Facts
The case concerns an individual, M., convicted of an offense under the Narcotics Act. The conviction was based on the statements of a witness, C., who later withdrew their statements. The accused requested a revision of the trial due to new evidence, including the withdrawal of C.'s statements, C.'s alleged mental illness at the time of their initial statements, and the impossibility for the accused to have been present at a specific location at the time of the offense.
The cantonal court rejected the request for revision, considering that the new evidence was not sufficiently solid to justify a revision. The accused then appealed to the SCC, arguing that the cantonal court had violated Article 397 of the Swiss Criminal Code by refusing the revision.
Considerations
The SCC examined the conditions for revising a criminal judgment due to new evidence. It recalled that revision is possible if new evidence or new means of evidence are presented, which are likely to significantly alter the facts of the case.
The Court considered that the new evidence regarding the withdrawal of C.'s statements was new evidence, as it had not been presented during the initial trial. However, the Court also considered that the cantonal court had made an error in refusing to re-examine the request for revision, as the new evidence had to be examined as a whole, and not in isolation.
The Court also examined the issue of C.'s mental illness at the time of their initial statements, and considered that this evidence was also new evidence that had to be taken into account. The Court concluded that the cantonal…