Facts

The appellant [X.] was sentenced to a prison term of 3 1/2 years for qualified arson on April 29, 2008. The District Court of Olten-Gösgen suspended the execution of the prison sentence in favor of a stationary measure for young adults. On June 17, 2011, the appellant was conditionally released from the execution of the measure as of June 28, 2011, with a probation period of two years. On April 29, 2013, he completed his 30th year of life. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn appealed against the decision of the District Court of Olten-Gösgen, and the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Solothurn lifted the measure for young adults and ordered a stationary therapeutic measure.

The appellant lodges a complaint in criminal matters and requests the annulment of the contested decision and the confirmation of the judgment of the court of first instance. He argues that the lower court, after he had completed his 30th year of life, rightly lifted the measure for young adults, but it was not admissible to order a stationary therapeutic measure subsequently, based on Art. 62c para. 6 SCC.

Considerations

The Federal Court examines whether the lower court rightly assumed that the appellant had not been rehabilitated during the probation period. Non-rehabilitation can result from various reasons, such as the commission of a new offense, the serious expectation that the convicted person may commit new offenses, or the lack of cooperation with the probation service or the disregard of instructions.

The court finds that the appellant did not follow the instructions given to him in various respects and that the hopes and expectations regarding the appellant were not fulfilled. It is obvious that the appellant did not follow the instructions given to him in various respects. The lower court states that the hopes and expectations regarding the appellant were not fulfilled.

The Federal Court also examines whether the conditions for a return to the execution of the measure based on Art. 95 para. 5 SCC are met. The return can be ordered if it is to be reckoned with new offenses. The lower court…