Facts
The appellant B.S. was injured in the abdomen by a shot fired by [T.] in a Serbian club in February 1995. In the subsequent criminal proceedings against [T.], B.S. and [T.] concluded a court-approved settlement in which [T.] undertook to pay compensation, satisfaction, and reimbursement of party costs. The Justice, Municipal and Church Directorate of the Canton of Bern awarded B.S. compensation under the Victim Assistance Act (OHG), but refused to grant satisfaction pursuant to Art. 12 para. 2 OHG. The Administrative Court dismissed B.S.'s appeal against this decision.
B.S. then filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal and set aside the contested decision. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the Administrative Court had given too much weight to the appellant's contributory negligence and thereby violated Art. 12 para. 2 OHG.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that in principle there is no binding effect of the victim assistance authorities on an agreement between the perpetrator and the victim regarding a satisfaction payment. The court-approved settlement concluded by B.S. and [T.] is not binding on the victim assistance authorities.
While it is undisputed that B.S. became a victim of a criminal offense within the meaning of Art. 2 para. 1 OHG and is therefore generally entitled to claim the assistance provided for by law, the Administrative Court was right to take into account the appellant's contributory negligence. B.S. had…