1Wird ein Sexual- oder Gewaltstraftäter in den Gutachten, die für das Gerichtsurteil nötig sind, als extrem gefährlich erachtet und nicht therapierbar eingestuft, ist er wegen des hohen Rückfallrisikos bis an sein Lebensende zu verwahren. Frühzeitige Entlassung und Hafturlaub sind ausgeschlossen.
2Nur wenn durch neue, wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse erwiesen wird, dass der Täter geheilt werden kann und somit keine Gefahr mehr für die Öffentlichkeit darstellt, können neue Gutachten erstellt werden. Sollte auf Grund dieser neuen Gutachten die Verwahrung aufgehoben werden, so muss die Haftung für einen Rückfall des Täters von der Behörde übernommen werden, die die Verwahrung aufgehoben hat.
3Alle Gutachten zur Beurteilung der Sexual- und Gewaltstraftäter sind von mindestens zwei voneinander unabhängigen, erfahrenen Fachleuten unter Berücksichtigung aller für die Beurteilung wichtigen Grundlagen zu erstellen.
Art. 123a Cst. — Overview
Art. 123a Cst. provides for lifelong preventive detention for extremely dangerous sexual and violent offenders. The provision arose from the popular initiative «Lifelong preventive detention for non-treatable, extremely dangerous sexual and violent offenders», which was adopted in 2004 (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 1).
What does the norm regulate? The Constitution prescribes that certain offenders must be detained until the end of their lives. This applies to persons who have committed a violent or sexual offence and are classified as «permanently non-treatable». The Federal Supreme Court understands this to mean lifelong non-treatability (BGE 140 IV 1 E. 3).
Who is affected? The regulation affects sexual and violent offenders whose dangerousness is extremely high. Two independent expert reports must confirm that no therapy is possible (Art. 123a para. 3 Cst.). In practice, these strict requirements are almost never met.
What are the legal consequences? Upon conviction, preventive detention follows without time limit. Early release is only possible if new scientific findings prove that the offender can be cured (Art. 123a para. 2 Cst.). The authority that orders such a release is liable for repeat offences under Art. 380a SCC.
Example: A sexual offender rapes several children and reoffends. Experts confirm that he is non-treatable for life. The court orders lifelong preventive detention. The offender remains in custody until his death, even after serving the custodial sentence.
The provision stands in tension with the European Convention on Human Rights and is applied extremely restrictively. It is one of the harshest criminal law norms of the Swiss legal order.
N. 1 The popular initiative «Lifelong detention for non-treatable, extremely dangerous sexual and violent offenders» was adopted on 8 February 2004 with 56.2% yes votes and by 12 cantons (FGA 2004 2199). The initiative arose as a reaction to several serious sexual and violent crimes, particularly the case of a recidivist sexual offender in the Canton of Zurich. The emotional public debate led to one of the harshest criminal law provisions in the Federal Constitution (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 1).
N. 2 The Federal Council rejected the initiative without a counter-proposal (FGA 2000 3335). It referred to the incompatibility with Art. 5 para. 4 ECHR, according to which every detained person has the right to judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. Parliament did not follow this recommendation, which led to the direct anchoring of the initiative text in the Constitution.
N. 3 Art. 123a Cst. is systematically positioned between the fundamental rights of procedure (Art. 29–32 Cst.) and the political rights (Art. 136ff. Cst.). The provision is a foreign element in the constitutional framework: It contains no programmatic norm or allocation of powers, but a directly applicable substantive legal regulation of criminal law (Vest, SG Komm. BV, Art. 123a N. 2).
N. 4 The tension with fundamental constitutional principles is obvious: → Art. 5 para. 2 Cst. (proportionality), → Art. 10 para. 2 Cst. (personal liberty), → Art. 36 para. 3 Cst. (restrictions on fundamental rights). Göksu points out that the legislative implementation attempts a «just-barely» compliance with international law requirements, but this squaring of the circle appears doubtful (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 3).
N. 5 The constitutional provision contains three paragraphs with different regulatory content:
N. 6Paragraph 1 orders lifelong detention for two groups of offenders:
Extremely dangerous sexual and violent offenders
Offenders classified as permanently non-treatable
The formulation «until the end of their lives» categorically excludes any early release. The Federal Court interprets «permanently non-treatable» as lifelong untreatability (BGE 140 IV 1 E. 3; Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 8).
N. 7Paragraph 2 regulates the only exception: Release is only possible if new scientific findings prove that the offender can be cured and no longer poses a danger. The authority that orders such a release is liable for recidivism according to → Art. 41ff. CO (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 11).
N. 8Paragraph 3 requires independent expert opinions from at least two experienced specialists. These must comment on treatability and dangerousness. The experts may not have previously treated or supervised the offender (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 14).
