BERLIN (AP) — Germany’s highest court on Tuesday overturned a reform to the country’s criminal code that allowed for people who have been acquitted to be put on trial again for the same crime if new evidence emerged that could secure their conviction for murder or other serious crimes.

The Federal Constitutional Court declared the change, which took effect in December 2021, null and void after considering a challenge by a man who was acquitted of raping and killing a 17-year-old girl in the 1980s and faced new proceedings after an examination of DNA traces.

It found that the provision violated both a constitutional clause that precludes anyone being “punished for the same crime more than once” and a ban on applying the law retroactively.

The 2021 provision stated that proceedings already closed with a final judgement can be reopened “if new facts or evidence are produced which, independently or in connection with evidence which was previously taken, establish cogent reasons that the acquitted defendant will be convicted” of murder, genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime against a person.

The trigger for Tuesday’s ruling was a complaint by a man who was accused of raping and fatally stabbing a schoolgirl in 1981. He was initially convicted of murder and rape and sentenced to life in prison, but appealed and was acquitted at a retrial for lack of evidence.

He was arrested on the basis of the new legal provision last year following a 2012 examination of DNA evidence, but released after the constitutional court issued an injunction. The court ruled Tuesday that the new case against him must be stopped.

The presiding judge, Doris Koenig, said the court was aware that its ruling would be “painful and certainly not easy to accept” for the family of the murdered girl.

But she said the right not to be tried again for the same crime by a German court after proceedings are concluded is “absolute” under the constitution. That, she added, leaves legislators “no room for maneuver even if it turns out in retrospect that the verdict was incorrect.”

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.