Facts
[X.] is accused of having robbed [A.] (victim 1) in her apartment on February 17, 2009 and having strangled her as well as the also present [B.] (victim 2). Subsequently, he is said to have set a fire to destroy traces, and to have stolen jewelry, cash, and credit cards. He sold the jewelry, used the credit cards for payment or attempted to do so, and gave one credit card to an acquaintance for use. Furthermore, he is said to have sold a leased vehicle and to have repeatedly consumed narcotics.
On October 30, 2013, the Criminal Court of the Canton of Zug sentenced [X.] to life imprisonment for multiple murders, robbery, arson, misappropriation, attempted fraudulent misuse of a data processing system or complicity therein, fraud, and forgery of documents. It ordered his confinement under Article 64(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code.
The appeal filed by [X.] and the public prosecutor against this was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zug on February 22, 2017.
Considerations
The appellant alleges a violation of the principle of immediacy and the related principle of concentration. He criticizes that the lower court did not issue a judgment immediately after or shortly after the appeal hearing, but only seven months later after a new deliberation. Furthermore, he received the over 70-page judgment a few days after the operative part, which excludes that the judgment was reasoned in writing within this time.
The Federal Supreme Court considers the approach of the lower court to be permissible. It justifies this by stating that the delay in the proceedings can be comprehensibly explained by the extraordinary composition of the court and the complexity of the case. The use of a written report as a basis for the deliberation on the judgment as well as the duration of the deliberation itself are also not objectionable in the view of…