21 DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARTENS, JOINED BY JUDGE PETTITI statements made by Mr van Reijendam had he been permitted to testify. Consequently, the mere fact that Mr van W. was able to testify, whilst Mr van Reijendam was not cannot be said to have resulted in a substantial disadvantage for Dombo9. Moreover, had the Arnhem Court of Appeal found that Dombo’s version of the facts, although not completely proved by the evidence submitted, was the more probable of the two, it could have decided in favour of Dombo subject to Mr van Reijendam’ confirming Dombo’s version of the facts on oath10. It is true that courts only ordered a "supplementary oath" if they regarded the person who was to take it as trustworthy; and it is also true that because of Mr van Reijendam’s manoeuvring in order to be allowed to give evidence as a witness, the Arnhem Court of Appeal would not have been likely to regard him as possessing that quality. But that is immaterial, not only in view of the maxim "nemo auditur..." but also because the present argument only concerns Dombo’s opportunities as a matter of law. 6. For these reasons I have voted that there has been no violation. Court's judgment. 9 Analysis of the judgment of the Arnhem Court of Appeal (see paragraph 19 of the Court's judgment) reveals that this court carefully weighed the evidence on both sides and that it was mainly persuaded to find against Dombo not because of the testimony of Mr van W. but by "the fact that no written evidence [was] available of such an important agreement" as one that raised a credit facility from NLG 500,000 to NLG 2,100,000. 10 Mr van Reijendam, being identified with Dombo, could swear a "supplementary oath" on its behalf - see paragraphs 24 (a) (ii) and 25 of the Court's judgment.