-examine witnesses Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR and Article 6(3)(d) of the ECHR guarantee – in the context of criminal proceedings – a right to “examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him”.686 The Human Rights Committee has commented that this right of cross-examination must, to satisfy the principle of equality of arms (See also 6.1), be such that the accused has the same legal powers of cross-examination as are available to the prosecution.687 Given that the right to call witnesses also applies in civil proceedings (See also 6.7.1), so too does the right to cross-examine witnesses in civil proceedings. The right to cross-examine witnesses, which is an essential aspect of the right to a fair trial, requires, in principle, that the applicant should have an opportunity to challenge any aspect of the witness’ statement or testimony during a confrontation or an examination.688 In Dugin v Russian Federation, the failure to allow a witness to be summoned for cross-examination 681 Khomidova v Tajikistan, HRC Communication 1117/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1117/2002 (2004), para 6.5. 682 Bönisch v Austria [1985] ECHR, para 32; Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v Iceland [2007] ECHR 553, para 47. 683 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 178 as well as Stoimenov v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [2007] ECHR 257, para 40. 684 In Brandstetter v Austria [1991] ECHR 39, para 44. 685 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 178; Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v Iceland [2007] ECHR 553, para 47 in fine. 686 Bricmont v Belgium [1989] ECHR 12, para 81. 687 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 39. 688 Bricmont v Belgium [1989] ECHR 12, para 81.