Facts
The case concerns a defamation lawsuit involving two individuals, A. and B., who filed a complaint against police officers and interpreters for exerting psychological pressure on asylum seekers. The Aarau District Court convicted A. and B. of defamation, and the Cantonal Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. A. and B. then filed a nullity appeal with the SCC.
The facts of the case are as follows: A. and B. filed a complaint with the Council of State of the Canton of Argovia, alleging that police officers and interpreters had exerted psychological pressure on asylum seekers to induce them to withdraw their asylum application. The Aarau District Court convicted A. and B. of defamation, considering that the allegations damaged the honor of the police officers and interpreters.
Considerations
The SCC examined the question of whether A. and B.'s allegations constituted defamation and whether they had provided proof of their good faith. The Court considered that A. and B.'s allegations damaged the honor of the police officers and interpreters, but that the proof of good faith had to be examined in more detail.
The Court recalled that proof of good faith requires the defendant to prove that they had serious reasons to believe that their allegations were true. The Court considered that A. and B.'s allegations were based on statements from asylum seekers and that these statements constituted serious reasons to suspect abuse of power by the police officers and interpreters.
The Court also considered that proof of good faith does not require the…