Facts
The case concerns an accused, X., who was convicted of sexual acts with a minor, A., based on the latter's testimony. The procedure began on September 15, 2000, when the director of the institution where A. resided filed a complaint against X. On September 19, 2000, the court ordered a search of X.'s home and questioned him about the allegations. On October 2, 2000, an expert, Dr. med. B., questioned A. in the presence of his mother and the institution's manager. The accused requested that Dr. med. B. be confronted with his own statements and those of A., but this request was rejected. On November 4, 2004, a second hearing of A. took place, during which he refused to answer additional questions.
The accused appealed the court's decision, arguing that his right to a fair trial had been violated, as he had not had the opportunity to question the witness, A. The cantonal court rejected this argument, considering that the second hearing of A. had been sufficient to guarantee the accused's right to a fair trial.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the accused's right to question the witness had been violated. It considered that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), implies the right for the accused to question the witnesses. This right is absolute when the testimony is decisive for the conviction.
The Federal Court estimated that, in this case, A.'s first testimony was decisive for the accused's conviction and that, consequently, the accused's right to question the witness had been violated. The second hearing of A., which took place…