Facts
On 15 December 1988, Member of the National Council [L.] submitted an interpellation to the Federal Council in the National Council, mentioning an activity of the Ticino lawyer G. Subsequently, G. filed a criminal complaint against B. and unknown persons for defamation, breach of official secrecy, and misleading the administration of justice. The Ticino authorities requested the Zurich authorities to interview Member of the National Council [L.] as a witness, as he may have received the information for his interpellation from B.
During his interview in Zurich, Member of the National Council [L.] refused to provide information about his sources of information, invoking his immunity as a parliamentarian. The Ticino public prosecutor's office then approached the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, which instructed the Zurich authorities to clarify whether [L.] could invoke official secrecy.
In a further interview in Zurich, [L.] invoked his official secrecy as a parliamentarian and continued to refuse to provide information. The Zurich authorities then decided to refuse legal assistance until [L.] was released from official secrecy. The Ticino public prosecutor's office filed a complaint against this decision with the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court states that according to Article 352 of the Swiss Criminal Code, the cantons are obliged to provide comprehensive legal assistance. In the event of disputes over the manner of legal assistance, the Criminal Chamber can be called upon.
In the present case, the question of whether Member of the National Council [L.] can invoke a right to refuse to testify…