Pursuant to Joint Decree 23/2003 (VI. 24.) of the Ministry of the Interior on the detailed rules of investigation by investigative authorities under the control of the Minister of the Interior and on the rules of recording investigative acts by other means instead of the minutes (hereinafter: the Decree), the questioning of a witness shall be carried out in such a way that no further questioning is necessary.5 During the questioning of a witness, data, means of evidence and his/her own previous statements may also be presented.6 If the witness’s testimony is contradictory or contradicts his previous testimony, he shall be asked to state the reasons for this and which of his statements he maintains.7

I would note that the person conducting the interview should, if possible, draw the witness’s attention to the fact that he or she may also have to appear in court proceedings (trial). Varga writes: “it is often the case that in court the witness claims that during the investigation he was assured that he would not have to testify in the case again, or that after he had testified he would not be confronted with the perpetrator and that he would certainly not be summoned to the trial […]. A witness who is misled in this way […] becomes disillusioned with the justice system and not only keeps his bad experiences to himself, but also shares them with those around him, thus reducing the willingness to testify, which is not very popular anyway.”8 The witness should not, therefore, be led to believe that by giving his investigative statement he is exempt from further procedural acts, but rather should be prepared for similar procedural acts to take place in other contexts and methods.9 There are also significant differences between investigative and trial witness interviews: the atmosphere in investigative interviews is generally calmer and more balanced, as the setting is more closed, the number of participants is smaller and, in the absence of previous testimony, the witness cannot be embarrassed by the contradictory nature of his or her testimony.

Formal rules: the witness must give his or her statement

If the witness gives a written statement, the written statement must show that the witness has given the statement in the knowledge of the obstacles to giving the statement and the testimonial warning. The giving of a written statement shall not preclude the witness from being subsequently summoned for questioning by a court, the prosecution or the investigating authority, if necessary.11

If only written testimony is to be given in respect of a given witness, then (1) the relevant information must also include the questions to which the witness must necessarily answer, (2) the accused, the defence counsel and the representative of the prosecution must be separately informed whether they wish to question the witness in person, and if not, the questions asked by them must also be included in the written information.12

I would note that giving written testimony does not in itself preclude a witness from requesting that his or her personal data be treated in camera or from receiving other forms of witness protection.

If a witness gives oral testimony before giving written testimony, it is possible that he or she may contradict himself or herself in some way. In such a case, the witness should be invited to explain the reasons for this contradiction orally or in writing. It should be noted that there is no difference in evidential value between these two forms of testimony, so that a decision may be taken at a later stage of the proceedings to take the written testimony as the relevant one.13

According to the Regulation, before the interview, the witness must be informed that he or she may request the confidential treatment of his or her personal data, the provision of personal protection, and a victim witness who requires special treatment may request to be interviewed by a person of the same sex as the witness, provided that the interests of the proceedings are not prejudiced. If the witness requests the protection of his or her person, he or she shall also be heard on the grounds and particulars on which he or she is relying.14

A witness may request that his or her data be kept private at any stage of the proceedings, but some views suggest that this should only be done once, at the first hearing.18 I can agree with this position, as his personal data are already available to anyone after his questioning, and further instruction is therefore unnecessary. On the other hand, if there is any change in the witness’s personal data and he wants to encrypt them, he will obviously make a motion to that effect. However, the authority may, in the light of the facts of the case, order the witness’s personal data to be encrypted ex officio.

The interrogation of such persons at this stage is carried out by the investigating judge, who must bear in mind that the relevance of the content of this testimony is still uncertain in the absence of a charge. The interview should therefore be conducted in such a way that the statement contains as much information as possible which may be relevant to the assessment of the case, but without any facts which could subsequently prove misleading. It is also not prohibited for the investigating judge to make a special examination of the witness’s personal circumstances (e.g. criminal record, private life, education) or credibility.21

If the questioning of the minor is indispensable, the procedural act