Facts
The appellant [A.] was sentenced on 14 August 2014 to a prison term of two years and a therapeutic measure pursuant to Art. 59 SCC for multiple cases of property damage, sexual acts with children, and sexual coercion. On 12 August 2019, he was conditionally released from the therapeutic measure. The Execution and Probation Service of the Canton of Zug (VBD) issued instructions for him to continue delict-oriented psychotherapeutic treatment and to refrain from exercising a professional or organized extracurricular activity with minors. The VBD terminated the placement contract with the association [C.] in [U.] , as it was no longer responsible for cost coverage after the conditional release.
[A.] applied to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug to modify the instructions and to instruct him to continue his stay at the association [C.] or another institution recommended by experts, with a cost coverage guarantee from the VBD. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.
[A.] now applies to the Federal Court to overturn the judgment and refer the matter back to the lower court for a new decision, with the instruction to obtain a supplementary forensic psychiatric expert opinion on the question of his accommodation in the light of delict prevention.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines whether the lower court rightly rejected the VBD's instructions. The appellant argues that he is dependent on supervised housing after his conditional release from the therapeutic measure and that the VBD can order instructions and probation assistance for the duration of the probation period.
The Federal Court finds that the lower court rightly recognized that the appellant is dependent on supervised housing after his conditional release from the…