CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS.

"In doubt for the accused" (or just "in dubio pro reo") does of course not mean that a person is only convicted if there is no doubt about the guilt. Theoretical doubts practically always exist. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court has specified the constitutionally protected principle that the guilt must be proven with "sufficient certainty". An absolute certainty is therefore not required. When "sufficient certainty" is met depends on the individual case. Often it is sufficient if an accused is charged by a single person without any material evidence such as traces, recordings or documents. It is not always easy to free oneself from such a burden, certainly not with fundamental doubts about the credibility of the person incriminated. This is aggravated by the fact that the court usually refuses to get to the bottom of the credibility of a person incriminated by the assessments of third parties, let alone by a proper credibility opinion on their statements. Unfortunately, it often happens that the court is satisfied with the testimony of an incriminating person by stating that it is not obvious why the person should lie. Particularly in the case of relationship or economic crimes, where the interest situation unfortunately also permits other assumptions, this trust in the sincerity of the incriminating person might not always be justified. Nevertheless, sufficient certainty is often affirmed even in such constellations, without appreciating the reasons for a possible false charge as the presumption of innocence would actually lead one to expect.

Often it does not even take concrete charges to put a person who has fallen into the clutches of the judiciary in distress. Then one speaks of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence itself is not proof. However, it is intended to indicate the facts to be proven. Not infrequently due to pure sideshows. Then it can also be enough that the prosecutors are only focused on a dubious suspicion. This has a particularly drastic effect when the public prosecutor's office requests remand in custody. Although the so-called court of coercive measures has to decide on this, the above-mentioned principle "in case of doubt for the accused" does not apply to custody proceedings. This principle is only applied in the main court proceedings, after the charges have been brought. And until then months, if not years, can pass. In addition, the courts tend to lower the threshold of suspicion for capital crimes. In other words, in the case of offences with the strictest threat of punishment and the longest duration of investigation. The reason for arrest is then usually the danger that the accused person could be left at liberty to influence witnesses or even thwart evidence (so-called danger of collusion). At least in this phase, the judiciary therefore values the undisturbed clarification of the facts more highly than the presumption of innocence, which means that it is accepted that even innocent persons are held in custody for a longer period of time. But disaster seldom comes alone: with every day in prison, facts are created that are increasingly difficult to overturn. An accused person is therefore well advised to contact a lawyer even before the first police questioning. This right of the lawyer of the first hours has been a guaranteed right of defense since the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure came into force.

BEELEGAL has the necessary experience and resources for competent legal representation in complex and demanding criminal proceedings.

Your contact persons are:

RA Patrick Imbach
RA Dr. Kathrin Albrecht