Facts
The complainant [A.] was accused of sexual acts with a child. In the investigation proceedings, the victim, [B.] , was questioned by a police officer of the cantonal police on June 10, 1999. The complainant requested that his lawyer be appointed as official defense counsel, which was rejected. In the further course of the proceedings, the complainant was only given the opportunity to submit written supplementary questions to the victim, which he considered insufficient.
The High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the complainant's appeal and convicted him of sexual acts with a child. The complainant then filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Court, alleging a violation of Art. 29 para. 2 Cst. and Art. 6 para. 3 lit. d ECHR.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complaint and came to the conclusion that the High Court had failed to recognize the fundamentally absolute nature of the right to question the incriminating witness. The court found that the cantonal authorities themselves were responsible for the fact that the accused had not been able to exercise his rights (in a timely manner).
The Federal Court emphasized that the right to question the incriminating witness is a special aspect of the right to a fair trial and that the guarantee of Art. 6 para. 3 lit. d ECHR is intended to exclude the possibility that a criminal judgment is based on witness statements without the accused having been given at least one adequate and sufficient opportunity to challenge the testimony and question the witness.
The court found that the cantonal authorities had not enabled the complainant to…