Facts
The complainant A. was found guilty by the District Court Y. of sexual acts with a child and sentenced to ten months in prison. The defendant had requested that the incriminating witness, the minor victim B., be examined by the court in an appropriate manner. The High Court of the Canton of Aargau rejected this request and relied on the video recording of the victim's testimony by the cantonal police on June 10, 1999.
The defendant had the opportunity to submit written supplementary questions to the victim after viewing the video recording of the testimony from June 10, 1999. However, the High Court considered the answers to the proposed questions as not necessary and dismissed the defendant's appeal.
Against the judgment of the High Court, the defendant filed a constitutional complaint and alleged a violation of Art. 29 para. 2 Cst. as well as Art. 6 para. 3 lit. d ECHR.
Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the complaint and found that the High Court had failed to recognize the fundamentally absolute nature of the right to question the incriminating witness. The court had declared the answers to the proposed questions as not necessary by means of anticipated evaluation of evidence, which is not tenable in the case of an incriminating witness when their statements are the sole basis for the judgment.
The Federal Court also found that the cantonal authorities themselves were responsible for the fact that the defendant was unable to exercise his rights (in a timely manner). The…