Facts
On March 14, 1992, B., E., and G. met and decided to kill R., a young girl who was with them. E. and G. began to strangle her in the car driven by B. Although B. did not directly participate in the strangulation, he continued to drive, thus allowing E. and G. to continue their act. R. died from her injuries. The three men then tried to make the body disappear and simulated a rape to make it look like a sex crime.
The cantonal court convicted B., E., and G. of murder. B. filed an appeal, arguing that he had not intended to kill R. and had not directly participated in the strangulation.
Considerations
The federal court examined the question of whether B. could be considered an accomplice to the offense of murder. It considered that B. had provided active assistance to the offense by continuing to drive the car, thus allowing E. and G. to continue their act. The court also considered that B. had a duty to protect R., as the driver of the car and as the person who had invited R. to get in.
The court also examined the question of the qualification of the offense. It considered that E. and G. had acted with particular ruthlessness, in that they had killed R.…