Facts
On 20 January 1997, a mother filed a complaint against her husband, X., for suspected sexual violence against their daughter, born in 1992. The child had made statements to her mother after a weekend with her father. The police questioned the child in the presence of her mother, but the answers were not very precise. Additional interviews were conducted by a social worker from the child psychiatry and youth protection service, who used anatomical dolls to facilitate the child's statements. The video recordings of these interviews were viewed by experts, who concluded that the child's statements were credible, but that the interrogation methods used were suggestive.
The cantonal court convicted X. of sexual violence against a minor, based mainly on the child's statements and psychological expert opinions. X. filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court, arguing that the expert opinions were not reliable and that the child's statements had been influenced by suggestive factors.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the requirements of psychological expertise in cases of suspected sexual violence against children. It recalled that psychological expert opinions must be conducted in an objective and impartial manner, and that the methods used must be scientifically based. The Court also emphasized the importance of taking into account suggestive factors that can influence children's statements, such as suggestive questions or expected answers.
The Court found that the psychological expert opinions conducted in this case did not meet current scientific requirements. The experts had not conducted an interview with the child, and their conclusions were based mainly on the video recordings of the interviews. Furthermore, the interrogation methods used were suggestive, and the experts had not taken into account the suggestive factors that could have influenced the child's statements.
The…