Facts
Parties: Appellant [A.A.] , represented by attorney Konrad Jeker, against the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft, First Public Prosecutor, [C.B.] , acting through [D.B.] , and [D.B.] , represented by attorney Elisabeth Vogel.
Subject: Kidnapping and removal of minors.
Previous instance: Judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, Criminal Division, of July 8, 2024 (460 23 184).
Facts: [A.A.] is accused of taking her seven-year-old nephew [C.B.] to Montenegro without the consent of his mother [D.B.] . [B.A.] , who is separated from his wife [A.A.] , picked up [C.B.] under the pretense of a movie visit and handed him over to [A.A.] , who traveled to Montenegro with him. [D.B.] later traveled to Montenegro to pick up her son. The Criminal Court of Basel-Landschaft convicted [A.A.] of kidnapping (Art. 183 para. 1 and 2 SCC) and removal of minors (Art. 220 SCC) to a conditional fine. The Cantonal Court confirmed the judgment.
Considerations
The appellant appeals against the previous instance's convictions for kidnapping and removal of minors. She argues that the examination of the respondent 3 was inadmissible because she was incorrectly instructed. The previous instance considered that the incorrect instruction had no real impact, as the respondent 3 wanted to make statements anyway. The legal opinion of the previous instance is not to be criticized, as a missing instruction only becomes relevant if the private plaintiff refuses to testify.
The appellant further complains that the previous instance incorrectly applied Art. 183 para. 1 and 2 and Art. 220 SCC. The previous instance assumes that the appellant, despite having a travel authorization, would have needed further consent from the respondent 3. The previous instance sees a genuine concurrence between…