Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 21.07.2026, 7B_830/2026
Facts
The Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting criminal proceedings against A.________ for a multitude of offenses, including professional theft, property damage, trespassing, fraud, and violations of the Narcotics Act. Following several arrests and an initial release, the defendant was placed back in pre-trial detention on August 8, 2025. This detention was extended several times, initially based on a risk of recidivism. (Facts A.a, A.b, A.c)
Following an initial appeal by the defendant, the Federal Supreme Court set aside a decision to extend detention and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich (hereinafter: the lower court). In its new decision of June 10, 2026, the lower court dismissed the risk of recidivism but maintained the detention, this time based on a flight risk. It concluded that the defendant, due to his serious mental health issues and drug addiction, risked "disappearing within the country" and becoming unreachable to the authorities, even though he had no intention of voluntarily evading the proceedings. (Facts B)
The defendant (the appellant) has once again appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. He contests the proportionality of the detention and requests his release, subject to substitute measures such as mandatory therapeutic follow-up, abstinence checks, a geographical restriction, an obligation to report to the authorities, or even placement in a supervised living facility. (Fact C)
Legal Analysis
Pre-trial detention is permissible, according toArt. 221 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), if the defendant is strongly suspected of having committed a crime or misdemeanor and there is a serious risk that they will evade the proceedings by fleeing (let. a, flight risk), influence persons or evidence (let. b, risk of collusion), or compromise the safety of others by committing further serious offenses (let. c, risk of recidivism). (consid. 3)
Detention, as the most intrusive coercive measure, must respect the principle of proportionality (Art. 36 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution ; Art. 197 para. 1 let. c and d CPC) and must only be ordered as a last resort (ultima ratio). It must be lifted as soon as less severe substitute measures can achieve the same objective (Art. 212 para. 2 let. c and Art. 237 para. 1 CrimPC). The application of alternative measures also requires the existence of strong suspicion and grounds for detention, though the intensity required for these grounds is lower than for detention itself. (consid. 3)
The risk of flight (Art. 221 para. 1 let. a CrimPC) requires concrete and serious indications of a probability of flight. A mere abstract possibility is insufficient. The assessment is based on an overall evaluation of the circumstances, including the defendant's personality, their ties to Switzerland, their connections abroad, and the potential sentence. This risk may manifest as fleeing abroad or "disappearing" within the country. (consid. 5.1)
In accordance with the principle of speed in detention matters (Art. 5 para. 2 CrimPC), cantonal authorities are required to examine all potential grounds for detention. If they fail to do so and the grounds relied upon are deemed unfounded by the Federal Supreme Court, the latter may order the immediate release of the defendant. (consid. 4.1)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court begins by dismissing the risk of collusion. The lower court did not examine it, and after eleven months of detention, it is presumed that the investigation has been successfully conducted without interference, rendering this risk non-existent. (consid. 4.2)
Regarding the risk of flight, the Federal Supreme Court analyzes the reasoning of the lower court. The latter had admitted a risk of "disappearing within the country," not due to the appellant's desire to flee, but because of his unstable mental health and addictions, which would make him unreliable and unreachable for the authorities. The appellant, while contesting this risk, requests alternative measures, which implies that he implicitly admits the existence of a moderate risk. Moreover, he acknowledges having missed appointments in the past due to his condition. (consid. 5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
The central point of the Federal Supreme Court's analysis concerns the proportionality of the detention. The lower court had judged that no alternative measure could effectively mitigate the risk of relapse into drug addiction and, consequently, the risk of "disappearing." It had thus concluded that only detention was capable of ensuring the appellant's availability for the proceedings. (consid. 6.1)
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this conclusion. It notes that the risk identified by the lower court is not that of a deliberate and organized flight, but that of temporary unavailability due to illness. The danger of the appellant permanently evading the proceedings is therefore considered low. Given this low risk, the alternative measures proposed by the appellant (mandatory therapy, abstinence checks, supervised housing, reporting obligations) all appear capable of sufficiently mitigating this risk. (consid. 6.3)
The Federal Supreme Court criticizes the lower court for failing to concretely examine the adequacy of these measures. It reiterates that it is not the role of the Federal Supreme Court to decide, as a court of first and last instance, which specific substitute measures should be ordered. Consequently, the detention is deemed disproportionate. (consid. 6.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court allows the appeal. It sets aside the decision of the Zurich Cantonal Supreme Court and remits the case for it to order appropriate substitute measures and release the appellant. (consid. 1 and 7)
No court costs are charged to the appellant. The Canton of Zurich is ordered to pay CHF 1,500 in compensation to the appellant's legal representative for the federal proceedings. The appellant's request for legal aid is rendered moot. (consid. 2, 3 and 7)