Facts
The appellant [X.] was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich in 2000 to a custodial sentence of 5 years in a penitentiary for multiple sexual acts with children, indecent assault, and pornography. Additionally, an outpatient treatment was ordered. However, the execution of the sentence was not suspended. In 2003, [X.] filed a request for reopening of the proceedings, based on a private expert opinion that provided a divergent psychiatric diagnosis and assessment of his treatability. However, the Revision Chamber of the High Court dismissed the request. [X.] then filed a nullity appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the lower court had rightly rejected the request. While the private expert opinion partially established divergent facts, these had already been considered in the original court expert opinion. A mere divergent assessment of the same facts is not sufficient grounds for reopening the proceedings. Even if one were to assume the existence of new facts, these would not be legally relevant for a revision. The Federal Supreme Court…