Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Draft Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters is available on the HCCH website

December 26, 2018/2 Comments/in News/by Mayela Celis
image_pdfimage_print

The Draft Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the Evidence Convention has been submitted for the approval of the HCCH governance body (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), which will meet in March 2019.

This Guide analyses developments in relation to the use of video-link in the taking of evidence under the Evidence Convention, including references to internal law and other international agreements. It also outlines good practices to be followed and reflects additional information provided by Contracting Parties in their respective Country Profiles.

In my personal opinion, the most striking conclusion was that responding States to the Country Profiles are almost evenly divided as to whether evidence may be taken directly by video-link by means of a Letter of Request (under Chapter I of the Evidence Convention). In other words, there is no clear consensus on whether the requesting court can take evidence directly in the Requested State by video-link under Chapter I of the Evidence Convention (e.g. take testimony from a witness by videoconference). Some see legal obstacles whereas others do not. The Convention was after all negotiated in the late sixties. A question may arise as to whether an international treaty is needed to address particularly this issue and include the necessary safeguards for video-link taking of evidence.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Mayela Celis https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Mayela Celis2018-12-26 09:39:002018-12-26 11:22:04Draft Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters is available on the HCCH website
2 replies
  1. El roam says:
    December 27, 2018 at 6:07 pm

    Thanks for that important update. The guide describes mainly the disadvantages of such video link in evidence taking. But it seems, that very important aspect or advantage has been ignored, and it is, the very fact, that when stored in digital or video format, the court can repeat the observance, and watch it over and over, backward and forward as it may find fit.So, more accurately reach conclusion or findings concerning the given testimony. That is much more difficult thing to do, while dealing with physical presence of a witness in court ( if at all ). Thanks

  2. Mayela Celis says:
    January 5, 2019 at 3:36 pm

    This is an excellent point. Thank you so much.
    Please note that this Guide seeks to provide, among other things, a snapshot of current views and practices of Contracting Parties to the Evidence Convention.
    It does not intend to reflect a Utopian state of affairs.
    I am sure that current challenges will be solved as time progresses.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim Link to: Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim Link to: Luxemburg, 22 January 2019: Conference on Third-Party Effects of Assignments of Claims Link to: Luxemburg, 22 January 2019: Conference on Third-Party Effects of Assignments of Claims Luxemburg, 22 January 2019: Conference on Third-Party Effects of Assignments...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top