[ad_1]
The 25-year-old criminal is suing the state. At the heart of today’s negotiation is the question: Did the Pfäffikon prison deal violate the European Convention on Human Rights?
The young offender was not treated properly in Pfäffikon prison.
The young delinquent Brian demands compensation. On Thursday afternoon, the Zurich District Court had to decide whether to uphold the liability claim of the 25-year-old, known by the pseudonym “Carlos”. The decision on this will not be made on Thursday.
In the complaint, Markus Bischoff, Brian’s lawyer, writes that the treatment at Pfäffikon prison was inhuman and degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it represents a violation of the personality Bischoff claims compensation of 40,000 francs and 15,600 francs as compensation.
Violation of the human rights convention?
The trigger for the lawsuit was the conditions in the Pfäffikon prison. Brian was detained there from the end of October 2016 to January 26, 2017. In January 2017, he was transferred to the prison security department.
During the 20 days between January 6 and 26, Brian was treated in a discriminatory and degrading manner. This was the conclusion reached in the summer of 2017 by an administrative investigation ordered by the director of Justice of Zurich, Jacqueline Fehr. He used former prosecutor Ulrich Weder for the report. Among other things, Brian had to sleep on the floor without a mattress, he was only allowed to wear a poncho during this time and without his own clothes, not even underwear. The walks weren’t possible either. Also, he always had to wear shackles and couldn’t shower.
None claimed that prison staff were overwhelmed by the violent Brian as the cause of the treatment. It had devastated his cell and flooded it, clogging the toilet. In addition, he had severely threatened, spat on, and verbally abused the Pfäffikon guards. The case had consequences for the staff: the director of the Pfäffikon prison at the time had to leave.
Various conditions of detention, to which Brian was exposed for three weeks, amounted to “objectively clearly discriminatory and degrading treatment,” Weder stated at the time. The intention to humiliate, humiliate or discriminate on the part of the prison staff could not be recognized. Therefore, there is no unconstitutional or unconstitutional treatment in the sense of the Federal Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is exactly what Markus Bischoff claims in the lawsuit. In court Thursday, in the presence of Brian, Bischoff said: “It’s a wrong world. The state has admitted irregularities, but now the state does not want to know anything more about it. Those with a monopoly on force must also ensure that minimum standards are met.
In his argument, Bischoff relies on an expert opinion of Berne’s constitutional and international lawyer Jörg Künzli. It came to the conclusion that given the violations found and the almost three weeks in prison, there was a clear violation of the human rights convention. To violate Article 3 of the ECHR, no intention of the parties is required. However, the appraiser denies the torture. The intention of the staff to punish Brian with the measures is evident in some places, but cannot be proven.
According to Künzli, it is striking that another inmate has also been exposed to similar conditions in prison. This shows that Brian’s conditions of detention were not fully justified by his exceptional behavior, but rather were the standard for prisoners classified as particularly difficult or dangerous in the security department.
Brian had the opportunity to speak in court. When you’re in solitary confinement, you go crazy, he said. The negative effects are clear. The reason is clear to him: “They want to break me severely.” He himself was not interested in doing anything wrong.
Strong criticism from critics
The canton demands that the action be dismissed in its entirety. In defense, he brings to the fore the behavior of plaintiff Brian. The statements of the canton representative date back to the offender’s childhood. This was extremely violent from a young age.
Brian tries to present himself as a victim. But he misunderstood that he was always the cause of the restrictions. It was not because of the arrest that the fronts were hardened, but because of the excessive aggression of the young man. Oliver Frei, the canton representative, told the district court: “The plaintiff wants to dominate the others. He wants to be the ‘boss’. Others must serve him and fulfill his wishes. Pfäffikon Prison and its staff were unprepared for such limitless assault. “During this time, not everything went as well as it did, that was already recognized,” said Frei. However, the state liability requirements are not met. “It is up to the plaintiff at all times to stop being violent and finally to behave in a correct and constructive manner.”
The applicant insists on the observance of human rights, unaware that he has destroyed lives, seriously injured people and continues to threaten to extinguish human lives.
The canton representative is also harshly critical of Künzli’s report. “It is comfortable to sit on the ivory tower of jurisprudence, it is easy to point to others and admonish them,” the scriptures say. The specific way of reacting to Brian’s outbursts of violence cannot be inferred from the statements. Künzli simply played down Brian’s actions.
In case the court confirms the action, the canton also threatens to file a counterclaim. This to show the supposedly dire consequences of Brian’s behavior. In addition, Brian already owes the canton more than 104,000 francs for previous proceedings. However, the other party denies it.
