principle of Article 29 process unit
be a criminal offense and evaluated together if: a. a person
accused committed multiple offenses has, or
b. Complicity or participation is available. Is
2 it is crimes that fall partly within the competence of the Federation or in the various cantons and have been committed by several persons, so go to Articles 25 and 33-38.
Article 30 exceptions
The prosecutor and the court may for factual reasons combine separate criminal proceedings or.
Article 29 paragraph 1 normalizes the principle that an offender should be prosecuted in one process and evaluated for several crimes committed. The same applies to relations between the various main culprits or the main perpetrators and participants (agents, instigator). Article 30 allows for the purposes of an exception to depart for factual reasons thereof.
The provisions which deal with the delimitation of competence between the Federation and the cantons (Article 25) and the regulations governing the local jurisdiction (Art. 33 - 38) go according to Article 29 paragraph 2 of the provision of Article 29 paragraph 1 explicitly. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, respectively. is the division of responsibilities between the Confederation and the cantons, it is strictly speaking a different issue than that of Articles 29 and 30 controlled. For this reason we have these two items in the final presentation in a separate second Section in the 2nd Chapter on the subject matter jurisdiction located. Before 3 Chapter which deals with the jurisdiction. Still in the design process, the principle of unity with the rules of the forum was mixed.
Article 29 paragraph 1 present in the final version as an independent procedural principle governs the process unit in the "internal relations", ie with several criminal offenses by the same offender or criminal acts which are committed by multiple perpetrators or participants for which each one and the same authority (federal or cantonal) but competent. Objectively, this principle has to do with Article 49 of the Criminal Code, which states that the perpetrators were forfeited for commission of several criminal acts for which similar punishments to condemn after the so-called Asperationsprinzip is (paragraph 1) and that this be taken into account even is, who the offender is sentenced at a later date in a separate process for acts which he in front of a previous conviction has committed (para. 2). In this case the offender does not incur more severe penalties than if he were assessed simultaneously for all actions.
under Article 49 of the Criminal Code (or formerly Article 68 of the Criminal Code) can, however, as the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that derive no right to be assessed for multiple offenses by the same judge in the same procedure ( Federal Court decision 6S.414 / 2002 6.3.2003 ). This claim, which follows from some cantonal codes of criminal procedure will now be created in the CHStPO by Article 29 paragraph 1 in principle.
as substantive reasons for derogation from the principle of process unit acc. allow article 29, paragraph 1 (Article 29 paragraph 2), came about the impending time of individual criminal acts or the complexity of the procedure in question. The principle of the acceleration process can command a separation of single (ready for decision) process components. Of the impact of (illegal) methods to separate the costs of the procedure: follow Federal Court decision 1P.705/2003 27.5.2004
0 comments:
Post a Comment