PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) and by the Government of the Swiss Confederation (“the Government“) on 13 and 28 July 1989 respectively, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention“). It originated in an application (no. 12794/87) against Switzerland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Mrs Jutta Huber, a Swiss national, on 27 February 1987. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) of the Convention and to the declaration whereby Switzerland recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government’s application referred to Articles 45, 47 and 48 (art. 45, art. 47, art. 48). The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent her (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, the elected judge of Swiss nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 23 August 1989, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other five members, namely Mr J. Cremona, Mr F. Gölcüklü, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann and Mr J.A. Carrillo Salcedo (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently Mr B. Walsh, substitute judge, replaced Mr Carrillo Salcedo, who had resigned before the hearing (Rule 2 para. 3).

Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant’s lawyers on the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 31 October 1989. The applicant, for her part, decided not to submit a memorial but, on 13 February 1990, lodged her claims for just satisfaction. On 18 January the Secretary to the Commission had informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.

Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be appearing before the Court, the President directed on 11 January 1990 that the oral proceedings should open on 28 March 1990 (Rule 38).

On 1 March the Commission secretariat produced the documents relating to the proceedings before the Commission, as requested by the Registrar on the instructions of the President.

The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court:

for the Government Mr O. Jacot-Guillarmod, Under-Secretary of the Federal Office of Justice, Head of the International Affairs Division, Agent, Mr R. Levi, a former federal judge, Mr B. Münger, Federal Office of Justice, Deputy Head of the International Affairs Division, Counsel;

for the Commission Mr H. G. Schermers, Delegate;

for the applicant Mr E. Schönenberger, Rechtsanwalt, Mr K. Mäder, Rechtsanwalt, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Jacot-Guillarmod and Mr Levi for the Government, by Mr Schermers for the Commission and by Mr Schönenberger and Mr Mäder for the applicant, as well as their replies to its question. Following the hearing and at the Court’s request, the Delegate produced the copy of a document.

On 30 March 1990, pursuant to Rule 51, the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court.

Having taken note of the Government’s agreement and the concurring opinions of the Commission and the applicant, the Court decided, on 24 May 1990, to proceed to judgment without holding a further hearing (Rule 26).

AS TO THE FACTS

I. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

Mrs Jutta Huber, a Swiss national, resides in Zürich. A District Attorney (Bezirksanwalt) of Zürich, Mr J., issued instructions to the police (Vorführungsbefehl) requiring her to be brought to give evidence as a witness on 10 August 1983. He did so in connection with a criminal investigation concerning two persons - Mr K. of Hamburg and Mr B. of Zürich - suspected of living on the earnings of prostitution and of procuring.

1. Detention on remand

On 11 August 1983 the applicant was taken by the Zürich municipal police to the District Attorneys’ Office (Bezirksanwaltschaft) in that town, where she was questioned as a witness by District Attorney J., although no summons to appear as a witness (Vorladung zur Zeugeneinvernahme) had been issued. In answer to his questions, she admitted making a living from prostitution, but maintained that she knew Mr K. and Mr B. only by name and that she did not pass on to them any of her earnings.

On concluding his examination, the District Attorney signed a detention order (Verhaftsverfügung) remanding the applicant in custody on grave suspicion of having given false evidence. According to this order, members of the “Hell’s Angels“ of Zürich and Hamburg were strongly suspected of having brought to Zürich German prostitutes, some of whom had married Swiss nationals who received payment for this. The women were then encouraged, partly under threat, to engage in prostitution under the protection of the “Hell’s Angels“, who were paid a part of the proceeds in exchange. There were strong grounds for supposing that Mrs Huber was one of these women. When appearing as a witness, she had denied any contact with the “Hell’s Angels“, which appeared unlikely to be true. The order referred in particular to the danger of collusion and the possibility that evidence might be tampered with. It stated further that the applicant could appeal within 48 hours to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Zürich.

Mrs Huber was released on 19 August 1983.

