Document ID: /roh_data/filtered/swiss_laws_in_ROHinterleaved.jsonl.gz/24669

This text was translated from EN into Rumantsch Grischun.

Any person who is adversely affected by a legally binding final judgment, a summary penalty order, a subsequent judicial decision or a decision in separate proceedings on measures may request a review of the case if:a. new circumstances that arose before the decision or new evidence have come to light that are likely to lead to an acquittal, a considerably reduced or more severe penalty for the convicted person or the conviction of an acquitted person;b. the decision is irreconcilably contradictory to a subsequent criminal judgment relating to the same set of circumstances;c. it has been proven in other criminal proceedings that the result of proceedings was influenced by a criminal offence; a conviction is not required; if it is not possible to conduct criminal proceedings, proof may be adduced in another way. The review of a case due to a violation of the Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) may be requested if:a. the European Court of Human Rights has held in a final judgment (Art. 44 ECHR) that the ECHR or its Protocols have been violated or the case has been concluded by means of a friendly settlement (Art. 39 ECHR);b. the consequences the violation cannot be compensated for by the payment of compensation; andc. the review of a case is necessary in order to redress the violation. The review of a case for the benefit of the person convicted may also be requested after the case becomes time-barred. Is the review of a case is limited to civil claims, it shall be admissible only if the civil procedure law applicable at the place of jurisdiction would allow a review of a case. SR 0.101 Amended by Annex No 3 of the FA of 1 Oct. 2021, in force since 1 July 2022  (AS 2022 289; BBl 2021 300, 889).

Tgi ch’è engrevgià tras ina sentenzia legalmain valaivla, tras in mandat penal, tras ina decisiun giudiziala posteriura u tras ina decisiun en la procedura da mesiras independenta, po pretender la revisiun, sche:a. i èn avant maun novs fatgs ch’èn succedids avant la decisiun u novs meds da cumprova ch’èn adattads per acquittar, per pronunziar in chasti considerablamain pli moderà u considerablamain pli sever per la persuna sentenziada u per sentenziar la persuna acquittada;b. la decisiun stat en ina cuntradicziun incumpatibla cun ina decisiun penala posteriura che pertutga ils medems fatgs;c. i sa mussa en in’autra procedura penala ch’il resultat da la procedura è vegnì influenzà tras in malfatg; ina sentenzia n’è betg necessaria; sche la procedura penala na po betg vegnir exequida, po la cumprova vegnir procurada en moda differenta. La revisiun pervia da la violaziun da la Convenziun dals 4 da november 1950 per la protecziun dals dretgs umans e da las libertads fundamentalas (CEDU) po vegnir pretendida, sche:a. il Tribunal europeic dals dretgs umans ha constatà en ina sentenzia definitiva (art. 44 CEDU) che la CEDU u ils protocols latiers sajan vegnids violads, u ha terminà il cas tras ina cunvegna amicabla (art. 39 CEDU);b. ina indemnisaziun n’è betg adattada per cumpensar las consequenzas da la violaziun; ec. la revisiun è necessaria per eliminar la violaziun. La revisiun a favur da la persuna sentenziada po vegnir pretendida er suenter che la surannaziun è entrada. La revisiun che sa restrenscha als aspects civils è admissibla mo, sch’il dretg da procedura civila ch’è applitgabel a la dretgira cumpetenta permettess ina revisiun. SR 0.101 Versiun tenor la cifra 3 da l’agiunta da la LF dal 1. d’oct. 2021, en vigur dapi il 1. da fan. 2022 (AS 2022 289; BBl 2021 300, 889).