Summary

At the centre of the determination of the relevant facts in criminal proceedings is, as a rule, a personal source of evidence. All persons, including minors, fit into this role if they are capable of knowing the facts to be proven, if they were able to perceive the event under investigation, if they were able to store it in their memory during the period of perception and testimony, and if they are capable of reproducing it truthfully and intelligibly.

Unfortunately, practice proves that the testimonies of juvenile evidence are often treated uncritically, especially in cases involving a juvenile victim; a higher probative value compared to the testimony of an adult person is as if encoded in them. This is, however, a conviction which, according to the more than abundant literature on the question of the reliability of a minor’s source of evidence, is not worth sharing, and which is also at odds with fundamental principles of procedural law. This is understandable in itself: criminal cases involving a juvenile victim are often charged with an emotional tension that tends to distract even professional litigants from a sober and balanced assessment of the evidence. But that does not mean it should be accepted.