By disregarding the appellant's addiction as a possible reason for a potential reduction in his criminal responsibility, the lower court fails to address an essential assessment factor and its assessment is incomplete. In these circumstances, it is not possible to conclusively review the lower court's correct application of Art. 20 SCC or its decision not to obtain an expert assessment of the appellant's criminal responsibility. The lower court therefore fails to meet its duty to give reasons under Art. 112 para. 1 lit. b FSA and at the same time violates the appellant's right to be heard. It is not for the Federal Supreme Court to carry out the omitted review in place of the lower court, especially as this concerns the offender's condition and thus a question of fact, which precludes curing the deficiency in the reasoning. The criticism raised concerning the question of an expert assessment of the appellant's criminal responsibility is therefore well founded in the sense set out above. The contested judgment must be set aside on this point and the matter remitted to the lower court for rectification.