Valérie Dittli: Her right to be heard was violated, say two constitutionalists

Valérie Dittli, a centrist State Councilor, is pushing back against a critical report, asserting that her fundamental right to be heard was "gravely violated." She has commissioned an independent legal opinion from two professors at the Universities of Geneva and Zurich regarding the procedural fairness in the creation and dissemination of the Meylan report.

The professors concluded that Dittli's right to due process was significantly compromised. The core issue lies in the limited time she was afforded to review the Meylan report and its accompanying annexes before their official publication and transmission to the public prosecutor's office. This restricted access, they argue, prevented her from adequately defending herself against the report's findings.

The Meylan report, released in April, confirmed that Dittli had indeed reached an agreement with Jean-Claude Mathey, the former president of the Rural Land Commission, for him to withdraw a criminal complaint filed against her. This agreement, along with a series of other critical reports detailing systemic dysfunctions within Dittli's department and tensions with the rest of the State Council, has placed her under intense scrutiny.

According to the commissioned legal opinion, despite being heard twice by the report's author, Jean-François Meylan, Dittli was not granted sufficient opportunity to exercise her rights broadly. The legal experts emphasize that the ability to consult a report and its annexes, and to provide a response before publication, is an integral part of the right to be heard.

Dittli reportedly only saw the Meylan report at 7:15 AM on the day of its publication, hours before being asked to recuse herself. The State Council subsequently decided to hold a press conference without her participation. She received the press release minutes before its distribution and did not receive the annexes until late May, a month after requesting them and just two days before they were made public online. The legal opinion states her right to be heard was "gravely violated during the establishment of the publication and the use of the report and their transmission to the public prosecutor."