Facts
Parties:
Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Stephan Bernard
Respondent: Department of Execution of Sentences and Measures, Office for Sanctions and Accompanying Measures
Subject:
Revocation of the stationary therapeutic measure; order of detention; procedural questions; compensation for detention
Procedural history:
The Canton Court of Valais sentenced [A.] on 20 September 2012 to a term of imprisonment of eleven years and eight months and deferred the execution in favor of a stationary therapeutic measure. On 8 May 2018, the Court of Execution of Sentences and Measures revoked the measure and ordered detention. The Canton Court of Valais confirmed this decision on 22 October 2018. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of [A.] against this decision and remitted the case to the lower court for a new decision. The Canton Court of Valais issued a new decision on 10 October 2019, which dismissed the appeal of [A.] and ordered detention.
Main issue:
The appellant challenges the revocation of the stationary therapeutic measure and the order of detention as well as various procedural deficiencies.
Considerations
The appellant alleges that the proceedings were flawed in various respects, particularly by the mixing of different proceedings and the late submission of applications. The lower court dismisses these objections and emphasizes that the organization of authorities in the Canton of Valais does not violate federal law and the court is not bound by the applications of the execution authority. The court may decide on the progress of the proceedings ex officio.
The appellant further objects that the subject matter of the proceedings was unclear during the proceedings and the applications of the execution authority were submitted late. The lower court considers that the court is not bound by the applications of the execution authority and the applications are not late based on new findings. The subject matter of the proceedings developed during the proceedings, which is permissible under the law on measures.
The appellant alleges a violation of Art. 5 para. 1 lit. a ECHR and the prohibition of double jeopardy, as the conversion of the measure into detention is equivalent to a subsequent order of detention. The lower court dismisses these objections and emphasizes that the conversion of a measure into detention under Art. 62c para. 4 SCC differs from the subsequent order of detention under Art. 65 para. 2 SCC and there is no sufficient causal link between the original conviction and the deprivation of liberty.
The appellant further objects that the detention was not ordered by a collegial court, but by a single judge. The lower court considers that the examining judge may take evidence alone and the hearing as well as the decision-making took place before the collegial court. The appellant was informed about the composition of the court.
The appellant further alleges that he was not granted the last word under Art. 347 CrimPC. The lower court considers that the appellant lost himself in…