CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ROOSMA JOINED BY JUDGE JELIĆ

1 . I voted for a finding that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this case. However, I would wish to make the following brief observation as to the reasoning.

2 . In my opinion, the main issue in the present case was the failure to provide sufficient reasoning in the Court of Appeal ’ s convicting judgment. As concerns the case-law and arguments related to the absent witnesses, I consider it important that regard be had to the special features of the proceedings involved. The reasons for which a court of appeal may assess evidence differently from a lower court and reach a different conclusion may vary, depending on the specific circumstances. The Court has found that if sufficient reasons are given and adequate safeguards are in place, an appeal court ’ s overturning of the acquittal of an accused at first instance, and his or her conviction without the re-hearing of witnesses, is not necessarily in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (see Kashlev v. Estonia , no. 22574/08, 26 April 2016).

3 . The present case, of course, has its own specificity, as it is the second time that the Court has been called upon to examine complaints relating to this same set of domestic criminal proceedings, having found on the previous occasion a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of direct assessment by the Court of Appeal of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses (see Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011).