Whistleblower Rights and Alleged Judicial Bias: A Geneva Whistleblower's Struggle for Justice

Whistleblowers are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, which protects the right to express opinions freely. Additionally, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) safeguards the right to hold opinions and impart information, ensuring whistleblowers can raise legitimate concerns without fear of retaliation. However, these protections appear to have been disregarded in the case of a Geneva whistleblower, who has faced significant pushback from both a Geneva-based organisation and the judiciary.

The whistleblower, who raised serious allegations of failures in duty of care at a Geneva organisation over a decade ago, alleges that she has been subjected to retaliation not only from the organisation itself but also from the Geneva judiciary, which should be ensuring the impartial administration of justice. Instead, the actions of the court, including the handling of her case, have raised concerns about methods used to silence the whistleblower’s claims.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

There was another hearing earlier this month which was observed by witnesses who reportedly expressed dismay. The whistleblower has filed a lengthy and detailed formal complaint with the Geneva Court of Justice, accusing the judge of a lack of impartiality, which she believes is reflected in the judge’s failure to even address the child protection concerns which were raised during the court session.

The whistleblower contends that the judge's actions, including the decision to uphold convictions against her, further reflect judicial bias intended to shield a former state representative on the Board of the Geneva organisation, who allegedly played a role in suppressing disclosures by whistleblowers concerned about the organisation’s handling of complaints about management and child protection matters. The whistleblower believes that the judge’s endorsement of a defamatory medical diagnosis of her by him was part of a wider effort to discredit her, dehumanize her, and dismiss her valid claims as a whistleblower.

Allegations of Procedural Failings and Legal Errors

In addition to claims of judicial bias, the whistleblower has pointed out significant procedural failings throughout the legal process. She argues that key exculpatory evidence was ignored by the court, including testimony and documents from Geneva bodies that could have changed the outcome of the case. She was deprived of independent legal representation during critical stages of the trial, which further violated her rights under Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 32 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, both of which protect the right to a fair trial and the right to present a proper defense.

Furthermore, she contends that the easily challenged evidence used to convict her was submitted well beyond the legal deadlines, which contravenes Swiss procedural rules, including Article 29 of the Swiss Federal Constitution. Despite allegation of numerous violations, the court refused to address the procedural irregularities which the whistleblower felt left her without recourse to a fair judicial process.

Allegations of Malicious Complaints

The Geneva organisation filed complaints against her in 2021 that were later admitted to be not to have her condemned, but to make her stop her 'campaign'. These complaints were apparently added to a file of the whistleblower's complaints dating back to 2013 referred to the judiciary by the Geneva Police and other bodies, which the whistleblower has not received outcomes to. The whistleblower argues that this misuse of the legal system is an abuse of process and a violation of her right to free expression, as protected by Article 16 of the Swiss Federal Constitution.

These complaints were part of an orchestrated effort, the whistleblower believes, to stifle her attempts to raise legitimate concerns about failures in duty of care and the treatment of whistleblowers within the organisation. Instead of receiving a fair hearing, she was subjected to what she describes as judicial harassment, intended to intimidate and discredit her.

Undermining Law Enforcement and International Oversight

The whistleblower also claims that the actions of the Geneva judiciary have undermined the efforts of law enforcement and national and international bodies that have taken her complaints seriously. The head of the Geneva Police has reportedly confirmed that the criminal proceedings related to the whistleblower’s complaints remain ongoing. Despite this, the court failed to ensure that the whistleblower received the updates and conclusions to which she was entitled, instead claiming that her complaints were ‘closed.’

In her formal complaint, the whistleblower alleges that the Geneva judiciary has disregarded not only Swiss law but also international letters from bodies such as the EU Commission Procedural Law Unit, labelled 'non_comp' which seem to acknowledge the gravity of her allegations. This, she argues, points to a broader systemic issue within the Geneva legal system, where judicial accountability is seemingly absent, and the influence of powerful institutions appears to take precedence over the protection of whistleblowers.

The Right to Speak Out

The whistleblower asserts her right to freedom of expression, stating that her criticism of the organisation and the Geneva judiciary is both justified and protected under Swiss and international law. She claims that her allegations of judicial misconduct, lack of impartiality, and the mishandling of serious criminal retribution allegations and child protection concerns are based on evidence, which she intends to present to the European Court of Human Rights.

Her case highlights the challenges faced by whistleblowers who dare to speak out against powerful institutions. When both the organisation at the heart of the allegations and the judicial system appear to be complicit in silencing dissent, the fundamental rights of individuals—enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution and the ECHR—are at risk of being eroded.

For now, the whistleblower continues to fight for justice, urging for an immediate quashing of the convictions against her, based on serious procedural errors, legal irregularities, and the undeniable right to freedom of expression.