Facts
The appellant [X.] was convicted of murder of [A.] by the District Court of Zofingen and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. The High Court of the Canton of Aargau increased the sentence to 15 years' imprisonment. [X.] filed a criminal appeal against this judgment. The main evidence for the charge of murder are the statements of [B.] , who lives in London. [B.] had already been convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Aargau on 17 August 2000 of robbery, deprivation of liberty and kidnapping in connection with the incident of 27 May 1994. Therefore, he was questioned as an informant and not as a witness in the proceedings against [X.] . [X.] argues that [B.] was not informed of the possible criminal consequences of a false accusation, misleading the administration of justice and complicity, as required by Art. 181 para. 2 CrimPC. However, the Federal Supreme Court rejects this objection. Even if Art. 181 para. 2 CrimPC were to be classified as a validity provision, there would be no absolute prohibition on the use of evidence. Since it is a serious criminal offence, [B.] 's statements are admissible under Art. 141 para. 2 CrimPC.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court further states that [B.] was questioned as an informant and not as a witness, as he had already been convicted with legal force. A defendant generally retains their procedural role even after the final conclusion of the proceedings and can therefore only be questioned as an informant in a subsequent proceeding against…