Facts
The case concerns the conditional release of S., who was serving a 10 1/2-year penitentiary sentence for aggravated robbery, aggravated theft, etc. The Parole Commission of the Canton of Valais and the State Council rejected the conditional release, as they did not see a favorable prognosis for S.'s reintegration based on his prior record. S. then filed an administrative court appeal.
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for a new assessment by the cantonal court. The Federal Supreme Court emphasized that conditional release is the rule, from which there can only be deviation for good reasons. In the case of determinate custodial sentences, the dangerousness of the offender must be assessed and examined whether it will decrease, remain the same, or increase upon full execution of the sentence. Furthermore, it must be investigated whether conditional release with instructions and protective supervision is preferable from a specific deterrence perspective than full execution of the sentence.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that conditional release represents the fourth and final stage of the execution of the sentence and is generally to be ordered. It may only be deviated from for good reasons. In making the prognosis, the entire prior record, the offender's personality, the criminal and other behavior of the offender must be examined.
The Federal Supreme Court criticized that the lower court had not sufficiently aligned the…