Federal Supreme Court, 07.29.2026, 7B_999/2024
Facts
A.________ owned several dogs and had a conflictual relationship with their neighbors, D.________ and E.________, primarily due to barking. On May 2, 2023, two of the dogs were found dead in their home. Autopsies revealed traumatic injuries, with no evidence of poisoning. There were no signs of forced entry, and no physical evidence was found to identify the perpetrator. (consid. 2.4)
A., B., and C.________ SA filed a complaint for, among other things, animal cruelty, property damage, and trespassing. The Public Prosecutor's Office refused to initiate proceedings against D.________ and E.________, rejected several requests for evidence, and suspended the proceedings opened against persons unknown. The Cantonal Court upheld these decisions. (consid. 2)
Legal Analysis
Under the principle of *in dubio pro duriore*, a refusal to initiate proceedings is only permissible when the facts are clearly not punishable or when the conditions for criminal prosecution are clearly not met. However, an investigation requires the existence of sufficient and concrete suspicions. (consid. 2.1 and 2.4)
Authorities may also decline to administer evidence when, based on an anticipatory assessment of the evidence, they conclude that it would not alter their findings. Investigative measures must also respect the principle of proportionality. (consid. 2.3 and 2.5.2)
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court found that the suspicions directed at D.________ and E.________ were based primarily on the neighborhood conflict, their geographical proximity, and their irritation regarding the barking. These elements did not constitute sufficiently concrete evidence of their involvement in the incident. (consid. 2.4 and 2.9)
The additional measures requested—seizure of phones, further DNA analysis, new hearings, or questioning other neighbors—could be refused, as there was no indication that they would have yielded decisive evidence. The anticipatory assessment of evidence conducted by the cantonal authorities was therefore not arbitrary. (consid. 2.5 to 2.10)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the cantonal authorities were entitled to refuse to open an investigation against D.________ and E.________ and to deny the requested evidentiary measures. The appeal is therefore dismissed to the extent that it is admissible, and the court costs of 3,000 francs are charged jointly and severally to the appellants. (consid. 3)