Dismissal of the complaint against the extension of pre-trial detention

Facts

The complainant [X.] was taken into police custody on 17 August 2011 and, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, was placed in pre-trial detention by the Coercive Measures Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt with a ruling of 19 August 2011. The Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of endangering life, simple bodily harm, attempted serious bodily harm, threat, coercion, multiple acts of violence and threats against officials, property damage, theft, and various traffic offenses.

The Coercive Measures Court initially limited the detention until 11 November 2011. A complaint filed by the accused against the detention order was dismissed by the President of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt with a ruling of 14 September 2011. The complaint filed by the accused with the Federal Court was dismissed by the latter with a judgment of 24 October 2011, insofar as it was entertained.

With a ruling of 11 November 2011, the Coercive Measures Court extended the pre-trial detention until 3 February 2012. A complaint filed by the accused against this ruling was dismissed by the President of the Court of Appeal with a ruling of 8 December 2011. [X.] appealed to the Federal Court against the ruling of 8 December 2011 by the President of the Court of Appeal with a complaint of 29 December 2011.

Considerations

The Federal Court has examined the conditions for a judgment on the merits under Art. 78 ff. FSCA and found that no preliminary remarks are required. Art. 98 FSCA does not apply in this case.

The Court has examined the conditions for pre-trial detention and found that the complainant is strongly suspected of having committed a crime or offense and that there is a specific ground for detention. The complainant disputes the existence of grounds for detention and alleges a violation of personal freedom.

The Court has discussed the legal conditions for the general ground for detention of strong suspicion of having committed a crime and considered that these conditions are met. The complainant has not been able to substantiate that he could attack, injure, endanger, or threaten people again after being released from detention.

The Court has also examined the question of the proportionality of the duration of detention and found that the duration of detention so far, of…