Tokens: 16
.
A
few
days
later
,
on
10
February,[45
]
another
judgment
of
the
same
court
decided
that
preventive
detention
comes
under
criminal
law
for
the
purposes
of
Article
74
(
1
)
No
.
1
of
the
Basic
Law
,
and
is
consequently
a
matter
for
Federal
legislation
.
Yet
the
Constitutional
Court
declared
the
impugned
Länder
laws
regarding
preventive
detention
,
namely
the
Bavarian
Straftäterunterbringungsgesetz
[
46
]
and
the
Saxony
-
Anhalt
Unterbringungsgesetz
[
47
]
,
as
merely
incompatible
(
unvereinbar
)
with
the
Basic
Law
,
according
to
section
31
(
2)(3
)
of
the
Federal
Constitutional
Court
Act
,
and
not
as
null
and
void
(
nichtig
)
,
according
to
section
95
(
3)(1
)
of
the
same
Act
,
in
order
to
avoid
the
immediate
release
of
all
detained
persons
under
the
impugned
laws.[48
]
Furthermore
,
the
court
determined
that
the
said
laws
could
remain
in
force
until
30
September
2004
with
a
view
to
allowing
the
competent
Federal
organ
to
repeal
and
replace
them
by
other
constitutionally
compatible
legislation.[49
]
Adopting
a
proactive
stance
on
the
matter
,
the
Constitutional
Court
instructed
the
Federal
legislator
to
consider
,
within
a
prescribed
deadline
,
the
possibility
of
taking
a
retrospective
decision
on
the
continued
detention
of
the
dangerous
offenders
still
detained.[50
]
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O