Facts
Parties: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn against A. (defendant)
Facts:
- The Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting a criminal investigation against A. and B. for intentional homicide of their son and serious bodily harm to their daughter.
- On December 6, 2013, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the deployment of two undercover investigators (VE 1 and VE 2) for one year, approved by the detention court.
- Further undercover investigators (VE 3-6) were later deployed and their deployments extended.
- On May 7, 2015, the Public Prosecutor's Office ended the deployment of the undercover investigators.
- On May 22, 2015, A. was informed about the deployment of the undercover investigators and filed a complaint on June 8, 2015.
- The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn overturned the detention court's orders and the Public Prosecutor's Office's instructions and ordered the destruction of the investigation results.
- The Public Prosecutor's Office filed a criminal appeal against this decision.
Considerations
Art. 285a CrimPC: Covert investigation occurs when law enforcement officers establish contacts under a false identity to build a relationship of trust and infiltrate a criminal environment. Covert investigation is also permissible in cases of lone offenders.
Art. 286 CrimPC: The prerequisites for a covert investigation are met if there is suspicion of a serious offense, previous investigations have been unsuccessful, and the covert investigation is justified. The lower court affirmed these prerequisites.
Art. 113 para. 1 CrimPC: The accused has the right to refuse to testify but must submit to legal coercive measures. Covert investigation is such a coercive measure. The lower court saw this as a circumvention of the right to refuse to testify.
Art. 293 para. 4 CrimPC: Covert investigation must not lead to a circumvention of the right to refuse to…