Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt with mental disability. The alleged victim, M.V., gave evidence before an investigating judge in the presence of a psychologist, but the applicant, who at that stage was not represented by a lawyer, was not present. At trial the applicant denied the charges. The victim was then recorded that she upheld the statement made before the investigating judge but the statement was not read out. Other witnesses were also heard, none of whom had seen the alleged acts and who gave evidence only on the subsequent events. The Court convicted the applicant for indecency against a minor and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment. It based the applicant’s conviction to a decisive degree on the statement made by the victim before the investigating judge. The applicant appealed complaining that he was not given an opportunity to question M.V and that her testimony given before the investigating judge was reworded by the judge and did not represent the accurate picture of what she said, especially taking into consideration that at the age of 12, she could not read or write and did not know the names of any of her teachers. The higher Court dismissed the appeal. It accepted that the wording of her testimony had been formulated by the investigating judge and that the testimony would have sounded more convincing had it reproduced M.V.’s own words, but it did not find that this shortcoming made a significant impact. The appellate court made no comments on the applicant’s complaint concerning his lack of opportunity to question M.V. The EHtCR in this case reiterated “that the use in evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police inquiry and the judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected. As a rule these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making his statements or at a later stage of the proceedings.” The Court further stated that “principles of fair trial require that the interests of the defence are balanced against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify. In this respect, the Court has had regard to the special features of criminal proceedings concerning sexual offences. Such proceedings are often conceived of as an ordeal by the victim, in particular when the latter is unwillingly confronted with the defendant. These features are even more prominent in a case involving a minor. In the assessment of the question whether or not in such proceedings an accused received a fair trial, the victim’s interest must be taken into account. The Court therefore accepts that in criminal proceedings concerning sexual abuse certain measures may be taken for the purpose of protecting the victim, provided that such measures can be reconciled with an adequate and effective exercise of the rights of the defence. In securing the rights of the defence, the judicial authorities may be required to take measures which counterbalance the handicaps under which the defence labors.” In this particular case however the Court found that “the applicant cannot be 134