Facts
On December 26, 1989, spouses D. and X. were experiencing serious marital difficulties. [A.], [B.], and [C.], respectively the wife's mother, father, and brother, filed a criminal complaint against X., the husband, for threats. In the course of the criminal proceedings, X. contested the facts, claiming that his in-laws were ganging up on him and not telling the truth. His denials were rejected by the Investigating Judge III of the Sierre district, who, by judgment of March 20, 1991, convicted him of threats.
On June 19, 1991, [A.], [B.], and [C.] filed a criminal complaint against attorney [Y.] for defamation and insults and against X. for instigating these offenses and calumny. They complained about the terms used by the attorney in the course of the criminal proceedings for threats against X.
Considerations
The SCC examined whether the statements made by the accused and his attorney in the course of the criminal proceedings for threats were likely to damage the plaintiffs' honor. The Court considered that the disputed statements were related to the criminal defense and that, in this context, they were not likely to harm honor.
The Court also examined whether attorney [Y.] had acted in good faith and whether he had limited himself to what was necessary and relevant for the defense. The Court found that the attorney had met these conditions and that the disputed statements were necessary and relevant for the defense.
With regard to…