Geneva: Tensions rise before the fourth Sperisen trial

A new season of the Sperisen case is about to begin. But it is not fiction. On Monday, the fourth trial of the former head of the Guatemalan police will begin before the Criminal Chamber of Appeal and Review (CPAR). For this new episode, the largest room in the Palace of Justice has been reserved for two weeks, until September 13.

Why start all over again? Because the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized in 2023 that the Geneva justice system “has[vait] gave an appearance of impartiality” in its handling of the case. An incident – ​​a judge had mentioned in her submissions “sufficient evidence that makes the prospect of a conviction likely” – occurred before the Federal Court confirmed in 2019 the 15-year prison sentence for extrajudicial executions that took place in the Pavón penitentiary in Guatemala. The facts date back to 2007.

The whitewashed colleague

More than twelve years have passed since the arrest of the former Guatemalan officer in Geneva, but the case remains incandescent. This was demonstrated by the press conference organized by Erwin Sperisen’s lawyers on Monday afternoon.

An event attended by Javier Figueroa, former deputy director of criminal investigations of the National Civil Police of Guatemala, accompanied by his Austrian lawyer. Because Erwin Sperisen’s former colleague was the target of similar prosecutions in Austria. But unlike his ex-colleague, Javier Figueroa was cleared after spending three years in detention.

Erwin Sperisen’s defense therefore has a strong argument, since the dual Swiss and Guatemalan national was ultimately found guilty of complicity in murder for having suppressed the mutiny during which seven prisoners were executed.

In other words, could Erwin Sperisen be the accomplice of men exonerated in other European countries (in addition to his lieutenant tried in Austria, the former Minister of the Interior of Guatemala, Carlos Vielmann, was acquitted in Spain)?

The pressure is mounting

The pressure is therefore increasing on the CPAR a few days before the hearing. Especially since Javier Figueroa is keeping a close eye on the handling of the case by the Geneva authorities.

On Monday, he even indicated that he had filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the chief prosecutor Yves Bertossa, whom he accuses of attacking his honor. Because the indictment of the Geneva magistrate, in the description of the facts that he retains, cites his name as a member of “a group of hooded and armed men constituting an additional indication of the existence of a criminal group and of Erwin Sperisen’s membership in it.”

The former deputy director of criminal investigations therefore demands that “the Swiss authorities put an end to the defamation and that [son] acquittal be recognized.” His lawyer M^e Benno Wageneder, based in the town of Ried im Innkreis, agrees: “Imagine being acquitted by a jury and still being called a criminal.”

What reading of the ECHR?

Without a doubt, this acquittal of Erwin Sperisen’s lieutenant will form a basis for the former police chief’s defense starting Monday. Not to mention that Mr.^es Giorgio Campá and Florian Baier won a victory at the ECHR with the ruling highlighting the “appearance of impartiality” of the judges.

For the two lawyers, the Strasbourg decision can only result in an acquittal with compensation equal to the 11 years of deprivation of liberty (prison, preventive detention and house arrest) imposed on Erwin Sperisen.

In reality, everything will depend on how the judges of the CPAR read it. Because the Public Prosecutor, while indicating to date that it reserves its comments for the Court, considered when the ECHR judgment was published that it “relates exclusively to the question of the appearance of bias of a judge and in no way to the reasons that led to Mr Sperisen’s conviction.”

In any case, this umpteenth episode of the judicial saga should not end at the end of this new appeal trial. How can we imagine, depending on the verdict, that he will not return to the Federal Court, or even to the ECHR? The saga continues.

Found an error? Please report it to us.

7 comments