Facts
The facts: - [X.] was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Bern of child pornography to a suspended fine and a supplementary fine. - He was accused of having knowingly downloaded and stored 70 child pornographic films from June 22, 2011 to July 3, 2012, and having expected to download a further 1,870 child pornographic materials. - [X.] requested the annulment of the High Court's judgment and his acquittal. He claimed that the record of his police interrogation on July 3, 2012 was not admissible due to violations of recording regulations and due to threats by the police.Considerations
Legal considerations: 1. On the admissibility of the record of interrogation: - The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the violation of the recording regulations under Art. 77 lit. b CCP leads to the inadmissibility of the record. - Art. 77 lit. b CCP requires that procedural records contain the names of the participating public officials. Since the police officer [A.] , who participated in the interrogation and asked questions, is not mentioned in the present record, there is a violation of this provision. - The Federal Supreme Court considers that Art. 77 lit. b CCP is an administrative provision and not a validity provision. Therefore, the violation of this provision does not lead to the inadmissibility of the record under Art. 141 para. 2 CCP. - The allegation that the appellant was put under pressure by threats from the police also proves to be unfounded. The police were allowed to point out to the appellant possible coercive measures such as a search or seizure, without this being considered an inadmissible threat within the meaning of Art. 140…