6.  On 7 August 2000 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her children, a girl born in 1991 and a boy born in 1993, had been sexually abused by a neighbour, the applicant. On 10 August and 2 September 2000 the siblings were interviewed by a police officer experienced in investigating sexual abuse of children. The applicant was also suspected of having abused two other girls, both friends of the siblings and born in 1991. The girls were interviewed by the police on 11 August and 18 August respectively and again on 3 September 2000. All the interviews were recorded on videotape. 7.  At the time of the first interviews, i.e. on the morning of 10 August 2000, the applicant had not been informed of the suspicions against him and no defence counsel had yet been appointed for him. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present during the later interviews. The siblings and one of the other girls underwent a psychological examination in the Family Advice Centre with a view to assessing whether their testimonies during the pre-trial investigation were reliable. 8.  Meanwhile, on the afternoon of 10 August 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police. Before the questioning he was notified of the suspicions against him and it appears that he did not exercise his right to have his counsel present. The applicant was in detention from that day until 7 September 2000 when travel restrictions were imposed on him. He was accompanied by counsel when questioned again on 17, 18, 19 and 23 August and 6 September 2000. He was questioned alone on 12 January 2001. 9.  Prior to the close of the pre-trial investigation, in his closing statement the applicant requested, on 7 December 2000, having watched the above-mentioned video recordings, that the siblings be questioned again and that his questions be put to them about how and where they had learnt about the sexual things they had mentioned to him and, in particular, if they had been subjected to sexual acts at a place other than the applicant's home. His request was however refused on 21 January 2001. According to the Government, this was because their mother had refused to allow any further questioning of the children, now aged 7 and 9. 10.  The applicant was charged before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with having sexually abused the four children during the summer of 2000. He denied the charges. He however admitted having tapped two of the girls on their buttocks. 11.  In February 2001 the District Court held an oral hearing during which the applicant, the parents of the siblings and the mothers of the other two girls gave evidence. The children were not heard in person. The videotaped interviews with the children were shown during the hearing. The court also heard evidence from a psychologist on the reliability of the statements of the siblings and of one of the other girls. The applicant did not request that the children give evidence at the hearing. 12.  The mother of the siblings testified that they had told her about the improper touching in the same manner as they had done on the videotape. When the touching had become known, on 1 August 2000, her son had reacted intensely by crying and slamming doors. He had also suffered from sleeping problems and her daughter had suffered from headaches. Neither of these ailments had occurred before. According to two written opinions of the Family Advice Centre, the siblings' accounts of the events were considered credible given their detailed and precise nature. There was nothing to suggest that they were the siblings' own inventions. The mothers of the two other girls testified that they had told them about the improper touching in the same manner as they had done on the videotape. 13.  In its judgment of 28 February 2001 the District Court observed that the evidence was mainly of an indirect nature and that the sole direct evidence was the testimony of a psychologist, who had testified as to the children's credibility. 14.  The court noted that the applicant had argued that the main evidence in the case was flawed due to the fact that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to the children and that the authorities had put leading questions to them. He had also argued that there were shortcomings insofar as the psychological examinations carried out by the Family Advice Centre were concerned. The court however found no such flaws as would significantly have reduced the evidentiary value of the examinations. 15.  The court then stated that the case turned on an assessment of the credibility of the children's statements. While it was true that the pre-trial statements' probative value was weakened by the fact that the applicant had not been able to put questions to the children, these statements were nonetheless reliable as the children had provided details about the events and as their young age gave no reason to believe that they would have sought to lie about the events. Although some leading questions may have been put to the children, there was nothing to suggest that they would have sought to please the interviewer and adapted their replies accordingly. This being so, the court found that questioning the children in court would not have added anything significant to the case. Having regard to their best interests, the questioning of children of such a young age before a court could not be considered justifiable. The court found that the testimonies of the psychologist and the parents supported the credibility of the children's accounts. 16.  It convicted the applicant of having sexually abused the four children and sentenced him to two years and three months' imprisonment. 17.  The applicant appealed, alleging inter alia a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention in that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to the children. 18.  The Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) held an oral hearing and was presented with the same evidence as had been before the District Court. The parties agreed that it was in the best interests of the children that they should not be heard before the court. The applicant however rejected the admission of the children's pre-trial statements as evidence since he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to them. 19.  In its judgment of 6 November 2001 the Court of Appeal noted that the children had been interviewed twice during the pre-trial investigation and all but one of the girls had been examined in the Family Advice Centre using tests and interviews. As the questioning of the children, now aged 8 to 10, before the court would probably have caused them suffering, it was possible to use in evidence their pre-trial statements, although the applicant's minimum rights under, inter alia, Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention would thereby be violated. In evaluating the weight to be attached to the children's statements, the court found that it had to take into account the discrepancies pointed out by the applicant and the fact that the police had not put to the children the questions proposed by him in his pre-trial closing statement. 20.  In its assessment of the evidence the appellate court reached the same conclusions as the lower court and upheld the conviction. It however reduced the sentence to one year and eight months' imprisonment, which it considered fair, having regard to the fact that the applicant had not forced the children into doing anything, the relevant sentencing practice and the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions. 21.  The applicant requested leave to appeal, maintaining, inter alia, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. He did not submit any request for the children to be heard. 22.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.