Facts
The complainant 2, an organization founded as an association under Swiss law, and the complainant 1, its president, requested the revocation of the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Bern and the instruction to the public prosecutor's office to initiate an investigation against the respondents for unlawful appropriation, embezzlement, theft, and trespassing. The complainant 2 was a tenant of premises in the Italian embassy in Bern until 2012 and had stored various items there. After the Italian embassy terminated the lease, the items were moved to a storage facility of [D. GmbH] in Bern. In April 2014, the storage facility was cleared by the respondent 3, who had been commissioned by [C.] in Rome.
The public prosecutor's office of Bern-Mittelland decided on October 14, 2015, not to initiate criminal proceedings. The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants with its decision of April 28, 2016, insofar as it was entertained.
Considerations
The Federal Court did not entertain the complaint of the complainant 1, as he failed to demonstrate how the decision of the lower court not to entertain the complaint could violate the law. The complaint of the complainant 2 was entertained, as she had participated as a victim within the meaning of Art. 104 para. 1 lit. b in conjunction with Art. 115 and 118 CrimPC and claimed that she was the owner of the items stored with [D. GmbH] and had been harmed in her property rights by the clearance of the storage facility.
The complainant 2 alleged a violation of her right to be heard and her right to participate in the…