Facts
- The DFC examined a case where a criminal order designated the accused as "Unknown x, alias B., female, Caucasian, brown hair, dark eyes, identification profile number: PCN y, with no known address", due to the accused's refusal to disclose their identity. - The cantonal court had declared the opposition to this criminal order inadmissible, on the grounds that the power of attorney produced did not bear the signature of the accused. - The appellants contested the validity of this criminal order and the declaration of inadmissibility of the opposition.Considerations
- The DFC considered that Art. 353(1)(b) CrimPC, which requires the indication of the identity of the accused in the criminal order, does not set stricter requirements than Art. 81(2)(c) CrimPC regarding the sufficient designation of the parties. - When the personal data of the accused remain wholly or partly unknown, the authority must remedy these deficiencies by measures allowing for clear identification and designation, to prevent any risk of confusion. A generic designation accompanied by descriptive data may be sufficient if it can be certain that it concerns the person in question. -…