jails The detention regime in the Zurich Investigation is extremely strict. More stringent than in other cantons, and is significantly more stringent than the later of the prison. This despite the fact that for all pre-trial detainees, the presumption of innocence applies. Already in 2014, the National Commission has notified for the prevention of torture, the restrictive conditions of detention. Today, a Delegation from the UN leaves-sub – Committee for the prevention of torture Switzerland, she has visited here probably remand prisons.

In Zurich you are not allowed to make phone calls in the pretrial detention with the Prosecutor. Visits take place only behind the cutting disc. And the prisoners often spend 23 hours per day in the cell – alone. Working and employment opportunities, there are hardly any.

An explanation for the restrictive detention regime is that custody is to be perceived as being as unpleasant as possible. The Setting create the desired “confession pressure”, say criminal defense lawyer. Again and again the word “coercive detention”. You are not allowed in Switzerland.

Fehr examines improvements

Director of Justice Jacqueline Fehr (SP) has detected the instance of maladministration and the beginning of 2016 a nine-member interdisciplinary working group established to examine the possibilities for the improvement of social contacts for prisoners on remand. Lead the office of prisons (JuV), with staff of the Prosecutor’s offices and courts are represented.

In the centre of the planned improvements, the introduction of a two-phase model. In a first Phase, the conditions of detention should continue to be strict. In a second Phase, they will be loosened – in particular, for Suspects who are in prison because of escape and danger of repetition. Who is detained because of collusion risk, is likely to make it barely in the second Phase. The risk that detainees are exerting pressure on victims and witnesses as well as accomplices deny, is great.

However, as the second adhesive phase should be designed specifically? How it is determined who will benefit from the relaxations? And when the two-phase model is to be introduced? Much is still open. The planned pilot trial with 40 seats was supposed to start in the summer of 2018 in the jail Limmattal. But then, the JuV informed, a Start before 2019 is unlikely. The report of the working group need more time.

lawyer associations were not

invited to show How research, is the report now, and also the consultation expires at the end of 2018. However, there is still no official start date for the two-phase model. The results of the consultation would be incorporated and the final report of the Director of Justice submitted, says JuV spokeswoman Rebecca de Silva. When that will be, it is not possible to say at present.

At the consultation, the chief Prosecutor, the Supreme court and the security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich, as well as the three Zurich-based lawyer associations on-Call criminal defense, Zurich bar Association and the democratic jurists of Zurich have participated, according to de Silva. On request, want to speak only to the three lawyers ‘ associations. The reason seems clear: the arguments of The prosecutors and the courts are already included in the report. They are themselves part of the working group.

The lawyer’s associations, however, were not invited to participate in the working group, although “we have been actively involved in trying to”, as Thomas Sprenger, Board member of the Zurich bar Association, says. The three associations of practice in a joint consultation response decidedly critical of the proposals for the two-phase model. That there is to be such, and quickly, is for the criminal defenders and criminal defense attorney is undisputed. What you criticize is the fact that there should be for each individual investigation, two custody levels, inmate – no matter what the grounds for Detention.

harsh criticism

“in Principle, unacceptable for a System of levels with a two-Stick, in which only the temporal component is crucial,” said the opinion, which is the Tamedia-Recherchedesk. Those who fulfill the conditions for a more lenient detention regime, should be immediately below this. Otherwise, the detention was “disproportionate and therefore unlawful”. The idea of a first and second stage, in the sense of an order was directed to “fundamentally failed”.

in Particular, in the case of prisoners without collusion risk of insulation were not justified “at the end of measures from the first second to,” write the lawyers. And also, who is this detained, must would be transferred “within a few weeks” in a more lenient detention regime. Because to could this time, an insulating adhesive regime will no longer be justified with the collusive risk – “because this danger has materialized, either from the beginning not at all”.

No possibility to Lodge a Complaint for prisoners

criticism has also been the way that the prisoners are to be placed in the second adhesive phase. The working group proposes that the process leading the state’s attorney may initiate a communication to the prison management or not. There is no formal arrangement, but rather a Information of prison management to the Board with the formulation: “A misalignment of the accused Person in the stage 2 of the detention is, from the perspective of the Prosecutor.” Through this “simple, very workable, and quickly insertable solution”, let the two-phase model, at least, the method is moderately rapid to implement, it is said in the report.

One way to fight back as a prisoner against a Non-transfer, is not currently provided. This is not to criticize the criminal defense lawyer: the mandatory detention regime must, as is the case with the arrangement of the U-imprisonment, the compulsory measures court to decide. Against this decision, in turn, a mandatory appeal to the Supreme court must be possible.

the prison lines should be able to influence: The working group proposes that they be allowed a transfer, despite the authorisation of the public Prosecutor’s office – for example, “for the sake of maintaining security and order of the prison operation”. No appeal possibility is provided for the prisoners.

a lack of understanding pushes for criminal defenders in addition, the attitude of the working group, a loosening of the phone ban was associated with a disproportionate control effort. In other cantons, remand prisoners are likely to make a phone call. “Only the expected effect in terms of reduced visit the minimum of staff effort, the one-operated telephone booth makes necessary would pay, far outweigh,” write the lawyers.

Only as a Fig-leaf used for?

The “final report” written report of the nine-member working group was only a draft, says Rebecca de Silva. In the consultation process received criticisms would now “works as far as possible, consensual” and then again with the members of the working group will be discussed. Also about the further course of action will be.

Thomas Sprenger from the Zurich bar Association has not a lot of hope that the objections of the three lawyers ‘ associations to be effectively heard. “We would say as a criminal defense attorney is Essential, but are only consulted at the very end. I get the impression therefore, that they could use us as a Fig leaf.”

for Tanja Knodel, President of the Association Call criminal defense, seems to be the late Inclusion of “strange”. “We are very surprised that we are only asking if the final report is practically ready. We are the remand prisoners with the distance to the next,” says Knodel. They were completely cut off from the outside world. The more important it is that the rigid prison regime will as soon as possible, more humane.

recherchedesk@tamedia.ch (Tages-Anzeiger)

Created: 06.02.2019, 20:43 PM