8th Chapter: Code of practice
first Section: orality, language
Article 66
The oral proceedings before the criminal authorities are oral, as far as the law does not provide for literacy.
Article 67 Language of
1 The Confederation and cantons determine the Language of their criminal authorities.
2 lead the criminal authorities of the cantons through all the procedural steps in their language of
, the process line can allow exceptions.
Article 68 Translations
one understands a person involved in the procedure that language does not or can not express it enough, it pulls in the process line, a translator or a translator. It can be simple or urgent cases
dispense with the consent of the person concerned, of cases and the protocol person at the foreign language mastered enough.
2 The suspect who is even if it is defended in a language they can understand at least the substance of the most important procedural actions verbally or in writing to be made known. A claim for full translation of all procedural steps and the file does not exist.
3 acts that are not input from parties as necessary for submission in writing or orally translated to the Protocol.
4 For the translation of the interview the victim of a crime against the sexual integrity is a person of the same sex call in if the victim so requests and if this is possible without undue delay of the process is
.
5 apply for interpreters and translators, the provisions of experts (Article 73, 105, 182-191) by analogy.
Article 66: The criminal case after the
CHStPO is basically oral, unless the law explicitly provides for literacy.
follows that all procedural steps, which take place not in writing, are recorded (Article 76). In this documentation requirement, it is therefore an effect of the principle of orality, and not a limitation of the principle of orality. The criminal case will not become a written procedure that oral proceedings actions are logged.
Article 110 paragraph 1 performs the Principle of orality further elaborated on by stating that submissions by the parties can be given orally for the record. This will turn around regarding the release request of the accused under Article 228 paragraph 1 again explicitly stated (without this being necessary of course).
limitations of the principle of orality sees CHStPO about the following procedures:
- in the detention process, aside from the parole request, which may be mentioned verbally, the order sought by the prosecutor to order for arrest and detention extension be made in writing (Article 224 para . 2, Article 227 paragraph 2) the court has custody his decision give reasons in writing (Article 226 paragraph 2) the decision process regarding the custody arrangement is basically an oral contrast again, the accused can waive a hearing (Article 225 paragraph 1 and 5) and the same applies to the decisions on release prisoners ( Article 228 para 4), whereas the decision on detention procedures extensions up in writing and orally exception (Article 227 paragraph 6).
- the penal process is invariably in writing (including the inlet, Article 352 ff, especially Article 354, paragraph 1)
- the complaints procedure (Article 393 ff, especially Article 396 paragraph 1 and 397 para 1.) and the revision procedure (art. 410 ff, in particular Article 411 paragraph 1 and 412 para 1) are without exception in writing to the appeal procedure (Article 398 et seq) and the first-instance trial procedure (Article 328 ff) oral contrast (the main proceedings, without exception, the appeals process is in certain cases decided by written procedure: Article 403).
Article 67: The Confederation and the cantons are autonomous in the determination of the proceedings.
Article 68:
This provision provides for the translation.
Section 1 posited the principle that a translator is call in when a person involved in the procedure that language does not control. In simple or urgent cases, when the process line and the protocol leading Person, the foreign language mastered enough can be waived with the consent of the person concerned. However, this should be done with great caution (see message BBl. 2006, p. 1151). Paragraph 1 refers not only to parties but also other people involved in the procedure (Article 105), insofar as they are required to attend certain procedural steps.
Section 2 states the right of the accused all the main method of translation processes. This right is derived from BV 4 and 6 point. 3 lit. e from the ECHR. According to federal court jurisdiction is in principle a right to translation of all documents and oral statements, on the understanding The accused is instructed to get the benefit of a fair trial. These typically include the indictment, the instruction of the defender and the essential processes of the oral trial (BGE 118 Ia 462 ). Depending on the circumstances, however, other procedural documents, or document components are to be translated, such as the central element of witness statements, expert reports, and other significant evidence. The right of the accused to all the translation goes, the more substantial the suspensions against the accused are (the Gen. BGE 118 Ia 462 and message BBl Sat 2006, p. 1151). In no case, however, a right to integral translation of all Procedural documents, or the entire case file (paragraph 2 at the end).
Paragraph 3 requires the case management, records that are not submissions by the parties as necessary in writing or orally to translate protocol. Where necessary otherwise hot, as far as the accused in accordance with the above-cited case law has a right to translation or this for the participation of a party or other parties is necessary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment