9th Section: records management, access to file and record-keeping
Article 100 case files
1 For each criminal case is created a document file. This includes: a.
the process and the hearing records;
b. compiled by the criminal authority files;
c. by the parties filings.
2 The process management is responsible for the systematic storage of files and for their continuous coverage in a directory, in simple cases, it may refrain from a directory.
Article 101 Inspection of files in pending proceedings
1 The parties may, no later than after the first interrogation of the suspect and the collection of other important evidence by the prosecution to view the files of the criminal proceedings, Article 108 is reserved.
2 Other authorities may view the documents if they need it for the processing of pending civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, the inspection of any overriding public or conflict with private interests. 3 Third
can view the files, if that means a scientific or other interest worthy of protection claim and preclude the inspection of any overriding public or private interests.
Article 102 procedure for requests for access to the file
1 The process management will decide on the file. It shall take appropriate measures to prevent abuses and delay requirements and to protect a legitimate interest in secrecy.
2 The document can be viewed at the headquarters of the relevant criminal authorities or other legal assistance, at a penal authority. Other authorities and the legal advisers of the parties they are delivered normally.
3 Who is entitled to inspect, may upon payment of a fee to make copies of the files require.
Article 103 of file storage
1 The records are kept at least until the end of the proceedings and the enforcement statute of limitations.
Except for 2 original documents that were taken on the files, they must be returned to the persons entitled to a receipt once the criminal case is finally decided.
Article 100:
The files have particular protocols on the performance of procedural acts (Art. 76 para 1) - including the records and reports on the identification of actions Police, the prosecutor should be submitted (Article 307 para 3 and 4) - as well as by the Staatsanwaltschft collected and included filings by the parties. This document must be complete. The CHStPO has neither the leadership of so-called "shadow files" even as the destruction or removal of files (which were once raised to the case file) before. About what is being placed on the file, decide the procedure line (and not a political authority). It must therefore be considered as absolutely inadmissible if arrange a political authority, such as the Federal Council, the destruction of files that have been raised in criminal proceedings as evidence of the case file would. These kinds of action would probably the fact of suppression of documents, respectively. abuse of office requirements. Based on the independence given under Article 4 of the penal authorities, it would also be inadmissible if the Federal Council would be about the federal prosecutor in a particular case, give instructions, which may be levied on the file and what does not.
Article 101 paragraph 1 is
emphasized that regulates access to the file of the parties, especially the accused. The right to inspect records of the parties is part of the law to the Federal Constitution (Article 29 paragraph 2) guaranteed right ear. According to paragraph 1, the parties no later than after the first interrogation the defendant and the decrease in other important evidence in the files of public inspection. The right of the accused, to ask a question witnesses, may however indicate the defendant be granted prior to the hearing of the witnesses against him access to the file, since this can only be undertaken having regard to the document. It is the process line is of course also free to carry out an initial interrogation of the witnesses to the exclusion of the defense and to confront these later then in a period (after granted access to the file) with the accused. In custody proceedings, the right to inspect records is unlimited (Art. 225 para 2, s. Embassy, FF 2006, p. 1161st f.). A further restriction on access to documents is only possible under Article 108th However, it is very doubtful whether the maintenance of professional purpose under the lit in Article 108, paragraph 1. b is referred to safeguard public interests in secrecy. I would deny this. The maintenance of professional purpose, the CHStPO needs, by Article 101 paragraph 1 allows the exclusion of access to file until after the first interrogation of the accused or the loss of key evidence. A further exclusion of access to file to preserve the purpose of investigation, relying on Article 108 would be inadmissible. The latter provision could appropriately be used, however, when certain acts of public safety could jeopardize. In this case, justifies a restriction of access to the file, but not the destruction of files. It follows that the destruction of files and can not be justified, they could fall into the wrong hands. As a less drastic measure would be just the restriction of access to documents to be arranged, including but as mentioned, only the process line is authorized.
According to Article 102 decides, as already mentioned, the process management on the implementation and possible restriction of access to the file.
According to article 103 are basically the files kept by the end of the proceedings and the enforcement statute of limitations. Third-party documents were taken in the original of the document, they are after a final settlement of the criminal proceedings to hand over the claimant (paragraph 2). The wording of paragraph 2 would exclude it, strictly speaking, the process line in front of final settlement of the criminal acts of third parties that cause returns (such as when they have ceased to be relevant). In extensive criminal but it makes little sense, acts that have proved to be irrelevant to the end kept the criminal proceedings. A returning items to the rightful owner would be to make the process transparent and also log all parties a fair hearing would be granted.
