Vem är det som har sagt det? - Om införande av anonyma vittnesmål i Sverige

Sammanfattning: The fact that witnesses in fear of reprisals do not dare to testify in criminal-proceedings is a growing problem. A system with anonymous witnesses is often assigned as a solution. The purpose of this essay is to discuss anonymous testimonies through a Swedish perspective by looking at Swedish investigations, but also European law and Norwegian right. The first question is how the obligation to testify is constructed in Sweden and in which extension sanctions can be prevailing. Since the leading argument for anonymous testimonies is that witnesses risks reprisals is a report about influence against witnesses used to answer the second question on how such influence works. The third question is which arguments pro and against anonymous testimonies that have been put forward in Swedish investigations. The question has been straightened out several times since the 1990’s. Anonymous testimonies have never been imposed with reference to several different arguments. In discussion about anonymous testimonies is the right to a fair trail in EKMR art 6 current. Guidelines are found in recommendations from the Council of Europe and decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. Norway imposed as the first country in Scandinavia with anonymous testimonies year 2000. It is therefore also interesting to see which considerations that have been made during the imposition in Norway. The essay ends with an analyse where pros and cons is weight against each other. The essay does not take a final standpoint for or against anonymous testimonies.