Procedural Challenges Faced by a Whistleblower in Geneva: A Battle for Justice and Transparency

In Geneva, a whistleblower embroiled in legal proceedings has brought to light a series of troubling procedural challenges. These challenges span multiple courts, involve significant delays, and have raised serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of Geneva's judicial system. The whistleblower, facing charges related to defamation and coercion, has repeatedly voiced concerns about the mishandling of their case by various judicial bodies, particularly under file number P17792/2021. Below is an exploration of the key issues and procedural irregularities encountered by the whistleblower in their quest for justice.

1. Omission and Removal of Key Criminal Complaints

One of the most alarming allegations is the removal of critical criminal complaints from the official case file. The whistleblower filed complaints dating back to 2013, which were acknowledged by the Geneva Cantonal Police in September 2021. However, these complaints were mysteriously absent from the proceedings and the file handled by the Ministère public. The whistleblower suggests that this omission could be tantamount to evidence tampering, which would be a direct violation of Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) articles related to obstruction of justice and falsification of documents. Such an omission raises serious concerns about the selective exclusion of evidence, which could profoundly affect the outcome of the trial.

2. Denial of Access to Evidence

The right to access evidence is fundamental to any fair trial. However, the whistleblower claims that they were denied access to critical evidence necessary for their defense. This lack of access contravenes Swiss law and international conventions such as Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The whistleblower argues that without this evidence, they are unable to mount a full defense, further compromising the fairness of the judicial process.

3. Flawed Appeals Process and Lack of Independent Review

The whistleblower has pointed to serious procedural flaws in the appeals process. When they attempted to appeal a criminal conviction, the same prosecutor who delivered the original conviction rejected the appeal. This lack of independent review violates principles of judicial fairness and impartiality. The whistleblower further highlights contradictory instructions from the Tribunal de Police, where processes were canceled, but hearings maintained without clear explanation of the purpose or format of the hearings. The same Tribunal also endorsed the original conviction, instructing the whistleblower to appeal within the same first-tier system that had already judged them—a move that reflects a critical procedural flaw.

4. Invalid Power of Attorney and Questions of Legitimacy

Another key concern raised is the questionable legality of a lawyer’s involvement in the case. The whistleblower asserts that this lawyer filed criminal complaints without a valid power of attorney, and the organisation's Board publicly denied initiating the litigation. Furthermore, the whistleblower alleges that the lawyer’s actions were intended not to seek justice, but to intimidate them into halting their advocacy efforts. These actions call into question the legitimacy of the case and the fairness of the prosecution’s intentions. The lawyer is also representing the organisation's pension fund, which apparently isn't allowed given the conflicts of interests.

5. Significant Delays in Proceedings

Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case, significant delays have marred the proceedings, further exacerbating the whistleblower's plight. Conclusions that were supposed to be delivered in May 2022 were delayed by nearly a year. Additional delays in decision-making may have resulted in violations of Article 5 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (SCPC), which mandates that criminal proceedings be conducted without unnecessary delay. These delays have further eroded confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the judicial system.

6. Impartiality of the Judiciary

The whistleblower raises serious concerns about the impartiality of key judicial figures involved in their case. For instance, one prosecutor is accused of endorsing their own decision during an appeal process, which fundamentally violates the principle of independent judicial review. The whistleblower also points to biased treatment by a judge who admitted that the whistleblower was not considered as a plaintiff in the proceedings, despite their criminal complaints being integral to the case.

7. Failure to Consider Exculpatory Evidence

The whistleblower contends that requests for admission of exculpatory evidence were denied by the judiciary. This failure to consider evidence favorable to the defense constitutes a serious procedural fault and further undermines the integrity of the proceedings. The lack of scrutiny into critical evidence—including reports related to child protection violations—raises concerns about the depth of the investigation and the impartiality of the judges involved.

8. Denial of Adequate Legal Representation

Throughout these legal battles, the whistleblower asserts that they were denied adequate legal representation. They allege that lawyers acted against their best interests, with the Bar Commission admitting that a lawyer was subject to a separate procedure. The judiciary has even admitted that its forced appointment of state lawyers was unjustified, apparently another violation of the right to a fair trial. The whistleblower also highlights that while the opposition had legal representation, they were left to navigate the complex judicial system in a language which is not their own without proper assistance, further tilting the scales of justice against them.

9. Misrepresentations in Hearing Notes and Inaccurate Record-Keeping

The whistleblower points to multiple inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the official hearing notes, including a false statement that they signed translated notes from a hearing in March 2022. Such discrepancies must be corrected, as they represent a serious deviation from procedural norms and compromise the accuracy of the legal record.

10. Bias and Misconduct by the Tribunal

Finally, the whistleblower alleges a pattern of behaviour by a key judge presiding over the case. They claim that the judge engaged in unprofessional behavior, such as banging fists on the table and denying the whistleblower access to necessary tools during the hearing, while providing favorable treatment to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the judge allegedly supported unfounded medical diagnoses made by a state representative, despite the individual having no medical qualifications. This behavior further highlights concerns about impartiality and professionalism in the handling of the case.

11. Admission of Irrelevant and Intrusive Evidence

The whistleblower raises concerns about the judge allowing the submission of irrelevant evidence, including personal interactions and LinkedIn activity, during the court hearing on September 2, 2024. This so-called evidence, which included photographs and personal details of other individuals, appears to demonstrate obsessive surveillance and could constitute a violation of privacy rights. The whistleblower asserts that such evidence was not only irrelevant to the case but was introduced to intimidate and harass them. The admission of this intrusive material, which also implicates the privacy rights of third parties, raises serious questions about the misuse of personal information in legal proceedings and the protection of individuals' data rights.Conclusion

The procedural challenges faced by this Geneva whistleblower paint a troubling picture of a legal system fraught with delays, conflicts of interest, and potential bias. From the removal of key criminal complaints to the denial of adequate legal representation, these issues strike at the heart of the whistleblower’s right to a fair trial. The whistleblower's claims raise significant questions about the integrity of the judicial process in Geneva and underscore the urgent need for an independent investigation into these procedural failings.

As the case continues to unfold, the whistleblower remains steadfast in their demand for transparency and justice, highlighting the broader implications of such procedural irregularities for all individuals seeking to expose wrongdoing.