Federal Supreme Court 7B_1056/2026: detention orders set aside for violation of the right to be heard

Oct 12, 2026, 12:00 AM · Bundesklar Redaktion

The Federal Supreme Court (Second Criminal Law Division) sets aside the orders issued on 21 July 2026 by the President of the Criminal Appeals Court of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, revoking authorisation for the early execution of a measure under Art. 60 of the Swiss Criminal Code and ordering preventive detention. The Court finds a formal denial of justice or a violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 of the Federal Constitution): no reasons were given for either the revocation of authorisation or the refusal of defence counsel. It remits the case for a fresh decision.

Federal Supreme Court decision

The Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal by appellant A.________ against the orders of the President of the Criminal Appeals Court of the Cantonal Court of Vaud dated 21 July 2026. The orders revoking authorisation for the early execution of a therapeutic measure and ordering preventive detention were set aside. The case is remitted to the lower authority so that it can promptly hear the appellant again in the presence of defence counsel on the revocation of authorisation for the early execution of the measure and on preventive detention, and then issue a fresh decision.

Background to the proceedings

On 19 December 2025, the appellant had been found guilty by the Criminal Court in Lausanne of offences including common assault, criminal damage, verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, coercion, sexual coercion, rape and a violation of the Narcotics Act. He was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment, with credit for 785 days of detention before judgment and 197 days of detention in unlawful conditions. The court ordered inpatient psychiatric and addiction treatment under Art. 60 of the Swiss Criminal Code and suspended the custodial sentence in favour of execution of the measure, while maintaining preventive detention. Both the public prosecutor’s office and the appellant appealed against this judgment. On 14 January 2026, the President of the Criminal Court authorised the early execution of the measure in place of preventive detention. On 12 June 2026, the Office for the Execution of Sentences ordered placement at Foundation F.________ in U.________ from 15 June 2026, subject to conditions including abstinence from narcotics.

Revocation and preventive detention

On 20 July 2026, the Office for the Execution of Sentences proposed to the President of the Criminal Appeals Court that authorisation for the early execution of the measure be revoked and that the appellant be returned immediately to preventive detention. On 21 July 2026, the President revoked the authorisation of 14 January 2026 and issued a warrant to bring the appellant before him. The appellant was arrested and brought before the President that same day. The President orally informed him of the revocation and of the forthcoming decision on preventive detention. The appellant, who appeared without a lawyer, requested legal representation. That same day, the President ordered immediate preventive detention.

Violation of the right to be heard

The Federal Supreme Court found that the lower authority had not given reasons for revoking authorisation for the early execution of the measure. Neither the oral communication at the hearing nor the reasoning in the detention order explained why authorisation had been revoked. The appellant also complained that he had not had an opportunity to express his views before the decision; the Federal Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of the failure to give reasons, independently of that further criticism. In addition, at the hearing on 21 July 2026, he had been refused defence counsel without reasons despite having requested it. The Court considered that the conditions for mandatory defence under Art. 130 letters a and b of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code appeared to be met. In any event, the lower authority had not explained why those conditions would not have been met at the hearing. With regard to the refusal of defence counsel as well, the Federal Supreme Court found a failure to give reasons, rather than a conclusively established substantive violation of the rules on defence.

Remittal and costs

The Federal Supreme Court remitted the case to the President of the Criminal Appeals Court of the Cantonal Court of Vaud so that he could promptly hear the appellant again in the presence of defence counsel on the revocation of authorisation for the early execution of the measure and on preventive detention, and then issue a fresh decision. It did not order immediate release, as examination of the substantive grounds of appeal was excluded. No court costs were charged. As the appellant had acted without a lawyer, no party costs were awarded. The applications for legal aid and suspensive effect or interim measures were declared moot.