2. The criminal proceedings

(a) Proceedings in the Zürich District Court 14. On 12 October 1984 District Attorney J. instituted proceedings before the Judge in Criminal Cases (Einzelrichter in Strafsachen) at the Zürich District Court (Bezirksgericht). His indictment (Anklageschrift) alleged that the applicant had given false evidence in judicial proceedings and, as a possible additional charge (eventualiter), that she had been an accessory to a criminal offence. He sought the imposition on Mrs Huber of a fine of 5,000 Swiss francs. The trial took place on 10 January 1985, after the indictment had been accepted (zugelassen, Article 165 of the Zürich Code of Procedure - Strafprozessordnung, “StPO“); the District Attorney was not present. The accused’s lawyer stated on that occasion (translation): “In this case we are confronted in the first place with a violation of ... Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which provides that anyone who is arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) ... must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. This never happened in the present case. Indeed the person who remanded the accused in custody, District Attorney J., is now also prosecutor [Ankläger].“ 15. On 10 January 1985 the District Court acquitted Mrs Huber on the ground that she had never been validly summoned to appear as a witness (vorgeladen zur Zeugeneinvernahme), which made her testimony unlawful and inadmissible. The judgment did not refer to the defence argument based on Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention. (b) The proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Zürich 16. On appeal (Berufung) by the prosecution, the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Zürich fined the applicant 4,000 Swiss francs for attempting to give false evidence. In its judgment of 13 September 1985, the appeal court found that the accused’s testimony was not unlawfully obtained and could therefore be used in evidence. In addition, it referred to the monitoring of telephone conversations between Mrs Huber and Mr K., carried out by the German authorities who had communicated the transcript thereof to the Swiss judicial authorities in accordance with the system of mutual assistance in criminal matters. The court inferred from this evidence that the applicant in fact knew Mr K. and Mr B. On the question of the issue raised under Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention, the appeal court said (translation): “Finally, ... the appellant’s lawyer’s objection that, on her arrest and in contravention of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention, the accused was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power is unfounded. For, according to the case-law of the Federal Court, the Zürich District Attorney also exercises judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention at the stage of the investigation (ATF [Arrêts du Tribunal fédéral suisse] 102 Ia 179).“

3. The appeals lodged by Mrs Huber

(a) The appeal to the Court of Cassation of the Canton of Zürich 17. On 1 July 1986 the Court of Cassation (Kassationsgericht) of the Canton of Zürich dismissed Mrs Huber’s application for a declaration of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde). It took the view that the submission relating to Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) could not be taken into account in this instance. If Mrs Huber had wished to challenge the District Attorney on this point, she should have done so during the investigation. (b) The appeal to the Federal Court 18. On 22 August 1986 Mrs Huber lodged a public-law appeal with the Federal Court. She complained, inter alia, that, notwithstanding Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), the same District Attorney had both ordered her detention on remand and drawn up the indictment. 19. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 24 November 1986, which was served on 18 December. As to the complaint based on Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), it held as follows (translation): “As the appellant has long since been released from detention on remand, she no longer has a current, practical interest in a ruling on [her] complaint, for which reason the Court can no longer deal with it. The objection would in any event be unfounded since both the Federal Court (ATF 102 Ia 179 et seq.) and the European Court of Human Rights (the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979) have declared that at the stage of the investigation the Zürich District Attorney qualifies as an ‘officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power’ within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention.“

II. THE ZÜRICH DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Canton of Zürich is divided into eleven districts, each of which has a District Attorneys’ Office with one or more Attorneys. The status and powers of District Attorneys were laid down in the Courts Act of 13 June 1976 (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, “GVG“), which came into force on 1 January 1977 and which in substance re-enacted the provisions of an Act of 29 January 1911. Ordinary District Attorneys are elected by universal suffrage for a term of office of four years (section 80 GVG). If necessary, the Cantonal Government appoints Special District Attorneys for a specified period (sections 81 and 87 GVG). Both Ordinary and Special District Attorneys are subordinate to the Principal Public Prosecutor who in turn comes under the authority of the Department of Justice and the Government (Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zürich.

1. The functions of District Attorneys

District Attorneys carry out three different functions. (a) Investigation (“L’instruction“)

The investigation (instruction) of criminal cases comes within the competence of the prosecuting authorities (section 73 GVG). The District Attorney conducts the investigation except in those cases where it is entrusted by law to the Principal Public Prosecutor or a judge (Article 25 StPO).

The District Attorney may make a detention order (Verhaftsbefehl - Article 55 StPO), the grounds for which he must state. He has to hear an arrested suspect within 24 hours (Article 64 StPO). During this first interrogation, at which the suspect’s lawyer is not normally present, the suspect must be clearly informed of the reasons prompting the suspicions held against him (Article 65 StPO) and of the existence of a right of appeal against the order (1956 Circular from the Public Prosecutor’s Office). Detention on remand ordered by the District Attorney may not exceed 14 days; this period may be extended by the President of the District Court or, in cases coming within the jurisdiction of the Assize Court, the President of the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal (Article 51 StPO).

