Facts
[X.] was punished by a criminal order of the Bern-Mittelland Youth Prosecutor's Office dated 31 January 2011, among other things for attempted robbery, threat and trespass, and a personal supervision order was imposed. On 27 November 2013, the Youth Court of the Canton of Bern replaced the personal supervision with the protective measure of placement in an open educational institution and additionally ordered outpatient treatment.
By a subsequent decision of the Bern-Mittelland Youth Prosecutor's Office dated 7 March 2014, [X.] was transferred to the Arxhof Measure Centre, a centre for young adults. [X.] appealed against this transfer on the grounds of a violation of the right to be heard, which the Supreme Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed by decision of 29 April 2014.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considers the allegation of a violation of the right to be heard to be justified. The Youth Prosecutor's Office should not have been content with an informal discussion with the expert, but should have obtained a written supplementary expert opinion and submitted it to the appellant for comment, or should have conducted the discussion as an examination of the expert and drawn up a record of it. Only in this way would the right to be…