Article 16 Prosecutor
1 The prosecutor is responsible for the uniform enforcement of state criminal claim.
2 conducts the Pre-Trial, crimes prosecuted in the investigation, prosecution and, where appropriate, does represent the prosecution.
According to the approach of the prosecutor CHStPO model II is seen to the prosecutor about the entire criminal proceedings to a dominant position. He leads the pre-trial indictment charges, and represents them in court. After at the beginning of the legislative process still much debated was the right choice of model, are the - ultimately silenced critics of this model - mainly originating from western Switzerland. Today we can say is that that the election of the Prosecutor II model for the whole of Switzerland CHStPO a broad-based consensus.
pressed one advantage of this model in the Senate, the former prosecutor Dick Marty like this: ".. La deuxième concerne le modèle réflexion que l'on a choisi On veut un ministère public on" The pense que c'est la meilleure parmi celles solution proposée. Lorsqu'on parle d'un ministère public continue, ça ne veut pas dire "Too strong". And rather than "strong", I say to myself "a prosecutor who has more responsibilities," that is to say a more responsible public prosecutor. What was happening with the previous system, I knew, for the reform which I fought, and which was eventually changed in Ticino? Is that this sharing of responsibilities between judge and prosecutor led to a certain lack of responsibility, but now you have a prosecutor who is master and director of the proceedings from day one until he comes before the judge. It can no longer say - as we have often seen and heard in the halls de justice: "C'est le juge d'instruction qui a fait cet acte, c'est le juge d'instruction qui a cette Urdun perquisition, qui a cet reconduit interrogatoire." Non! Maintenant, au tribunal, on aura quelqu'un qui lui-même de la RÉPOND conduite de l'enquête. Et cela, selon moi, est une importante pour le warranty prévenu et pour le procès pénal déroulement you correct. "
In fact, it should increase the quality of Vorvefahrens tend, if the person who is responsible for the pre, during the course always certain, is that he has during the trial personally stand for his work on virtually straight. In the continuous process control in one hand is also an efficiency gain. On the other hand, lacks the four-eye principle, which constitutes one of the advantages of models with law enforcement investigator.
The exclusive process management by the prosecutor without investigating judge gives the prosecutor on the other hand a lot of power. Meanwhile, aware of the legislature and therefore has added some controls that would restrict the power of attorney:
- Article 18 requires the cantons to provide so-called coercive measure dishes. Its approval subject to investigation and security prison, the covert coercive measures (telephone monitoring, use of undercover Investigators, use of technical surveillance equipment, surveillance of banking relationships), and the arrangement of DNA mass analysis.
- expansion of the defense: according to Article 159 paragraph 1 may participate in the defense in any case already in police interrogations (so-called "law of the first hour"), Article 130 provides for the necessary defense rel. generous.
- According to Article 393, all orders and procedural steps of the prosecutor, the police and prosecuting authorities of the violation be challenged by appeal. can be claimed rights violations, including excess and abuse of discretion and legal delay and denial of justice and finally an incomplete or inaccurate findings of fact and inadequacy.
this sense can be said that the investigating judge but disappears, but its future tasks are placed in the hands and Veranwtortung of Defense, the constraint measure Tribunal and the Appeals Board.
0 comments:
Post a Comment