Facts
The son of spouses [A.] and I. [L.] was serving a two-year prison sentence for drug-related offenses at the Regensdorf cantonal prison. During a leave of absence granted on July 17 and 18, 1975, he did not return to prison. Subsequently, he was sometimes abroad and sometimes at his parents' residence in Zurich. On August 8, 1976, he was arrested in Berne. Criminal proceedings were initiated against parents [A.] and I. [L.] for continued complicity. A. [L.] is accused of having allowed his son to meet his needs by transferring cash amounts of an unknown amount from approximately August 4, 1975, to July 14, 1976. Spouses [A.] and I. [L.] are also accused of having accommodated and fed their son and provided him with money at their Zurich residence from approximately July 16, 1976, to approximately August 7, 1976.Considerations
The SCC considers that the accommodation of an escaped detainee with the aim of preventing the execution of his sentence falls under Art. 305 SCC, even if it is not a true "receiving of stolen goods". Indeed, the fact of housing and feeding a person sought by the authorities decisively hinders criminal prosecution or the execution of the sentence. This constitutes an effective form of assistance in the escape, which cannot be privileged compared to other forms of complicity such as financial support.
However, the SCC acknowledges that in exceptional cases, the temporary accommodation of an escapee may constitute an ethically justified and not highly reprehensible assistance, for example to avoid a criminogenic distress situation and allow the fugitive to reflect (possibly with a view to a voluntary surrender). But this is not the case here, where…