Facts
The appellant, [X.] , was charged by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Valais with defamation. The indictment was based on a newspaper article in which [X.] accused [A.A.] and [B.A.] of having received murder threats and manipulated protocols. The District Court of Brig found [X.] guilty in absentia and sentenced her to a conditional fine. The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais overturned the judgment and discontinued the criminal proceedings due to statute of limitations. It imposed the costs of the proceedings on [X.] and ordered her to pay compensation to [A.A.] and [B.A.] .
[X.] appealed, requesting that the costs imposition and compensation be lifted. She argued that the lower court had violated the presumption of innocence by considering her guilty despite the discontinuation of the proceedings.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the lower court had violated the presumption of innocence. It found that the lower court had based the costs imposition on Art. 426 para. 2 CrimPC and Art. 28 CC. The Federal Court found that the lower court had not violated the presumption of innocence by establishing the facts, which could also be subsumed under the offense of Art. 173 no. 1 SCC.
The Federal Court further examined whether the requirements of Art. 28 CC were met. It found that the appellant's statements to the journalist were personally injurious and unlawful. The lower court had conducted a balancing of interests and found that the appellant had no legitimate…