Facts
The Office of the Attorney General of the Canton of Thurgau filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau, which ordered the inadmissibility of certain statements made by the respondent (the accused) regarding the conduct of her co-accused husband. The respondent had been questioned by the public prosecutor's office as an accused person, without having been previously informed of her specific right to refuse to testify regarding her husband. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Office of the Attorney General and confirmed the inadmissibility of these statements.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that, in addition to their general right to refuse to testify (privilege against self-incrimination), accused persons also have a specific right to refuse to testify regarding the conduct of co-accused close relatives, particularly their spouse. The criminal authorities must inform the accused person of both rights to refuse to testify before the interrogation. A violation of this duty to inform leads to the inadmissibility of the relevant statements.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Office of the Attorney General, according to which the respondent had already been sufficiently informed during her police questioning and that a renewed instruction by the public prosecutor's office was not necessary. It…