Article 18 compulsory measures
1 The court coercion court has jurisdiction to order the investigation and security prison and to the extent provided in this Act, for approving the arrangement or other coercive measures.
2 Members of the Court of coercive measures in the same case can not act as judges or judges of property.
Article 19 first instance courts
1 The trial court assessed in the first instance all crimes which do not fall within the jurisdiction of other agencies. 2
Confederation and the cantons can be used as a single court of first instance court provide for the assessment of: a.
transgressions;
b. Crimes and misdemeanors, except those for which the prosecution with imprisonment for more than two years, a protest under Article 64 of the Criminal Code, a treatment under Article 59, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code or, at the same time to be revoked due to sanctions, deprivation of liberty of more than two years requested.
Article 20 Appeals
1 The Appeals Board hears appeals of procedural actions, and not against the unsuccessful appeal decisions: a.
first instance of the courts;
b. the police, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies of the violation;
c. Court of coercive measures as provided for in this Act cases. 2
Confederation and the cantons, the Powers of Appeals transferred the appeal court.
Article 21 appeals court
1 The Court of Appeal decides on: a.
appeals against judgments of the courts of first instance;
b. Revision requests.
2 Who has acted as a member of the Appeals Board can not act in the same case as a member of the appellate court.
3 Members of the Court of Appeals in the same case can not be working as auditors judges and Law Lords.
These provisions deal with the various courts, which provides CHStPO. In the actual design of these courts in organizational and functional terms Confederation and cantons relatively freely (Article 14). It permits them to transfer the functions of several courts one and the same court. So it would be permissible, for example, to transfer the role of court coercion a first instance court or even the appeal court. Only the variant that separates transfer function of the coercive measures of the Court of Appeals probably because the procedure proposed by the Board of CHStPO are ensured against decisions by the compulsory measures must court. But it would, both the function of the Court of coercive measures as well as the function to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal. In this case, to ensure, however, not that those members of the appellate court involved in the appeal process, which have already performed in the same case as a judge or coercive measures as a member of the Appeals Board (Article 18 paragraph 2 and Article 21, Section 2).
also not permitted, although the legal text is not explicitly mentioned, would be composed of the same judge in the same case at the appeal regarding an appeal against a decision in which he has acted as a constraint measures Judge or Judge of first instance (this also applies in relation Court of Appeal - court of first instance). Similarly excluded is composed of coercive measures in the same case with the judge erstinsanzlichen Court (Article 18 paragraph 2).
According to Article 21, paragraph 3, members of the appellate court does not also act as Law Lords in the same case. This provision is particularly so of practical relevance because CHStPO does not provide separate appeal instance. According CHStPO there are only two appeals against non-judgment: the call (as an ordinary appeal) and the auditors as to quite strong (first-or second) judgments. According to article 21 paragraph 1 lit. b, the appeals court judges also review requests.
freedom in the organization of the courts (Article 14) also with respect to their designation. It would in principle the Confederation and cantons allowed to name the appellate level as a Court of Appeal, but the kind described 18-21, only the tasks of the courts and not their name.
are also based on Article 14 autonomous cantons and federal government in principle on the question of whether to use the courts as individual or collegiate courts. This, however, with certain restrictions:
The first instance court in accordance with Article 19 paragraph 2 is lit. b is the establishment of a single judge inadmissible regarding cases in which the prosecutor requested a sentence of more than 2 years, a protest under Article 64 of the Criminal Code or treatment under Article 59, paragraph 3 StGB. This has probably makes sense to also apply to the Court of Appeal , Are so clear that although not specified in the text of the law. Clearly, should be allowed the establishment of a single judge as a sanction judges (sa embassy, FF 2006, p. 1138). As far as the appeal body, derives from Article 395, that the Confederation and the cantons have the authority, a judge use as an appeal instance.
A note was lit at this point to Article 20, paragraph 1. c fixed:
evident from this provision requires that coercive measures against all decisions of the Court of appeal may be brought. Interestingly, this is just the most far measure, namely, the detention order is not the case. According to article 222 is the appeal against detention decisions only possible if the custody or security detention lasted 3 months. Legitimized in each case, only the detained person, not including the prosecution.
is permitted to appeal, however, for the monitored (whilst the prosecution is not in turn legitimizes the taking of appeals against refusal of permission by the coercion court) have full regard, practically of all the other decisions by the compulsory measures Court (Anorndung the Telefonüerwachung, Article 279 para 3 ; monitoring of technical surveillance equipment, Article 281 para 4 i.Vb.m. Article 279 para 3; monitoring of banking relationships, Article 285 para 4; undercover investigation, Article 298 paragraph 3). No appeal is against the granting of a DNA mass examination by the court coercion (Article 256 i.Vb.m. Art. 20 para 1. C). While the meaning of the exclusion of redress for DNA mass screening still evident (just complaining legitimacy would be the "mass" which would be beyond the capacity of Appeals well), it is common for the investigation and security prison while in the previous cantonal codes of criminal procedure, but in my opinion not comprehensible at first glance.
0 comments:
Post a Comment