Facts
The Juvenile Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Canton of Zurich dated February 26, 2010. It requested that the crediting of the precautionary protective measure ordered against the imposed deprivation of liberty be revoked and replaced by an order that the accused be punished with 11 months of deprivation of liberty, of which 17 days have been served in pre-trial detention. The Federal Supreme Court granted the appeal. It set aside the contested judgment and remanded the case for a new assessment to the lower court. The Federal Supreme Court stated that precautionary protective measures in juvenile criminal law are not to be treated like pre-trial detention within the meaning of Art. 110 para. 7 of the Swiss Criminal Code. Rather, Art. 32 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act is applicable, according to which the crediting of the precautionary protective measure against the deprivation of liberty is to be made only at the time of the termination of the measure, provided that its purpose has not been achieved. If, however, the purpose of the measure is achieved, no crediting takes place, as the deprivation of liberty is then no longer executed.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that juvenile criminal law, in contrast to the Criminal Code, makes a clear distinction between precautionary protective measures and pre-trial detention. While pre-trial detention may only be ordered as a last resort if its purpose cannot be achieved by other measures, precautionary protective measures may be ordered at any time during the proceedings in accordance with Art. 5 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act. According to Art. 32 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act, placement takes precedence over the execution of a simultaneously imposed or enforceable deprivation of liberty due to revocation or regression. If…