In carrying out the investigation, the District Attorney is under a duty to establish both incriminating and exonerating evidence with equal care (Article 31 StPO). (b) Prosecution

The District Attorney is the prosecuting authority before the “Judge in Criminal Cases“ and before the District Courts in cases concerning petty offences and misdemeanours; for the higher cantonal courts (the Court of Appeal and the Assize Court - section 72 GVG), this function is performed by the Principal Public Prosecutor.

Unless he finds that there is no case to answer, the District Attorney, or, depending on the seriousness of the offence, the Principal Public Prosecutor, must institute the main proceedings (Hauptverfahren) by drawing up the indictment (Article 161 StPO). In preparing the indictment, he has to take account of both incriminating and exonerating evidence (Article 178 para. 2 StPO), without setting out the grounds of suspicion or any legal considerations (Article 162 para. 3 StPO). The President of the District Court, or the President of the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, decides whether to accept or reject the indictment (Article 165 StPO).

Before the trial court, the District Attorney has the status of a party in the proceedings (Article 178 para. 1 StPO). He assumes the role of prosecuting authority, but is not required to attend the hearing unless the sentence sought exceeds eighteen months’ imprisonment or additional investigative measures are ordered. (c) Punishment

Finally, the District Attorney is empowered to issue a punishment order (Strafbefehl) if the accused has admitted his guilt and if a fine (Busse) or a prison sentence of not more than one month is deemed sufficient (Article 317 StPO); however, the person concerned is entitled to enter an objection (Einsprache) to the punishment order, as is the Principal Public Prosecutor (Article 321 StPO).

2. The combination of functions

The combination of the functions of investigation and prosecution has given rise to case-law - at cantonal and federal level - which has recently been confirmed. (a) The Zürich case-law

In a judgment of 13 June 1988 (Ante Djukic gegen Staatsanwaltschaft des Kantons Zürich), the Cantonal Court of Cassation stated as follows (translation): “In this connection, the Federal Court has held that the District Attorney of the Canton of Zürich exercises judicial power (ATF 102 Ia 180, confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 34, ...; see also ATF 107 Ia 254). However, the appellant considers ... that reference to these precedents is not relevant as in the instant case the District Attorney who had drawn up the indictment was the same as the one who had ordered the arrest. This complaint is unfounded. What is decisive is whether at the time of the arrest the decision was taken by an official who satisfied the requirements of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the European Convention on Human Rights in other words by an officer who exercised judicial power. This question has been answered in the affirmative by the eminent courts referred to above. This finding that the functions discharged by that officer are compatible with the provisions of the Convention cannot subsequently be called in question on the sole ground that, once the investigation has been completed, the District Attorney assumes the role of prosecuting authority. The status of this officer at the time of and in relation to the decision to arrest remains the same, and the arrest, initially regarded as being lawful, cannot subsequently become unlawful on this sole ground. Furthermore, it is only natural that the District Attorney, as the investigating authority and acting within his powers, should draw up an indictment after the investigation has been completed if he considers that he possesses sufficient evidence of the accused’s guilt. Nor can it readily be seen what the accused would gain if the indictment had to be drawn up by an officer other than the District Attorney who, at the beginning of the investigation, had ordered his arrest. In other words, as far as Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention is concerned, the fact that the officer who ordered the arrest is the same as the officer who drew up the indictment is not decisive.“ (b) Federal case-law

On a public-law appeal lodged against the judgment cited in the preceding paragraph, the Federal Court held as follows on 14 March 1989 (translation): “It has to be recognised that it is possible - as the instant case demonstrates - that the District Attorney may subsequently have occasion to draw up the indictment and even to put the prosecution case before the court. The mere fact that this possibility exists is not, however, decisive in this respect. Firstly, the eventuality cannot put in question or negate the Attorney’s independence from the parties at the time of an arrest. As has been shown, it is far more a matter of looking at the position as it stands at the time when the detention is ordered. Secondly, the possibility in question was held not to be decisive by the European Court in its judgment in the Schiesser case. In that case it could also have happened that the District Attorney subsequently had to draw up the indictment, since the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the stage of beginning the investigation or at the time of the arrest had not been established. This eventuality did not, however, prevent the European Court from finding that there had been no breach of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention in the Schiesser case. That fact likewise shows that the relevant officer’s independence and impartiality must be considered exclusively at the time of the arrest and not in the light of the mere possibility that he may play a role later in the proceedings and draw up the indictment.“

3. Statistics

In 1989, 108 District Attorneys in the Canton of Zürich dealt with 17,647 investigations, of which 20.3% resulted in an indictment, 33.8% in the case being discontinued, 42.2% in a punishment order and 3.7% in the referral of the case to a higher court.

