Is The Right to Remain Silent Under Threat in Geneva’s Courts?

The right to remain silent is a fundamental safeguard in criminal justice systems worldwide, shielding individuals from self-incrimination and undue coercion. In Switzerland, this right is enshrined in Article 113 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), which explicitly states that an accused person "cannot be compelled to testify against themselves." It is also a cornerstone of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guaranteeing "a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal."

Yet, despite these legal protections, serious allegations have emerged from Geneva regarding alleged #SLAPP proceedings against a whistleblower (P/17792/2021), in which a judge allegedly attempted to erode this fundamental right by exerting undue pressure on the accused, mischaracterizing their silence, and violating basic principles of due process. In light of recent evidence that court orders have not been enforced since 2019, the whistleblower questions whether these proceedings ar ein violation of court orders.

Judicial Pressure and Procedural Irregularities

Despite invoking her right to silence in a clear and lawful manner, the whistleblower was allegedly subjected to a series of allegedly coercive tactics designed to undermine her legal protections. At the outset of the hearing, she read a statement explaining why she was invoking her right to remain silent, citing unresolved procedural irregularities, outstanding judicial bias complaints, and the need for a fair legal process.

Following this, she responded to each question with a scripted statement reiterating her right to silence and the legal basis for it. Alarmingly, these responses were not accurately reflected in the official hearing notes, raising concerns about the integrity of the court record.

Alleged Violations of the Right to Silence

?? Framing Silence as Non-Cooperation: The official court notes falsely suggested that the whistleblower had refused to cooperate, rather than acknowledging her lawful and deliberate exercise of Article 113 CPP.

?? Repeated Attempts to Extract Responses: Despite her clear and unequivocal invocation of the right to silence, the presiding judge allegedly continued pressuring her to respond, even going so far as to suggest switching to English—not as a procedural necessity but as a means to push for engagement. She allegedly stated, "It is regrettable that you do not wish to develop the various issues raised above orally."

?? Demeaning Behavior and Intimidation?: The judge laughed when the whistleblower asserted her right to remain silent—an act that could be perceived as mockery, coercion, and a blatant display of judicial bias. According to reports, the judge’s response was not just dismissive but seemed to attempt to trivialize a serious legal right.

?? Undue Pressure from the Interpreter: The role of the court interpreter (who has been the 'appointed' interpreter in the whistleblower's court appearances since 2017 in spite of concerns raised), should have been strictly limited to translation, but he allegedly joined in efforts to pressure the accused into signing the notes.

?? Questionable Court Records: The official hearing notes, rather than accurately reflecting the whistleblower's scripted response to each question, apparently depicted her lawful silence as non-engagement. The notes state, "L'appelante maintient son droit au silence et refuse de répondre," implying an outright refusal rather than an assertion of a legal right. This omission raises serious concerns about judicial impartiality and the manipulation of legal records.

While the whistleblower, without any legal representation, ultimately upheld her right to remain silent and didn't sign the notes (for not the first time), the alleged judicial efforts to subvert this right seem to justify concerns about judicial fairness and the rule of law in Geneva’s courts. These developments should alarm anyone who values due process, impartial justice, and the fundamental rights enshrined in both Swiss and international law.

The following questions come to mind!

?? Violation of the right against self-incrimination (Article 113 CPP, Article 6(1) ECHR)? ?? Judicial coercion and abuse of authority (Article 56 CPP – Recusal for Bias)? ?? Manipulation of court records (Article 317 Swiss Penal Code – Falsification of Documents?) ?? Denial of a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR, Article 29 Swiss Constitution)? ?? Failure to requisition exculpatory evidence (Article 389 CPP)? ?? Arbitrary judicial decision-making (Article 9 Swiss Constitution)? ?? Violation of procedural neutrality (Article 139 CPP – Duty to Establish the Truth)? ?? Failure to grant legal representation (Article 130, 132 CPP, Article 6(3)(c) ECHR)?

Given the severity of these allegations, there is a strong case for: ?? Judicial recusal & investigation into procedural irregularities ?? A review of court records for falsification or omissions ?? Legal remedies through Swiss and European courts

These violations raise urgent concerns about judicial independence, transparency, and human rights compliance within Geneva’s legal system.

#WhistleblowerRights #RightToSilence #FairTrial #GenevaCourts #JudicialCoercion #LegalMisconduct #HumanRights #ECHR #DueProcess #LegalAbuse #RuleOfLaw #JusticeDenied #SwissLaw