TF, 29.09.2026,7B_1149/2026
Facts
A.________ is accused of multiple property-related offenses, including professional fraud, usury, breach of trust, fraudulent use of a computer, as well as misappropriation of assets under judicial control and violations of the Road Traffic Act (LCR) (fact A.a).
Arrested on January 29, 2026, and placed in pre-trial detention, he saw this measure regularly extended without objection on his part, before requesting a comprehensive medical evaluation in light of an alleged deterioration in his health (facts A.b and A.d).
On July 7, 2026, A.________ requested his release, which led the Public Prosecutor's Office to refer the matter to the Compulsory Measures Court (TMC) (fact B.a).
By order of July 15, 2026, the TMC rejected the request, citing risks of flight, collusion, and reoffending, while considering that the accused's state of health remained compatible with detention, provided that adjustments were made and support from the HUG was provided (fact B.b).
The Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice rejected the accused's appeal by judgment of August 7, 2026 (fact B.c).
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) has filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking his immediate release and a finding of a violation of art. 3 ECHR and 7 of the Constitution (fact C).
Law
A criminal appeal is admissible against decisions relating to pre-trial detention (Art. 78 para. 1 LTF) (consid. 1.1).
When an irregularity affects the conditions of detention, it does not in principle lead to release, but rather gives rise to a declaratory decision allowing the trial judge to compensate the detainee or reduce the sentence (consid. 1.2.2).
Article 3 of the ECHR, like Art. 7andArt. 10 para. 3 of the Constitution, requires the State to ensure that conditions of detention do not subject the individual to distress exceeding the level inherent in the deprivation of liberty, with the detainee's health to be preserved in an appropriate manner (consid. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).
The obligation to provide medical care is a matter of due diligence and constitutes an obligation of means, not of result; thus, a deterioration in health is not in itself sufficient to establish a convention violation if adequate care is provided in a timely manner (consid. 2.2.3).
In principle, illness does not justify the release of a detainee, unless the measure entails serious consequences that are disproportionate to its purpose (Art. 197 para. 1 let. d of the Criminal Procedure Code), particularly when continued incarceration concretely endangers life or creates a serious and irreparable risk to health that medical facilities cannot remedy (consid. 2.2.4).
The Federal Supreme Court is bound by the cantonal findings of fact, unless they are arbitrary within the meaning ofArt. 9 of the Constitution. (recital 2.3).
Application to the specific case
The appellant does not contest the existence of the grounds for detention underArt. 221 para. 1 CrimPC, but focuses his arguments solely on the incompatibility of his state of health with incarceration (recital 1.2.1).
The admissibility of a request for immediate release or a purely declaratory judgment therefore appears doubtful, but the question remains undecided given the outcome of the case (recitals 1.2.2, 1.3.2, and 1.4).
On the merits, the medical certificate of July 14, 2026, demonstrates intensive and continuous medical and psychiatric care provided by the HUG prison medical service (numerous consultations, blood and cardiology tests, surgical intervention, and nutritional support) (recital 2.4.1).
The appellant fails to demonstrate, through non-arbitrary reasoning, that his pathologies result from the detention itself or that the lower courts acted arbitrarily in refusing to hear the doctors (recital 2.4.2).
The appellant admits to having had access to regular care and does not claim that his life is in danger (recital 2.4.3).
The fact that a definitive diagnosis has not yet been established for certain symptoms not clinically objectified, or that the treatment has not produced immediate remission, does not constitute a violation of the obligation of means incumbent upon the medical authorities, as the care remains continuous and appropriate (recitals 2.4.3 and 2.4.4).
Consequently, no violation of Art. 3 ECHR, nor any disproportion in maintaining the detention, is demonstrated (recital 2.4.4).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible (operative part 1).
The request for legal aid is rejected due to a lack of prospects for success (operative part 2, recital 3).
The court costs, set at CHF 1,200, are charged to the appellant (operative part 3).