Facts
[X.] was convicted by the District Office of Baden of trespass and sentenced to a conditional fine and penalty. He appealed the judgment of the High Court of the Canton of Aargau. [X.] argued that the criminal complaint filed by the injured party [B. AG] was invalid, as it had expressed its lack of interest in the prosecution of two journalists. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It decided that the declaration of lack of interest by [B. AG] did not constitute a withdrawal of the criminal complaint, as it had expressly stated that the criminal complaint against unknown persons would remain in place. Furthermore, the prosecution of the journalists was discontinued because they had acted in the performance of their professional duties, not due to an invalid criminal complaint. The Federal Supreme Court also found that the sentencing by the lower court was lawful and that there were no grounds for refraining from punishment under Art. 52 SCC.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the principle of the indivisibility of the criminal complaint under Art. 32 SCC means that in the case of an offense requiring a complaint, such as trespass, all parties involved must be prosecuted. A withdrawal of the criminal complaint against one accused person therefore applies to all parties involved. However, the lower court correctly did not consider the declaration of lack of interest by [B. AG] regarding the journalists as a withdrawal of the criminal complaint, as the complainant had expressly stated that the criminal complaint against unknown persons would remain in place. Irrespective of the principle of indivisibility, the complainant can also request the discontinuation of the proceedings against an accused person if it no longer considers the prerequisites for prosecution against that person to be met. This was…