Facts
On June 15, 2002, the investigating judge of Central Valais was informed of the suspicion of sexual abuse against the child X., born in May 1998. Neighbor A. was implicated. On June 16, 2002, X. was heard by a psychologist and a police officer. On June 20, 2002, another hearing of the child by the psychologist and the police officer took place at the request of the parents. On July 9, 2002, the psychologist indicated that the overall elements provided by this hearing did not allow to conclude with certainty that the facts reported by the child were accurate.
On July 31, 2002, the representative of the public prosecutor's office observed that the file lacked a credibility assessment meeting the minimum criteria. On September 18, 2002, the investigating judge entrusted the assessment to R. On November 13, 2002, the new investigating judge confirmed the mandate given to the expert.
On December 3, 2002, the investigating judge rejected the request for the recusal of the expert. X. and his parents appealed against this decision, citing in particular the incompatibility of the mandate entrusted to the expert with the new provisions of the VOCA.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal first considered that the contested decision, although of an incidental nature, was subject to an appeal on points of law, as it definitively settled, at the cantonal level, the question of the compatibility of the credibility assessment with the limiting requirements of Art. 10c VOCA regarding the number of hearings of the child victim.
On the merits, the Federal Tribunal ruled that Art. 10c VOCA, which entered into force on October 1, 2002, applied to the present proceedings, even if the initial hearings of the child had taken place before that date. According to the Tribunal, Art. 10c VOCA also applies to hearings carried out as part of a credibility assessment ordered by the judge.
The Federal Tribunal considered that it was possible to reconcile the scientific requirements necessary to carry out the credibility assessment and the…