DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

         The case-law of our Court shows that it is not always

possible to apply strictly the important rule set out in

Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) of our Convention, despite the

fact that it is stated in this very same paragraph that the rights

set out therein are minimum rights.  Unfortunately, the

interpretation of this rule takes our Court into forbidden territory

so to say, i.e. the assessment of evidence, which should be the

reserved domain of the national courts.  I consider that there are

insufficient reasons in the present case for departing from the rule

cited.  The applicant clearly did not have an opportunity to examine

the witness Miss L., who was only heard by an investigating judge.

Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present on that occasion.

It may perhaps be said that her testimony was not the only evidence

taken into account.  Nevertheless, it seems beyond doubt that it was

by far the most important, so that this case cannot, in my opinion,

be distinguished from the Unterpertinger case.

         I am therefore of the opinion that there was a violation.