CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 absence of the victim. As the victim refused to testify, the prosecutor read the testimony she had given during the investigations. The victim “fully confirmed” her testimony but refused to answer any questions, neither from the defence nor from the prosecution (para. 4.8). There was therefore no violation of the principle of equality of arms and the refusal to testify by the victim is fully understandable due to the particular circumstances of the case and the need to avoid her further revictimization. In cases concerning minors subjected to rape, article 14 (3) (e) cannot be interpreted as requiring in all cases that questions be put directly to the victim by the accused or his or her defence counsel through crossexamination or by other means.3 9. The author also complains that another important witness, L.M.A., testified in court but that the judge did not allow any questions to be posed to her (para. 5.5). The author himself acknowledges, contradictorily, that L.M.A. was questioned only during the investigation but did not appear in court to testify (para. 3.5), so we fail to see how the judge could have prevented questions to be posed to her. Furthermore, L.M.A. did not testify as a witness, but as a “teacher” (para. 6.9) and in the end the author did not ask for her presence (para. 7.3), despite having had the possibility of requesting a postponement of the proceedings to that effect. In this respect, the court verdict reveals no attempt by the author to call the missing witnesses or ask for the postponement of hearings when such witnesses were not present or did not testify. The same applies to several experts who provided their expert conclusions during the investigation but were not called to court and whose conclusions were simply read into the record (para. 3.5). 10. The author had thus the possibility of questioning the victim, witnesses and experts during the investigation (as mentioned in paragraph 9.2, the right of the accused to be given a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against them at some stage of the proceedings) and was able to freely challenge the victim’s and L.M.A.’s testimonies, as well as the expert conclusions, during the trial, since they were read into the record. Therefore, the author’s defence rights were not unduly restricted, particularly since he did not react to such alleged violations then, while he could have done so. 11. It is not sufficient for a defendant to complain about not being allowed to question certain witnesses. A defendant must support his or her request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard, and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth and the rights of the defence. 4 The author has not adequately explained why it was important to question those witnesses, including the victim; how this negatively affected his case; or why he did not react to such alleged violations during the legal proceedings. It is normally for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to examine a witness, especially such a vulnerable one as the one in the case at hand, and the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law. 12. We would, therefore, have concluded that the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant were not violated in the present case. 3 4 See European Court of Human Rights, S.N. v. Sweden, judgment of 2 July 2002 (application No. 34209/96), para. 52; and W.S. v. Poland, judgment of 19 June 2007 (application No. 21508/02), para. 55. See, among others, European Court of Human Rights, Perna v. Italy, judgment of 6 May 2003 (application No. 48898/99), para. 29. 11