Facts
In this case, the Federal Tribunal was seized of an appeal for nullity by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Aargau against a judgment of the Cantonal Tribunal of Aargau. The dispute concerned the question of whether the convicted person could have two-thirds of the duration of his stay in the "Satis" men's home imputed on the custodial sentence imposed on him.
The Federal Tribunal found that the Cantonal Tribunal had imposed extremely restrictive conditions on the convicted person upon his release from pre-trial detention, preventing him in particular from moving and residing freely. Although these alternative measures did not formally constitute pre-trial detention, the Federal Tribunal considered that they should be imputed to the sentence insofar as they resulted in a deprivation of liberty comparable to that of pre-trial detention. The Tribunal thus ruled that the Cantonal Tribunal had not violated federal law by imputing two-thirds of the duration of the convicted person's stay in the "Satis" home on the custodial sentence.
Considerations
According to the case law of the Federal Tribunal, the imputation of the duration of alternative measures involving deprivation of liberty on the custodial sentence must be carried out in a manner analogous to the imputation of pre-trial detention. When determining the duration of this imputation, the judge must take into account the degree of restriction on personal freedom represented by the alternative measure compared to the total deprivation of liberty resulting from pre-trial detention.
In the present case, the Cantonal…