Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Rosa Renftle
  • Respondent: 1. Public Prosecutor's Office Rheinfelden-Laufenburg, 2. [B.] , represented by attorney Dominique Jud

Facts:

In the course of a criminal investigation against [B.] on suspicion of rape, sexual coercion, and deprivation of liberty to the detriment of [A.] , the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau set the date for the appeal hearing for June 17, 2024, with a decision dated March 20, 2024. At the same time, it ordered that the summons decision apply to the accused [B.] , his official defense counsel, the public prosecutor, [A.] for the duration of her examination, the witnesses, and the interpreter. In addition, the Higher Court ordered that [A.] be questioned as a person providing information.

[A.] filed an appeal in criminal matters to the Federal Supreme Court on April 22, 2024. She requested that, upon annulment of points 1, 2, and 3.2 of the summons decision of March 20, 2024, the lower court be obliged to set a new date for the appeal hearing and refrain from summoning her. Alternatively, she requested that the case be remitted to the lower court and that a decision on the summons be made again after granting access to the files and the opportunity to comment. In procedural terms, she requested the grant of legal aid without charge and the granting of suspensive effect.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the other conditions for entering into the matter ex officio (Art. 29 para. 1 FSCA) and with free cognition. The appeal in criminal matters is generally admissible, as it concerns a final cantonal decision in a criminal matter (Art. 78 para. 1 and Art. 80 para. 1 and 2 FSCA).

The appellant sees the irreparable harm in being obliged, by the contested summons decision, to participate in the appeal hearing, although she has already been examined twice in the preliminary proceedings. This leads to a retraumatization or worsening of her existing trauma and violates Art. 152 CrimPC and Art. 8 ECHR.

The Federal Supreme Court notes that the lower court has not yet ruled on any protective measures concerning the intended questioning of the appellant in the contested decision. Therefore, it is…