The number of cases in which the District Attorney personally conducted the prosecution in court does not appear in the statistics, but according to the Government it is very low. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

In her application of 27 February 1987 to the Commission (no. 12794/87), Mrs Huber relied on Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention. She complained that the same District Attorney had ruled on her detention and then indicted her. She argued that he could not be regarded as an “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power“.

The Commission declared the application admissible on 9 July 1988. In its report of 10 April 1989 (Article 31 of the Convention) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion, by twelve votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the three separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment. FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

At the hearing the Government confirmed the submissions put forward in their memorial. In that document they had asked the Court to hold “that Switzerland [had] not violated the ... Convention ... on account of the circumstances which gave rise to Mrs Jutta Huber’s application“.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e1
001-57644_a11_em1
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of the Swiss Confederation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e2
001-57644_a11_em2
CODE
DIRECT
12794/87
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e1
001-57644_a11_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em1
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Jutta Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e4
001-57644_a11_em5
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e5
001-57644_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e1
001-57644_a11_em7
ORG
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e6
001-57644_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e4
001-57644_a11_em9
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e7
001-57644_a11_em10
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e8
001-57644_a11_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
23 August 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e9
001-57644_a11_em12
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J. Cremona
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e10
001-57644_a11_em13
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr F. Gölcüklü
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e11
001-57644_a11_em14
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir Vincent Evans
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e12
001-57644_a11_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Spielmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e13
001-57644_a11_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.A. Carrillo Salcedo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e14
001-57644_a11_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Walsh
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e15
001-57644_a11_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Carrillo Salcedo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e7
001-57644_a11_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em10
Mr Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e16
001-57644_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e17
001-57644_a11_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e18
001-57644_a11_em22
DATETIME
NO_MASK
18 January
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e19
001-57644_a11_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
11 January 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e20
001-57644_a11_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
28 March 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e21
001-57644_a11_em25
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e22
001-57644_a11_em26
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e23
001-57644_a11_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr O. Jacot-Guillarmod
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e24
001-57644_a11_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Office of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e25
001-57644_a11_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
International Affairs Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e26
001-57644_a11_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Levi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e27
001-57644_a11_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Münger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e24
001-57644_a11_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Office of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e25
001-57644_a11_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
International Affairs Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e28
001-57644_a11_em34
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. G. Schermers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e29
001-57644_a11_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Schönenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e30
001-57644_a11_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Mäder
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e23
001-57644_a11_em37
PERSON
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em27
Mr Jacot-Guillarmod
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e26
001-57644_a11_em38
PERSON
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em30
Mr Levi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e28
001-57644_a11_em39
PERSON
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em34
Mr Schermers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e29
001-57644_a11_em40
PERSON
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em35
Mr Schönenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e30
001-57644_a11_em41
PERSON
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em36
Mr Mäder
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e31
001-57644_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
30 March 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e32
001-57644_a11_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em44
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Jutta Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e4
001-57644_a11_em45
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em46
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em47
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e34
001-57644_a11_em48
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e35
001-57644_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
10 August 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e36
001-57644_a11_em50
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e37
001-57644_a11_em51
LOC
NO_MASK
Hamburg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e38
001-57644_a11_em52
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em53
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e39
001-57644_a11_em54
DEM
QUASI
prostitution
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e40
001-57644_a11_em55
DEM
QUASI
procuring
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e41
001-57644_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
11 August 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em57
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e42
001-57644_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
District Attorneys’ Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e42
001-57644_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em58
Bezirksanwaltschaft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e43
001-57644_a11_em60
PERSON
NO_MASK
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e39
001-57644_a11_em61
DEM
QUASI
prostitution
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e36
001-57644_a11_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e38
001-57644_a11_em63
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e44
001-57644_a11_em64
MISC
QUASI
Hell’s Angels
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em65
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e37
001-57644_a11_em66
LOC
NO_MASK
Hamburg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em67
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e45
001-57644_a11_em68
DEM
QUASI
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e4
001-57644_a11_em69
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e39
001-57644_a11_em70
DEM
QUASI
prostitution
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e44
001-57644_a11_em71
MISC
QUASI
Hell’s Angels
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em72
PERSON
DIRECT
001-57644_a11_em4
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e44
001-57644_a11_em73
MISC
QUASI
Hell’s Angels
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e46
001-57644_a11_em74
DATETIME
NO_MASK
48 hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e47
001-57644_a11_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e47
001-57644_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em75
Staatsanwaltschaft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em77
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em78
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e49
001-57644_a11_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e50
001-57644_a11_em80
ORG
QUASI
Zürich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e51
001-57644_a11_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
12 October 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e43
