Zurich judiciary must go over the books in satisfaction for Brian Keller
Published: Friday, Aug 9th 2024, 12:20
Back to Live Feed
The compensation claimed by Brian Keller for unlawful detention conditions during 20 days of solitary confinement in 2017 has been set too low at CHF 50 per day. This was decided by the Federal Supreme Court. The Zurich High Court must now reassess the case.
Specifically, the case concerns 20 days that Keller spent in the security department of the Pfäffikon district prison. He had been transferred there due to his extremely aggressive behavior and threats against the prison staff. The solitary confinement was basically appropriate due to the circumstances, the Federal Supreme Court stated in a ruling published on Friday.
The unruly behavior of the prisoner had presented the prison staff with great difficulties. Nevertheless, the authorities were obliged to do everything possible to ensure that the conditions of detention complied with human rights. The possibilities to do so had existed and the actual detention conditions could not be justified in various respects.
Overall, there was a clear violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. This was not altered by the fact that the prison staff could not be accused of any intention to humiliate or degrade the complainant.
The detention situation was due to excessive demands in dealing with the detainees, inadequate operational procedures and an inadequate prison infrastructure.
Constantly with ankle cuffs
Keller had to wear shackles at all times, was only clothed in a so-called "psychiatric poncho" and had no furniture at all. For weeks on end, he lacked a mattress, blanket, toiletries, activities and access to the yard.
The Zurich High Court should have taken into account that several elements were objectionable, writes the Federal Supreme Court. It refers to one of its rulings in which it considered compensation of CHF 50 per day to be appropriate in a case where only one element of the detention conditions was objectionable.
Keller had had to put up with numerous inadmissible restrictions and this had not been sufficiently taken into account. However, this did not mean that Keller was entitled to the CHF 40,000 he was claiming. (Judgment 2C_900/2022 of 12.7.2024)
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic