Facts

Parties and procedural history:

The appellant [A.A.] was convicted by the District Court of Thal-Gäu by judgment of 24 August 2020 of multiple sexual coercion (2010 to 18 May 2014 and January 2012), multiple, partly attempted rape (2010 to 18 May 2014 and June 2011), threats (16/17 May 2014) and multiple, partly attempted coercion (1 January to 27 May 2014) to a custodial sentence of four years and six months. In addition, a contact ban under Art. 67b SCC was imposed on him for five years and compensation of 15,000 Swiss francs was awarded to the private complainant [B.A.] . The appellant appealed against this judgment.

The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn confirmed the conviction by judgment of 22 December 2022, but lifted the contact ban as Art. 67b SCC had not yet been in force at the time of the offence. The compensation payment and the procedural costs remained in place.

Charges by the Solothurn Public Prosecutor’s Office:

  • Sexual coercion and rape: The appellant is alleged to have coerced his then wife [B.A.] into sexual intercourse and oral and other sexual acts on a weekly basis from 2010 to 18 May 2014 by exerting psychological pressure (insults, threats, beatings).
  • Specific incidents:
    • Late June 2011: Rape after physical resistance by the private complainant.
    • Attempted rape in late June 2011.
    • January 2012: Coercion into oral sex during a 1.5-month period in which the private complainant was bedridden; the appellant struck the private complainant twice in the face until their joint son began to cry.
    • 22 September 2012: Multiple pulling of hair and striking the head against the floor, resulting in a concussion and injury to the cervical spine.
  • Further charges: Multiple threats and coercion up to 19 May 2014 and between 1 January and 27 May 2014.

Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court: The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 14 August 2025 seeking the annulment of the judgment and a full acquittal. In the alternative, he requested the obtaining of a credibility assessment and the referral of the matter back to the Higher Court. He also filed applications for free legal aid and representation.

Considerations

Admissibility of the appeal:

The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal. The appeal was admissible under Art. 78 et seq. FSCA as it concerned a final decision of a last cantonal instance (Art. 90 FSCA) and the appellant was entitled to file an appeal (Art. 81(1)(a) and (b) FSCA). The appeal period was complied with (Art. 100(1) FSCA).

Limited review competence of the Federal Supreme Court:

The Federal Supreme Court is not an appellate instance and reviews the factual findings and assessment of evidence of the lower court only to a limited extent. It may correct or supplement the facts only if they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of law and the deficiency could have been decisive for the outcome of the proceedings (Art. 97(1), Art. 105(1) and (2) FSCA). A finding of fact is deemed obviously incorrect if it is manifestly untenable and thus arbitrary (Art. 95 FSCA, Art. 9 Cst.). This is the case if the court obviously misjudged the meaning and significance of a piece of evidence, disregarded a decisive piece of evidence or drew untenable conclusions. Arbitrariness does not exist if another solution would have been justifiable or preferable. Moreover, the decision must be arbitrary not only in its reasoning but also in its outcome.

Objections raised by the appellant:

The appellant argued that the lower court had wrongly failed to obtain a credibility assessment of the private complainant’s statements and had acted methodically incorrectly. He also alleged that the factual findings were arbitrary. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed these objections as the appellant had not sufficiently met the qualified requirements for substantiation (Art. 42(1) and (2), Art. 106(2) FSCA). A detailed explanation of how the lower court’s assessment of evidence was arbitrary or…