001-57644_a11_em82
PERSON
NO_MASK
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e50
001-57644_a11_em83
ORG
QUASI
Zürich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57644_a11_e52
001-57644_a11_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Bezirksgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em85
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e53
001-57644_a11_em86
QUANTITY
QUASI
5,000 Swiss francs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e54
001-57644_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
10 January 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em88
MISC
QUASI
Zürich Code of Procedure - Strafprozessordnung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em89
MISC
QUASI
001-57644_a11_em88
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57644_a11_e56
001-57644_a11_em90
MISC
NO_MASK
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e43
001-57644_a11_em91
PERSON
NO_MASK
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e54
001-57644_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
10 January 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em93
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em94
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em95
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e57
001-57644_a11_em96
QUANTITY
QUASI
4,000 Swiss francs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e58
001-57644_a11_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em98
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e36
001-57644_a11_em99
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e45
001-57644_a11_em100
DEM
QUASI
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e4
001-57644_a11_em101
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e36
001-57644_a11_em102
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e38
001-57644_a11_em103
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em105
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e60
001-57644_a11_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
ATF
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e60
001-57644_a11_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em106
Arrêts du Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em108
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e61
001-57644_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em110
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e62
001-57644_a11_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e61
001-57644_a11_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em113
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em114
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em115
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e63
001-57644_a11_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
22 August 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em118
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em120
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e64
001-57644_a11_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
24 November 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e65
001-57644_a11_em122
DATETIME
NO_MASK
18 December
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e60
001-57644_a11_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
ATF
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e66
001-57644_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e67
001-57644_a11_em126
DATETIME
QUASI
4 December 1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em127
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e68
001-57644_a11_em128
LOC
QUASI
ZÜRICH
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em129
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e69
001-57644_a11_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
13 June 1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57644_a11_e70
001-57644_a11_em131
MISC
NO_MASK
001-57644_a11_em132
Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e70
001-57644_a11_em132
MISC
NO_MASK
GVG
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e71
001-57644_a11_em133
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 1977
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e72
001-57644_a11_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
29 January 1911
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e73
001-57644_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Ordinary District Attorneys
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e74
001-57644_a11_em136
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e75
001-57644_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Cantonal Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e76
001-57644_a11_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em139
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em140
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em141
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e77
001-57644_a11_em142
DATETIME
NO_MASK
24 hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em143
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em144
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e78
001-57644_a11_em145
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1956
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e47
001-57644_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e79
001-57644_a11_em147
DATETIME
NO_MASK
14 days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e80
001-57644_a11_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
Assize Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e81
001-57644_a11_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em150
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em151
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e82
001-57644_a11_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
District Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em153
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em154
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em155
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e81
001-57644_a11_em156
ORG
NO_MASK
Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em157
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em158
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e83
001-57644_a11_em159
DATETIME
NO_MASK
eighteen months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e84
001-57644_a11_em160
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em161
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e55
001-57644_a11_em162
MISC
QUASI
StPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e33
001-57644_a11_em163
LOC
QUASI
Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e85
001-57644_a11_em164
DATETIME
QUASI
13 June 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e86
001-57644_a11_em165
MISC
QUASI
Ante Djukic gegen Staatsanwaltschaft des Kantons Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e87
001-57644_a11_em166
ORG
NO_MASK
Cantonal Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em167
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em168
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e88
001-57644_a11_em169
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights, Publications
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e66
001-57644_a11_em170
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e60
001-57644_a11_em171
ORG
NO_MASK
ATF
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e59
001-57644_a11_em172
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e89
001-57644_a11_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e90
001-57644_a11_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e91
001-57644_a11_em175
MISC
QUASI
Schiesser case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e47
001-57644_a11_em176
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e90
001-57644_a11_em177
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e91
001-57644_a11_em178
MISC
QUASI
Schiesser case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e92
001-57644_a11_em179
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e93
001-57644_a11_em180
ORG
NO_MASK
District Attorneys
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e48
001-57644_a11_em181
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Zürich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57644_a11_e94
001-57644_a11_em182
QUANTITY
QUASI
17,647
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e95
001-57644_a11_em183
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
20.3%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e96
001-57644_a11_em184
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
33.8%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e97
001-57644_a11_em185
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
42.2%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e98
001-57644_a11_em186
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
3.7%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e5
001-57644_a11_em187
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e2
001-57644_a11_em188
CODE
DIRECT
12794/87
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em189
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Huber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e99
001-57644_a11_em190
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e100
001-57644_a11_em191
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57644_a11_e1
001-57644_a11_em192
ORG
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57644_a11_e3
001-57644_a11_em193
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Jutta Huber
Jutta Huber
CHE
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Jutta Huber