Systemic Procedural Failures? A Whistleblower's Struggle in the Geneva Judicial System

In recent months, a whistleblower involved in a long-standing legal case against both the Ministère public and the International School of Geneva has brought to light a series of alleged procedural failings that raise critical questions about the functioning of the Geneva judiciary. This whistleblower’s ordeal highlights significant concerns about transparency, judicial independence, and procedural fairness.

The whistleblower first filed complaints related to criminal proceedings under case number P/17792/2021, which have been marked by numerous procedural irregularities. One of the most troubling aspects of the case is the apparent failure of the Ministère public to provide access to crucial documents, such as police reports and witness testimonies. The whistleblower formally submitted yet another request for this data on September 22, 2024, as part of their defense strategy for an imminent appeal. However, rather than receiving a direct response from the Ministère public, the whistleblower discovered that this request had been forwarded to the Cour de Justice—without explanation or acknowledgement from the prosecution.

This transfer raises serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the Ministère public. Judicial bodies are supposed to operate independently of one another, yet this incident suggests the possibility of undue interference or mishandling of procedural documents. The whistleblower's request, which included crucial evidence needed for their defense, seems to have been improperly rerouted between judicial institutions without any formal response.

In addition to this mishandling of their data request, the whistleblower has raised a number of other procedural failings throughout the course of their legal battle:

1. Failure to Provide Exculpatory Evidence: Despite multiple requests, key pieces of evidence, such as police reports and outcomes of criminal complaints, have not been made available to the whistleblower. This denial of access violates their right to a fair defense under Article 29 of the Swiss Constitution, which guarantees transparency and procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.
2. Misuse of Outdated Evidence: The whistleblower has reported that evidence dating back to 2018 and 2019 was improperly used in their conviction. Despite being irrelevant to the current case, these documents were accepted by the court and contributed to the whistleblower's conviction. This misuse of outdated evidence not only violates procedural norms but also raises concerns about the integrity of the judicial process.
3. Allegations of File Tampering: One of the whistleblower's most serious claims involves the removal of critical documents from the case file. Correspondence and police reports, which were initially submitted to the Ministère public, were allegedly missing when the whistleblower reviewed the file. Despite repeated requests for clarification and accountability, this issue remains unresolved, highlighting potential misconduct within the judicial system.
4. Delays in Responding to Procedural Complaints: The whistleblower has repeatedly reported these procedural faults to Christian Coquoz, President of the Cour de Justice, but to no avail. Their concerns have gone unanswered, leaving them to wonder when—if ever—the regulatory mechanisms designed to ensure judicial accountability will function as intended.

These alleged failings have had a significant impact on the whistleblower’s ability to prepare their appeal, which is due imminently. The appeal itself is against the Ministère public and the International School of Geneva, yet the refusal to provide critical evidence not only undermines their defense but also points to deeper issues within the system.

Furthermore, the whistleblower has raised the issue that certain complaints in their case pertain to M. Olivier Jornot, a prominent figure within the Geneva judiciary. The lack of action on these complaints further complicates the whistleblower’s case, as it raises the possibility of conflicts of interest and a failure to address serious allegations against key judicial actors.

This case highlights the potential consequences of procedural failures on individuals seeking justice within the Geneva legal system. When requests for critical evidence go unanswered, and when judicial independence is called into question, it undermines not only the rights of individuals but also the credibility of the entire system.

The whistleblower's ongoing legal struggle serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency, accountability, and adherence to procedural safeguards in any legal process. Without these, the very foundation of the judicial system is at risk.