Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn is conducting criminal proceedings against [A.] and [B.] on suspicion of killing and causing bodily harm to their children. From December 2013 onwards, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the deployment of a total of 6 undercover agents, which was each approved by the detention court.
On 29 April 2015, the Public Prosecutor's Office issued a search warrant for the living quarters of [A.] and her new partner [C.] . Furthermore, it ordered the immediate and irretrievable deletion of all audio and video recordings of the undercover agents on the data carriers of [A.] and [C.] .
[C.] filed a complaint against the search warrant and the deletion of the recordings. The High Court of the Canton of Solothurn partially upheld the complaint and found the house search, seizure, and deletion of the data to be unlawful.
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn filed an appeal in criminal matters against the decision of the High Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court concludes that the house search and seizure were indeed unlawful, as they were merely a pretext to delete the photos of the undercover agents. However, the immediate and irretrievable deletion of the photos was disproportionate.
The Federal Court justifies this as follows
- For the interference with the complainant's fundamental rights through the house search, seizure, and deletion of the photos, there was a legal basis in the form of Art. 151 para. 2 and Art. 297 para. 3 CrimPC. However, these provisions have a low degree of specificity, so the principle of…