[ad_1]
In Geneva they call him sheriff. Olivier Jornot, Calvinstadt’s attorney general, wants to become the most powerful criminal prosecutor in the country: a federal prosecutor. The 51-year-old is the only one who has dared to take cover and has publicly announced his candidacy. The parliamentary committee leaned on the three remaining candidate files on Wednesday. His staging as a tough dog is Jornot’s trump card. But is the sheriff tough on everyone? Or just a few?
In a criminal case in the higher social circles of Geneva, the attorney general showed unusual leniency. It was a doctor from the Geneva University Hospital. The man, Thierry Berney, is the chief physician of transplant medicine, one of the most respected surgical positions in existence. He is also a professor at the University of Geneva.
Investigated in human organs without consent
In 2016, newspapers in western Switzerland reported that surgeon Berney had been investigating human organs in his laboratory for years, without the consent of the donor and without the approval of the ethics committee. The head physician’s approach was so blatant that the Swisstransplant Foundation saw the reputation of organ donation in Switzerland in grave jeopardy and urged the hospital to take action. Following internal investigations, Attorney General Jornot also opened proceedings in November 2016. Suspicion: violations of human research and transplantation laws, unfaithful business management and unfaithful administration.
After three years, Jornot quietly closed the procedure in September 2019. The professor is: innocent. Jornot’s research was deeply flawed. This is demonstrated by the discontinuation order that CH Media has. Jornot made several decisions that may have unjustifiably saved the accused from being charged.
He qualified only one act as allegedly criminal. And after three years of investigation, he allowed this crime to expire for three months.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Camille Perrier Depeursinge is Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Lausanne and has written a standard paper on the Code of Criminal Procedure. She says: “I was – to put it mildly – very astonished when I read this decision.”
In the case of various crimes, Jornot dropped the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. Perrier Depeursinge says: “After a first reading and without inspection of the files, a conviction of the doctor does not seem impossible. On the contrary, there were doubts that justify an accusation according to in dubio pro duriore. “In dubio pro duriore, in German” in case of doubt for the toughest “, is a principle of Swiss law. It is forcing prosecutors to prosecute suspects even when in doubt. The idea behind it: prosecutors must investigate, lawyers defend, and judges decide at the end. And not just a power-conscious attorney general with the stroke of a pen.
Of course, Jornot knows it too. But he claims to have found that “there is no evidence” that the laboratory has used cells for research purposes, although the donor or his relatives expressly expressed their objection. An important qualification, because using it despite the contrary request would definitely have been punishable.
Attorney General Jornot cracks down on some, while others see him as softer.
© Keystone
“I have to admit that I am surprised by the conclusion of the prosecution,” says Perrier Depeursinge. “It seems to me that, on the contrary, several elements of the record support the view that the cells were used contrary to the express statements of the donors.”
First, an investigative report from the hospital auditor based on numerous testimonies. Second, the testimony of a laboratory worker who told Jornot that she had had to work personally on organs in which the rejection of the research was documented. (Jornot justified in the dismissal order that he had not been able to name any body number). And the third point was the strange behavior of the chief doctor. Shortly before the hospital auditor wanted to remove the tissue from the refrigerator, the doctor had the samples destroyed and all data removed from the computer. Lausanne professor Perrier Depeursinge says: “It is clear to me that at least at this point an accusation should have been made or a sanction order should have been issued.”
It is also clear: a conviction or even an indictment against the highly respected chief physician would have done great damage to the reputation of the Geneva University Hospital. Jornot saved him from that by setting up the procedure. The only one who could have defied the stage was the doctor himself.
The Gentlemen of Guinevere Spending Made a Light of Jornot
The story is a previously unknown example of Jornot’s selective indulgence. But far from being the only one. In the autumn of 2018, the Attorney General opened a case against Geneva Councilor Guillaume Barazzone, who received 80,000 francs in unjustified expenses. For example, for champagne at six in the morning at a karaoke bar. Jornot stopped the proceedings against Barazzone without further ado after having paid the money. Despite, to put it casually, the former politician had his way. Jornot stated that there was no public interest in the prosecution.
In 2015, Jornot had the Geneva offices of the main bank HSBC register and open procedures for qualified money laundering. Federal prosecutor Michael Lauber had previously denied an investigation after computer scientist Hervé Falciani handed over the bank details to French authorities and journalists. Jornot’s accession was a great spectacle, but it also suspended this procedure in controversial circumstances. HSBC paid 40 million francs to the Republic of Geneva as “reparation” and was laundered. The amount was almost negligible. The HSBC group made $ 20 billion in profit that same year. It was good enough for Jornot.
The media coverage was excellent: Olivier Jornot in front of the cameras during the HSBC Bank home search. Three months later, the process was already closed.
© CH Media
With others, however, Jornot struck with great severity. He put so many petty criminals in jail that, among other things, Champ-Dollon remand prison was dangerously overcrowded, according to the “Tages-Anzeiger.” And Jornot is vigorously investigating the fallen State Councilor Pierre Maudet. Some think in excess of energy. Maudet is a longtime rival of Jornot since the days of the politicians.
Media spokesperson withdraws quotes
Jornot had Maudet’s close confidant, Simon Brandt, arrested for an alleged breach of official secrecy. Shortly before the Geneva city government election, in which Brandt was a candidate and which, of course, he quickly lost. The most serious accusations against him vanished into thin air; Brandt himself has filed a lawsuit against the police officers.
Jornot let his media spokesperson comment in detail at the request of CH Media. However, the latter withdrew the citations before publication because the wording did not give the prosecutor the opportunity to “respond with his best arguments.” The prosecution did not respond to the editors’ request to name these “best arguments.”
The accused surgeon Berney denied all the accusations during the trial, in particular for having used cells against the express wishes of the relatives. Since the case was dropped, Berney has been criminally innocent. Jornot closed the chapter once and for all.
