6.  On 20 January 2004 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her child A., a boy born in 1999, had been sexually abused by a family friend, the applicant. On the same date the police took a statement from the mother. 7.  On 26 February 2004 A. was interviewed at the children's hospital at the request of the police. The interview was conducted by a psychologist. The investigating police officer, the head psychologist of the hospital, and the deputy head physician Dr S., specialised in child psychiatry, followed the interview behind a mirrored wall. The interview was recorded on video-tape. The applicant was not present when the interview was conducted and apparently he had not even been informed about the investigation at that point. 8.  A psychological examination was performed on A. on two occasions, namely 1 and 15 March 2004, by the head psychologist. A physical examination was also performed. The mother was interviewed by a specially trained nurse on 1, 12 and 15 March 2004. 9.  On 21 May 2004 Dr S. and the two psychologists gave a written statement of their findings. They concluded that A.'s account seemed reliable, that is, he was recounting events that had very likely taken place. Certain changes in A.'s behaviour were also mentioned which, according to those medical experts, reflected sexual abuse to which he had been subjected. According to Dr S. and the two psychiatrists, no such circumstances had emerged in the examinations, or the previous information produced in the case, which supported some alternative explanation to A.'s account and symptoms. No specific findings of A.'s physical examination were mentioned in the statement. 10.  On 30 June 2004 Dr S. gave another statement noting, inter alia, that issues regarding the suspected abuse had disturbed A.'s psychological balance and caused him confusion, insecurity and anxiety. In her opinion, subjecting A. to more questions about the matter would be harmful to him and he should not be interviewed again. 11.  On 1 July 2004 the police questioned the applicant as a suspect. He denied all allegations of sexual abuse. On 8 July 2004, after having taken another statement from A.'s mother, the police closed the pre-trial investigation. 12.  On 12 October 2004 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant with the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) accusing him of having sexually abused A. 13.  After having been served with the summons, the applicant contacted a lawyer. On 4 February 2005 he submitted a communication to the District Court noting that, apparently, the prosecutor intended to present the video recording of A.'s interview as evidence before the court. The applicant agreed that, in the light of Dr S.'s last statement, A. should not be heard again. He pointed out, however, that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to A. during the pre-trial investigation as required by section 39(a) of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslagen, Act No. 449/1987 with later amendments). Nevertheless, instead of requesting the court to exclude A.'s account due to that procedural error, the applicant wished to submit the video recording as evidence on his behalf. In the applicant's view the recording contained certain absurdities and showed that A. was merely repeating sentences that he had been rehearsed to say. 14.  On 10 February 2005 the District Court held its first session. Having heard the prosecutor's opening arguments, the applicant now claimed that the video recording could not be used in evidence, since his legal right to put questions to the witness had not been respected. The prosecutor was of the opinion that the recording should be viewed in order to allow the court to assess A.'s level of maturity and the value of his account as evidence. The complainant, that is A. represented by his mother, joined the prosecutor's pleadings. After a discussion concerning the recording, the applicant consented to its being viewed and the court proceeded with the hearing. 15.  The court was presented with the two written statements given by the psychologists and Dr S. During its first session, the court also received testimony from A.'s mother, the applicant and the applicant's former wife. A.'s mother testified on the events leading to her suspicions of sexual abuse and what A. had told her about those events. The applicant's former wife testified to his character. The court held another session on 25 February 2005, during which the video recording of A.'s interview was played back. It appears that Dr S. gave testimony in that connection as a medical expert making also an assessment of the credibility of A.'s account. 16.  On 11 March 2005 the District Court delivered its judgment. As to the proceedings, it noted that the law did not allow the use of video-taped testimony of a person under 15 years of age if the accused had not been provided with an opportunity to have questions put to that person. It observed that the applicant had not been afforded such an opportunity. It further observed Dr S.'s statement concerning the negative consequences for A. if interviewed again. The court acknowledged that there had been a procedural error which could not be rectified. However, it noted that the video recording of A.'s interview had been shown to the court with the applicant's consent and Dr S. had given testimony as to the credibility of his account. 17.  As to the merits, the court found that neither A.'s account nor the other evidence presented to it supported the charge and acquitted the applicant. 18.  The prosecutor and the complainant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt). In his response to their pleadings, the applicant again pointed out the flaw in the proceedings in respect of his right to examine witnesses against him. 19.  On 13 June 2006 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing. It was presented with the same evidence as the District Court, along with some fresh written evidence. 20.  The prosecutor named the video recording of A.'s interview as evidence, with no opposition from the complainant party. The applicant, on the other hand, maintained his argument that he had been deprived of his legal right to put questions to A. and that the court should assess whether the video recording could, in those circumstances, be admitted. The applicant further argued that his consent in the District Court was not relevant in that respect and that he had not himself submitted the recording as evidence. 21.  The Court of Appeal observed that, in the District Court's hearing of 10 February 2005, the applicant had named the video recording as evidence in its totality. The applicant then argued that he had been left with no other choice, as the District Court had allowed Dr S. to testify to A.'s account, which was merely second-hand evidence. He further stated that if the Court of Appeal were, in turn, also to allow the use of Dr S.'s testimony and her written statement concerning A.s' interview, he would have to name the video recording as evidence again. In response to the court's inquiry as to what questions the applicant had wished to ask A., he mentioned a certain detail about A.'s account of events for which he wanted to have a clarification. He had also wished to ask A. if his mother had told him about the interview beforehand and whether she had asked him to say anything in particular. 22.  The court made reference to the relevant legislation and its travaux préparatoires concerning the obtaining and use of evidence as well as the particular circumstances of the case at hand. It noted, in particular, that due to the circumstances mentioned in Dr S.'s statement of 30 June 2004, it had not been possible to hear A. again. The court found that A.'s videotaped account was to be considered as a statement given in a pre-trial investigation, within the meaning of Chapter 17, Article 11, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken). Since the applicant had not been given the opportunity to put questions to A., in a manner described in more detail in the Criminal Investigations Act, the video recording of A.'s interview could not, in principle, be played back before the court and used in evidence. The court found, however, that testimony about A.'s account of the alleged events could be received from his mother. The statement concerning A.'s interview, and testimony by Dr S. on that matter, were also permissible. The court then noted the applicant's submissions that, under those circumstances, he would invoke the video recording as evidence. Having regard to the fact that he had already done so in the District Court, it found that the recording could also be treated as evidence in the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the video recording was played back in the appellate court's oral hearing. 23.  On 22 August 2006 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. It found that the accounts given by A., his mother and Dr S., as well as the written statement concerning A.'s psychological examination, showed that the applicant had committed one of the sexual acts specified in the indictment. It convicted him of sexual abuse of a child and sentenced him to one year's suspended term of imprisonment. 24.  On 11 May 2007 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.