Facts
The complainant G. was found guilty by the single judge in criminal matters of the Winterthur district on 22 December 1994 of violence and threats against public officials within the meaning of Art. 285 para. 1 SCC. G. appealed against this judgment, which was confirmed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich on 9 October 1997. A cantonal appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation of the Canton of Zurich by decision of 3 May 1999. G. then filed a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the principle of expeditiousness.
The constitutional complaint was directed against both the decision of the Court of Cassation and the judgment of the High Court. The complainant mainly argued that the assessment of the evidence by the cantonal authorities was arbitrary and that the refusal to take requested witness evidence amounted to a denial of the right to be heard.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the constitutional complaint was admissible. It found that the complaint is only admissible against final decisions (Art. 86 and 87 FJA). However, the complainant had also formally challenged the judgment of the High Court, although this is only admissible according to the so-called "Dorénaz practice" if the last cantonal instance was only allowed to review the lower court's decision with limited cognition.
The Federal Court decided that the complainant could not formally request the annulment of the High Court's judgment, but could substantively challenge the assessment of the evidence reviewed and found not to be arbitrary by the Court of Cassation. However, it was not sufficient for the complainant to make general assertions that…