Federal Supreme Court, 03.20.2026, 7B_1368/2025
Facts
On March 13, 2024, A.________ reported being the victim of a rape committed by B.. On March 15, 2024, during her police interview as a person called to provide information, A. stated repeatedly and explicitly that she did not wish to file a criminal complaint. She justified her decision by citing the trauma associated with previous unsuccessful proceedings and her desire not to relive the events. She confirmed having received a memorandum on victim assistance (VARA) at the hospital and again from the police, but indicated that she did not need it. On April 23, 2024, through her lawyer (who is also her legal guardian), A.________ informed the Public Prosecutor's Office that she ultimately wished to file a criminal and civil complaint. The Public Prosecutor's Office granted her this status. Upon an appeal by the accused, the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court overturned this decision, ruling that A.________'s initial waiver was clear, considered, and final, thereby stripping her of her status as a private claimant. A.________ appealed this judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for acquiring the status of a private claimant (Art. 118 CrimPC) and the requirements regarding the waiver of this status or the filing of a complaint (Art. 120 CrimPC and Art. 30 para. 5 SCC). Such a waiver must be express, clear, unequivocal, and final. To be valid, this declaration of intent must be informed, meaning the victim must be fully aware of its legal consequences, particularly its irrevocable nature. The Court emphasizes the duty of detailed information incumbent upon criminal prosecution authorities, particularly the police, during a victim's first interview (Art. 305 CrimPC and the Victim Assistance Act, VARA). The victim must be fully informed of their rights, including the possibility of receiving free legal assistance, the specific rights associated with the status of a private claimant (notably for asserting civil claims), and, above all, the consequences of waiving the right to file a complaint. The fulfillment of this duty to inform must be recorded in the minutes. A finding of fact is arbitrary (Art. 9 Cst.) if it is manifestly unsustainable.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court has found that the police failed in their duty to inform the appellant. Although the official report mentions that a victim assistance (LAVI) information sheet was provided, the content of this document is unknown as it was not included in the case file. It is therefore impossible to verify whether the appellant was informed in sufficient detail about essential points: the availability of free legal aid, the option to file a criminal complaint, and, crucially, the final and irrevocable nature of waiving the right to file such a complaint. The hearing form signed by the appellant did not contain this information either. Under these circumstances, even if the appellant's statements appeared clear and her judgment was no longer impaired, her waiver cannot be considered a valid expression of intent. In the absence of proof that she was informed of the irrevocable consequences of her decision, it cannot be assumed that she would have maintained her waiver had she understood its full scope. The fact that she had previously waived her right to file a complaint does not guarantee that she was aware of the finality of this action. The cantonal court therefore acted arbitrarily in its assessment of the facts and violated federal law by concluding that the waiver was valid.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court upholds A.________'s appeal. It sets aside the judgment of the Criminal Appeals Chamber and remands the case. The cantonal authority must determine the exact content of the information sheet provided to the appellant to establish what information was actually communicated to her, before issuing a new ruling on her status as a plaintiff.