N. 9 The primary legal consequence is lifelong detention without regular review possibility. Unlike ordinary detention under → Art. 64 SCC, Art. 123a Cst. knows no periodic review. This stands in fundamental contradiction to Art. 5 para. 4 ECHR.
N. 10 State liability under paragraph 2 represents a special feature: While general state liability law requires fault or unlawful conduct, Art. 123a establishes strict liability independent of fault for recidivism (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 11).
N. 11 The central controversy concerns compatibility with international law. Forster argues for a fundamental rights-compliant restrictive interpretation that enables ECHR-compliant application (Forster, AJP 2004, 418). Mazzuchelli criticises the provision as incompatible with rule of law principles and predicts its practical insignificance (Mazzuchelli, plädoyer 2/2003, 36).
N. 12 Regarding implementation in the SCC, Göksu argues that Art. 64c para. 4 SCC appears constitutionally compliant, since Art. 123a Cst. must also be interpreted in light of proportionality (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 123a N. 12). Trechsel/Pieth, however, see in the legislative implementation an irresolvable normative contradiction between constitutional mandate and international law obligations (Trechsel/Pieth, PK StGB, Art. 64c N. 5).
N. 13 The question of «permanent untreatability» is disputed. Stratenwerth considers a reliable lifelong prognosis scientifically impossible (Stratenwerth, Strafrecht AT I, § 14 N. 82). Heer/Habermeyer argue that forensic-psychiatric expert opinions cannot make such absolute statements (BSK StGB I, Art. 64 N. 35).
N. 14 The application of Art. 123a Cst. via Art. 64 para. 1bis SCC is extremely rare in practice. The Federal Court in BGE 140 IV 1 has set the bar so high that the provision is factually hardly applicable. Experts must attest to lifelong untreatability — a prognosis that is hardly scientifically defensible.
N. 15 For the defence, it is recommended to focus on treatability. Any doubt about permanent untreatability excludes lifelong detention. Invoking international standards of forensic psychiatry, which do not permit absolute prognoses, is promising.
N. 16 Public prosecutors must observe the strict expert opinion requirements when applying for lifelong detention. Two independent, experienced experts must unanimously and without reservation confirm lifelong untreatability. Mere dangerousness is insufficient.
N. 17 The liability regulation in paragraph 2 creates considerable risk for deciding authorities. In release decisions, comprehensive documentation of scientific findings and careful risk assessment is mandatory. Obtaining additional expert opinions is advisable.
Art. 123a BV — Case Law
#Lifelong Preventive Detention and Permanent Untreatability
BGE 140 IV 1 of 22 November 2013 — Fundamental decision on the interpretation of permanent untreatability under Art. 64 para. 1bis lit. c SCC. The Federal Supreme Court holds that "permanently untreatable" means a state connected to the person of the perpetrator that is unchangeable for life. A temporal limitation finds no basis either in the wording or in the sense and purpose of the law.
«By "permanently untreatable" is meant a state connected to the person of the perpetrator that is unchangeable for life. The view of the lower instance that with a duration of 20 years the untreatability is permanent, is to be rejected.»
BGE 141 IV 423 of 5 November 2015 — Clarification of the requirements for particularly severe impairment of integrity under Art. 64 para. 1bis lit. a SCC. The court clarifies that the offence of sexual coercion does not eo ipso particularly severely impair the physical, psychological or sexual integrity of the victim. The compatibility of lifelong preventive detention with the ECHR remains open.
«The offence of sexual coercion does not eo ipso particularly severely impair the physical, psychological or sexual integrity of the victim. […] Left open whether lifelong preventive detention is compatible with the ECHR.»
BGE 142 IV 56 of 4 February 2016 — Relationship between life imprisonment and ordinary preventive detention. The Federal Supreme Court holds that ordinary preventive detention under Art. 64 para. 1 SCC must also be ordered when a life sentence is imposed, if the corresponding requirements are fulfilled.
«Preventive detention within the meaning of Art. 64 para. 1 SCC must also be ordered when a life sentence is imposed, if the requirements mentioned in this provision are fulfilled.»
Judgment 1C_450/2017 of 28 September 2017 — Attempt at abstract constitutional review of Art. 123a BV. The Federal Supreme Court does not enter into the appeal which sought the invalidity of the detention initiative. The case shows that constitutional objections against Art. 123a BV cannot be reviewed by way of abstract constitutional review.
This decision confirms the legal validity of Art. 123a BV and its integration into the Swiss legal order since the acceptance of the detention initiative on 8 February 2004.
Case law shows that Art. 123a BV is applied extremely restrictively in practice. This is mainly because the requirement of "permanent untreatability" according to the case law in BGE 140 IV 1 requires a lifelong prognosis, which forensic psychiatrists are only prepared to make in exceptional cases.
The few available decisions on lifelong preventive detention under Art. 64 para. 1bis SCC show that this measure has so far found practically no application, since the strict requirements — in particular permanent untreatability for life — are hardly ever fulfilled.