Federal Supreme Court, 26.02.2026, 6B_210/2025
Facts
A.A. (the appellant) was the son of the childminder who looked after B.B. (the victim), born in 2011. In 2014, when the victim was between two and four years old, the appellant was accused of subjecting the child to several sexual acts, including oral sex, rubbing his erect penis against the child's buttocks, and attempted anal penetration, while forcing the child to keep it secret.
Following the child's initial spontaneous disclosures to their mother in 2014, and more detailed revelations in 2018, criminal proceedings were initiated. An expert report concluded that the child's statements were credible, finding that their memories were neither induced nor fanciful, despite a risk of contamination deemed "theoretical" due to the time elapsed and questioning by those around the child.
Acquitted at first instance, the appellant was convicted on appeal by the Criminal Appeals Court of the Vaud Cantonal Court and sentenced to an 18-month suspended prison term, as well as the payment of 6,000 CHF in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The appellant has filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, alleging arbitrary assessment of evidence, violation of the presumption of innocence, and a procedural defect, as the appellate court did not re-examine the child.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the legal principles applicable to the case:
- Assessment of evidence and arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.): The Federal Supreme Court only intervenes if the assessment of evidence by the cantonal authority is manifestly unsustainable. A conviction may be based on a body of convergent evidence, even if each piece of evidence taken in isolation might appear insufficient.
- Presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo principle): This principle requires that any doubt must benefit the accused. However, when the assessment of evidence is challenged, its scope does not extend beyond the prohibition of arbitrariness. Purely abstract or theoretical doubts are not sufficient to warrant an acquittal.
- Victim statements and credibility assessment: In cases of "word against word," the victim's testimony may be sufficient to convince the judge. A credibility assessment is a crucial tool for evaluating the reliability of a child's statements. The judge is not bound by the expert report but cannot deviate from it without serious reasons. The delayed nature of the disclosures or the evolution of the account are not necessarily signs of incredibility, as traumatic memory has its own specific characteristics.
- Taking of evidence on appeal (Art. 343 and 389 CrimPC): In principle, the appellate authority must re-examine a witness if their direct impression is decisive for the outcome of the dispute, particularly in "word against word" situations.
- Protection of minors (Art. 154 CrimPC): This principle is tempered by the need to protect minor witnesses, especially in sexual abuse cases. To avoid secondary victimization, a new hearing may be dispensed with if the rights of the defense are guaranteed by other means (e.g., a recorded interview conducted by specialists).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines and rejects all of the appellant's grievances:
- Regarding the assessment of evidence: The cantonal court did not act arbitrarily. It based its decision on a body of solid evidence: the child's spontaneous and early disclosures, the consistency of the core of their account despite its evolution, and above all, the clear conclusions of the credibility assessment. The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that the risk of memory contamination was described as "theoretical" by the experts, who found no actual contamination. Other elements, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress, the lack of motive for false accusations, and the physical possibility of the events, corroborate the victim's version. The appellant's arguments (absence of physical injuries, the child's behavior after the events) do not create any serious and insurmountable doubt.
- Regarding the necessity of a new hearing: The Federal Supreme Court rules that the appellate court was not required to re-examine the child. Protecting the child from secondary victimization took precedence. The rights of the defense were sufficiently guaranteed, as the initial interview had been recorded by a specialist, the appellant had the opportunity to have questions asked, and the appellate judges had access to the video recording and the credibility assessment to form their own conviction. A direct impression was therefore not essential in this specific case.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the conviction handed down by the cantonal court violates neither federal law nor the presumption of innocence. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant's request for legal aid is granted.