Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 05.11.2025, 6B_570/2025
Facts
Following a night of drinking, A. forced B. to engage in several non-consensual sexual acts at his home, despite her explicit verbal refusals. A second act occurred a few hours later, while the perpetrator believed the victim was asleep. After being acquitted in the first instance, A. was found guilty of rape and attempted sexual acts on a person incapable of resistance by the Vaud Criminal Court of Appeal. He was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment. A. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, challenging his conviction on the grounds of arbitrary establishment of facts and violation of the presumption of innocence. Alternatively, he requested a partial suspended sentence.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that it only intervenes in the establishment of facts and the assessment of evidence if they are manifestly arbitrary (Art. 9 of the Constitution). In cases of "word against word," the trial judge has broad discretion to evaluate the credibility of the parties. A victim's behavior after a sexual assault, even if it appears counter-intuitive (for example, remaining at the perpetrator's home), does not necessarily call into question the veracity of their statements, as it may be explained by a state of shock or a post-traumatic dissociative state. Regarding partial suspension (Art. 43 of the Criminal Code), applicable to prison sentences of one to three years, its granting depends, as with full suspension (Art. 42 of the Criminal Code), on a non-negative prognosis regarding the perpetrator's future behavior. This prognosis must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the perpetrator's situation at the time of judgment (prior record, personal and professional situation, awareness of wrongdoing, etc.). The judge cannot rely exclusively on certain criteria while ignoring other relevant ones. Prior offenses unrelated to the crime being judged cannot justify a negative prognosis.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the claim of arbitrariness regarding the conviction. The cantonal court was able, without arbitrariness, to judge the victim's statements as consistent and credible, and those of the accused as contradictory and unreliable. The victim's behavior after the events (remaining in the apartment, taking a shower) was validly explained by a state of shock and paralysis, which is consistent with case law on post-traumatic reactions. The conviction for rape is therefore upheld. However, the Federal Supreme Court grants the appeal on the issue of the partial suspended sentence. It finds that the cantonal court abused its discretion by basing its negative prognosis on only two elements: a previous conviction for traffic offenses (unrelated to the current facts) and the accused's lack of awareness of wrongdoing. In doing so, it failed to take into account relevant positive factors, such as the appellant's stable personal and professional situation (engaged, father with shared custody, recent degree), and did not evaluate the deterrent effect that serving part of the sentence might have on an individual who has never been incarcerated.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court partially grants the appeal. It upholds A.'s conviction. However, it annuls the contested judgment regarding the sentence and remands the case to the cantonal court to rule again on the granting of a partial suspended sentence, by conducting a complete assessment of all relevant factors.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Justine Arnal and Camille Perrier Depeursinge
