Swiss Supreme Court upholds 14-year sentence for Guatemala’s former police chief

Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court has rejected in full an appeal by Guatemala’s former police chief, Erwin Sperisen, upholding his 14-year prison sentence for complicity in the murder of seven prisoners. In its judgment published on Thursday, 22 October, the Lausanne-based court found neither a breach of the presumption of innocence nor an arbitrary assessment of the evidence. The Swiss-Guatemalan dual citizen’s conviction in Geneva has therefore withstood scrutiny by Switzerland’s highest court.

The case centres on killings at Pavon prison in Guatemala, when Sperisen headed the country’s national civilian police. The Geneva judges found that he knew about the actions of a death squad sent to the prison, supported its plan for what was described as “social cleansing” and enabled crime scenes to be tampered with. The seven victims were influential inmates.

What the Geneva court found

The conviction now upheld was handed down on 12 September 2024, following the fourth trial in an exceptionally lengthy case. The Geneva court again found Sperisen guilty of involvement in the events at Pavon. Its decision rested not simply on his position at the head of the police, but on his established contribution to the squad’s actions.

The distinction between complicity and directly committing the killings is important. Sperisen was not convicted as the direct perpetrator of the seven murders. The Geneva judges nevertheless considered it proven that he knew what the squad was doing and supported the underlying plan. His role in enabling the manipulation of crime scenes was a further element underpinning the conviction.

Sperisen challenged that judgment before the Federal Supreme Court, which reviews decisions by lower Swiss courts. His appeal failed on every point. In particular, the judges rejected his objections concerning the presumption of innocence and the assessment of evidence. The Geneva court’s conclusion consequently stands: his involvement amounted in law to complicity in the murder of the seven prisoners.

Why the case required a fourth trial

The lengthy course of the proceedings also reflects a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That court found that Sperisen’s right to an impartial tribunal had been violated. The finding concerned statements made by the presiding Geneva judge between two appeal proceedings, in her additional capacity as a judge responsible for detention decisions.

The Strasbourg ruling made another trial necessary. It addressed the impartiality of the court, a fundamental requirement of a fair criminal trial. Whether judges approach a case without prejudice is legally distinct from whether a defendant committed the acts alleged. A procedural failing of that kind does not, in itself, require an acquittal.

The Geneva judiciary therefore had to examine the case again in September 2024. It once more reached a guilty verdict. Through its newly published decision, the Federal Supreme Court has now rejected the objections raised against that judgment as well. Sperisen’s earlier success in Strasbourg and his unsuccessful appeal in Lausanne thus concern different questions within the same long-running proceedings.

That distinction is central to understanding the outcome. The requirement for a fresh trial arose from the way the earlier proceedings had been conducted, rather than a finding that the criminal allegations had fallen away. Those allegations still had to be assessed by an impartial court.

Length of proceedings reflected in the sentence

The 14-year prison term takes account of the length of the proceedings. The sentence therefore reflects not only the criminal conduct established by the court, but also the time that elapsed before judicial determination of the case. In proceedings involving several trials, that consideration carries particular weight.

The Federal Supreme Court noted, however, that the duration was also attributable to the defence’s intensive litigation. It did not place responsibility for the time taken exclusively on the judiciary. Nevertheless, the allowance made for the length of proceedings remains part of the sentence it has now upheld.

The conviction and the punishment must be considered separately when assessing the judgment’s legal significance. Taking the protracted proceedings into account does not alter Sperisen’s conviction for complicity in murder. The Federal Supreme Court has neither overturned that conviction nor changed the prison term imposed in Geneva.

A foreign crime with direct significance for Switzerland

Although the killings took place in Guatemala, the case has occupied the Swiss courts for years. Sperisen holds both Swiss and Guatemalan citizenship; he was convicted in Geneva, with that judgment subsequently reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court. For Switzerland, this is a domestic prosecution concerning exceptionally serious crimes committed abroad, alongside a test of the safeguards required when conducting such proceedings.

The repeated trials illustrate how closely the assessment of criminal responsibility is tied to protecting procedural rights. Even allegations of this gravity must be decided by an impartial court. Equally, an established procedural error does not automatically dispose of the accusations: they must be examined through a properly conducted trial.

With the appeal dismissed in its entirety, the Federal Supreme Court’s review of the Geneva judgment is complete. The conviction for complicity in the murder of seven prisoners and the 14-year prison sentence remain in place.