Facts
The complainant was sentenced in 1991 to an unconditional prison sentence of 18 months for various offenses. The execution of the sentence was postponed in favor of outpatient treatment. After the treatment was deemed to have failed, the Higher Court ordered the execution of the sentence. The complainant alleged a violation of the principle of expediency, as the execution of the sentence was ordered only 12 years after the judgment.
The lower court had found that the outpatient treatment had failed due to the complainant's uncooperative behavior. The complainant had not attended or had attended late the scheduled appointments with the psychologist and, despite warnings, had only partially complied with the instruction to submit a weekly urine sample.
Considerations
The Federal Court dealt with the question of whether the principle of expediency also applies to the execution of sentences. It found that the principle of expediency under Art. 29 para. 1 Cst. goes further than Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR and is also applicable to the execution of sentences.
However, the Court also emphasized that the criteria for the reasonableness of the duration of proceedings in criminal proceedings cannot be applied unchanged to the execution of sentences. It found that the execution of sentences is subject to different principles than criminal proceedings and that the limitation period for execution…