Facts
The Federal Supreme Court joined five appeals against judgments of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 18 December 2024, relating to events on 9 and 10 April 2019. The appellants are appellant 1 (A.A.), appellant 2 (B.A.) and the Office of the Attorney General of the Canton of Zurich as appellant 3. The respondents are E. (born 2005), C.A., [D.] and [B.A.] .
The facts concern allegations of sexual exploitation, rape, sexual coercion and exploitation of a predicament in connection with a violent and exploitative relationship between appellant 1 and E. between December 2017 and December 2019. The allegations include, in particular, sexual acts with minors, extortion and pornography. Appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 5 and 6 were convicted of various offences, while respondent 2 is considered a victim.
On 9 April 2019, appellant 1 (still a minor), E. (13½ years old) and C.A. (26 years old) met in a garden shed. Sexual acts took place between E. and appellant 1 and later with C.A. On 10 April 2019, appellant 1, E., B.A., [D.] and C.A. met again in the garden shed. Further sexual acts occurred, involving several men. Respondent 2 stated that she had not resisted out of fear of violence.
The District Court of Winterthur sentenced appellants 1, 2, C.A. and [D.] to custodial sentences ranging from 3 years and 10 months to 8 years and 9 months. The Zurich Higher Court partially confirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences and acquitted on some charges. The appeals against these judgments were brought before the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
1. Assessment of evidence and anticipated assessment of evidence:
Appellant 1 argued that the lower court had wrongly rejected requests for evidence, in particular the questioning of witnesses [G.] and [H.A.] and the examination of respondent 2. The Federal Supreme Court examined these complaints under the aspect of arbitrariness. It found that the lower court had reasonably rejected the requests for evidence, as no new findings were to be expected from the evidence already gathered. The lower court had also explained that respondent 2’s statements were coherent and free of contradictions and showed no peculiarities in her testimony that would have required a psychological assessment. A renewed examination of respondent 2 was also rejected, as the existing audiovisual recordings provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of evidence.
2. Intent and intent to coerce:
Appellant 3 complained that the lower court had acted arbitrarily in assessing the intent to coerce of appellant 2 and respondents 5 and 6. The Federal Supreme Court stated that for a finding of arbitrariness, it is not sufficient that a different assessment might also have been possible. The lower court had reasonably explained that appellants 2, 5 and 6 had no knowledge of the violent and exploitative relationship between appellant 1 and respondent 2. Moreover, respondent 2 had not shown any perceptible acts of resistance to the men but had cooperated. Therefore, no intent to coerce could be inferred. Appellant 3 was unable to present any evidence that would have rendered this assessment arbitrary.
3. Sentencing and partial retrospective concurrence:
Appellant 1 argued that the lower court had violated the rules on partial retrospective concurrence in sentencing and had insufficiently taken exculpatory circumstances into account. The Federal Supreme Court found that the lower court had proceeded correctly. It had first assessed the acts prior to appellant 1’s earlier conviction and formed an overall sentence. It then assessed the acts after the earlier conviction separately and…