Facts
The appellant [A.] was convicted in 2004 with legal force for multiple attempted homicides, receiving stolen goods, arson, explosion, and trespass. The execution of the sentence was postponed in favor of an inpatient therapeutic measure. In the subsequent proceedings, the District Court of Rorschach ordered preventive detention for [A.] until a decision is made on the subsequent imposition of confinement. [A.] appealed against this order of preventive detention.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the requirements for the imposition of preventive detention were met. It concluded that the risk of repetition pursuant to Art. 221 para. 1 lit. c CrimPC can be affirmed. The appellant suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis dependence syndrome, shows no insight into his illness, and tends to make threats and act aggressively in stressful situations. According to the expert opinion, there is a "risk of new offenses within the meaning of the predicate offense that can hardly be monitored and controlled sufficiently anymore". Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court considered the imposition of preventive detention to be permissible. However, the…