Facts
The case concerns a detainee, A., who is serving a twenty-year prison sentence for murder and attempted aggravated robbery, as well as a six-year prison sentence for repeated aggravated theft and other crimes. The detainee requested conditional release, which was denied by the Judge of the application of the penalty (GIAP) and subsequently confirmed by the Chamber of criminal appeals of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino (CRP). The detainee then filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the judgments of the CRP and the GIAP and his conditional release.
The detainee claims that the Commission for the examination of dangerous convicts, which expressed an opinion against his conditional release, was not impartial since two of its members, the President of the Cantonal Criminal Court and the General Prosecutor, had already intervened in previous procedures involving him. The detainee further claims that the failure to communicate the names of the members of the Commission prevented him from asserting any grounds for recusal.
Considerations
The Federal Court partially upheld the appeal, finding that the failure to communicate the names of the members of the Commission for the examination of dangerous convicts violated art. 29 para. 1 of the Constitution and prevented the detainee from asserting any grounds for recusal.
The Federal Court also found that the presence on the Commission of a judge who had previously convicted the detainee does not violate art. 62d SCC, as the provision refers exclusively to the representative of psychiatry. However, the Federal Court found that the detainee may recuse the public prosecutor member of the Commission if the latter…