In principle, the accused’s participation in the trial is his right, not his duty. According to the amendment of July 19, 2019, which added Art. 378a, the court may conduct evidentiary proceedings (in particular, hear witnesses) even in the event of a duly justified absence of the accused (i.e. release from a medical doctor), even if he has not yet submitted explanations. The defender and the accused at the next hearing may submit a request for supplementary taking of evidence if they show that the taking of evidence in the absence of the accused violated the procedural guarantees, in particular his right to defense. The right to submit such an application will not be granted if it turns out that the absence was unjustified.
The above amendment raises a lot of controversy. Her supporters argue that it will significantly affect the speed and efficiency of proceedings, which will significantly reduce the length of hearings and the fact that the court has only this option, not the obligation. Opponents argue that the taking of evidence in the absence of the accused always violates his procedural rights, and that the acceleration of the trial can only consist of failure to meet the deadline, because in practice the request to supplement the evidentiary proceedings will always involve an additional trial date.
