A relative of the victim filed a complaint against the two articles, claiming they violated numerous provisions of the journalist code of conduct. She particularly viewed the mention of the victim's name as an invasion of privacy for the victim and his surviving, traumatised family. Furthermore, the images of the remains violated the victim's right to rest in peace. The entire depiction violated the dignity of the deceased. Moreover, the complainant disputed in certain cases whether the images had been used lawfully.
The two editorial teams, on the other hand, argued that they had legally obtained the images, and there could be no talk of an invasion of privacy, as the authors of the articles had contacted the victim's family before publication and informed them about the work on these articles. Additionally, they paid respect to the dignity of the deceased in the selection of images, and the victim's rest was not disturbed.
The Press Council dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the privacy of the victim's family members had not been violated, and no one's personal privacy had been intruded upon by this reporting. According to federal court rulings, the victim himself no longer possessed any privacy that could be violated. Guideline 7.8, which considers not only the victims in distress situations but also the feelings of their relatives, refers to current crises, but not to distress from 40 years ago. The same applies to the victim protection of Guideline 8.3 and Guideline 8.5 (images of accidents, disasters, and crimes).
Press contact:
Swiss Press Council
P.O. Box
3000 Bern 8
+41 (0)77 405 43 37
media@presserat.ch