JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WALSH, MACDONALD AND PALM

1.       In our opinion the procedure adopted by the Austrian court

amounted to a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (art. 6-1,

art. 6-3) of the Convention.

2.       The right of the applicant to question the evidence of

Miss L., by way of examination as guaranteed by Article 6 (art. 6),

was not vindicated.  It was alleged that she had disappeared and

that the police had been unable to trace her, in contrast to their

success in securing the extradition of the applicant to stand trial.

The failure of the police to ensure the presence of the complainant

to give evidence in person at the trial did not justify her untested

written statement being admitted in evidence.  Its admission was

very prejudicial to the applicant at his trial and in fact was

relied on by the trial court as evidence of his guilt.  That there

was other incriminating evidence is beside the point.  It appears

that without the use of the statement the conviction could not have

been obtained.  If the case were otherwise, there would have been no

need to admit the statement.  The applicant, through no fault of

his, was deprived of his right to examine Miss L. as to the accuracy

and/or truth of her obviously damaging statement which filled the

gap in the evidence necessary to secure the conviction.  In the

event the prejudicial effect remained uncorrected.

3.       We also agree with the reasoning in the dissenting opinion

expressed in the report of the Commission by Vice-President Trechsel

and his five colleagues.