In case of doubt in favour of the accused - but what does that really mean?

It is not always easy to free oneself from such a burden, especially if there are fundamental doubts about the credibility of the person making the allegation. To make matters worse, the court usually refuses to get to the bottom of the credibility of an incriminating person through third-party assessments, let alone through a proper credibility assessment of their statements. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the court is content with simply stating that it is not clear why an accused person should lie when assessing their testimony. This trust in the sincerity of the accused is not always justified, especially in the case of relationship or economic offenses, where the interests involved unfortunately also allow for other assumptions. Nevertheless, even in such constellations, reasonable certainty is often affirmed without assessing the reasons for a possible false accusation as would actually be expected under the presumption of innocence.

In many cases, it doesn't even take concrete charges to put a person who has fallen into the clutches of the justice system under pressure. Then we speak of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not evidence itself. However, they are used to infer the facts to be proven. This is often based on purely circumstantial evidence. In such cases, it can be enough to be the focus of criminal prosecutors solely on the basis of a dubious suspicion.

This has a particularly drastic effect when the public prosecutor's office applies for pre-trial detention. Although this must be decided by the so-called compulsory measures court, the above-mentioned principle of "in case of doubt for the accused" does not apply to detention proceedings. This only applies in the main court proceedings, after the indictment has been issued. And months, if not years, can pass before then. In addition, the compulsory measures courts tend to set the threshold of suspicion lower for capital offenses. In other words, for offenses with the most severe threat of punishment and the longest investigation period based on experience. The reason given for detention is usually the risk that the accused, if left at liberty, could influence witnesses or even thwart evidence (so-called risk of collusion or concealment). At least in this phase, the judiciary therefore values the undisturbed clarification of the facts of the case more highly than the presumption of innocence, which means that innocent people are also held in pre-trial detention for longer periods of time.

However, disaster rarely comes alone: with each day of detention, facts are created that are increasingly difficult to overturn. An accused person is therefore well advised to contact a lawyer before the first police questioning. Since the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, this right of the lawyer of the first hours is a guaranteed right of defense.

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

Contact person is:

RA Patrick Imbach