On the 30. December 2016 to about 17.40 PM, a 68-year-old Italian enters a public toilet, which is half an hour's walk from his apartment. There he meets an underage, mentally disabled young people, he has never seen before.
"Ciao," he says to him, gives him a sudden kiss on the cheek, grabs with one Hand at the shoulder, with the other about the pants in the genital area of adolescent and says to him that he wanted to fuck him"". When the mind says "stop", the pensioners of him and walks away.
"I'm not gay"
all of This denies the Italians who came over 50 years ago in Switzerland, and in front of the Supreme court, nevertheless, an interpreter is needed. As already on the occasion of the main hearing before the district court, he would not want to Express themselves but also before the Supreme court.
Even if an accused person has the right to refuse to make a statement, a court shall also have the right to ask anyway. However, the Supreme court agreed. And so a Central question remains unasked: "Why". Because the man, previously not convicted, married, father of several children and Grandfather of several grandchildren, says: "I'm not gay."
The Supreme court sentenced the now 71-Year-old accused of sexual harassment to an unconditional buses of 2000 francs. He also must pay court and investigation costs of several Thousand Swiss francs, and the young people a satisfaction of 1000 francs. The approach of the man called the court a "blatantly outrageous".
The district court had spoken, the Italian free – from-formal reason is that An accused person has the right to ask that Person questions, accusing him of a criminal act. This is called the confrontation survey is, according to the Federal court, in particular obligatory, if the statement is the sole or the decisive evidence, decide on guilt or innocence. This survey does not take place, must not be used in the initial incriminating statement to the court.
"A process of economic nonsense,"
In the present case was stayed for the confrontation interview. Because the first statement could not be used, and otherwise, no other evidence were available, it came to the acquittal. These were challenged by the Prosecutor. His Argument: The Accused and his lawyer had waived this right in a written opinion specifically.
the request In this situation, a second survey, is a "blatant process of economic nonsense". It also saw the Supreme court. Because the Accused had waived a re-survey of the young people expressly, could be recycled the first, in front of the police statements made by the court. (Tages-Anzeiger.ch/Newsnet)
Created: 02.05.2019, 10:51 PM