Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn conducted a criminal investigation against [A.] and B. on suspicion of intentional homicide of their common son and serious bodily harm to their two children. The Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the audio surveillance of the accused's residences in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft and later in the Canton of Solothurn, which was each approved by the competent detention court.
[A.] filed a complaint against the surveillance. The High Court of the Canton of Solothurn granted the complaint and declared the surveillance inadmissible. It ordered the removal of the findings from the files, the destruction of the audio recordings, and the irretrievable deletion of the recordings.
The Public Prosecutor's Office then filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the decision of the High Court be overturned.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecutor's Office and overturned the decision of the High Court. It established the legality of the surveillance and the admissibility of the findings obtained from it.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the order for the surveillance of the accused's residences was legally permissible. It did not violate the core content of the accused's constitutional rights and was also proportionate.
The Federal Supreme Court disagreed with the view of the High Court that the surveillance was disproportionate. It considered the requirements for the surveillance to be met according to…