Tokens: The
United
Nations
and
Council
of
Europe
expert
bodies
have
voiced
strong
criticism
of
the
German
solution
,
even
after
the
epistemic
turn
-
around
effected
in
the
judgment
of
4
May
2011
.
Two
years
after
that
constitutional
judgment
,
which
severely
reproached
the
“
shortcomings
”
and
“
considerable
defects”[236
]
of
the
execution
of
preventive
detention
in
Germany
,
the
CPT
still
concluded
that
the
reality
had
not
changed
much
.
Regardless
of
any
changes
on
the
ground
,
the
imposition
of
preventive
detention
,
including
its
primary
(
Article
66
of
the
Criminal
Code
)
,
deferred
(
Article
66a
of
the
Criminal
Code
)
and
retrospective
(
Article
66b
of
the
Criminal
Code
)
versions
,
after
the
service
of
a
prison
sentence
violates
both
customary
international
law
and
treaty
law
.
Hence
,
the
abolition
of
preventive
detention
,
including
its
primary
,
deferred
and
retrospective
versions
,
is
the
path
to
be
taken
by
the
German
legislator
in
order
to
be
in
line
with
international
law
.
Two
risks
are
usually
mentioned
with
a
view
to
rejecting
such
a
path
.
The
alleged
risk
that
it
could
end
up
aggravating
the
length
of
prison
sentences
is
no
excuse
,
because
it
could
be
countered
with
a
combination
of
alternative
penal
and
social
therapy
measures
.
The
alleged
risk
that
abolition
would
cause
an
increase
of
serious
offences
is
nothing
but
scientifically
unfounded
,
political
scaremongering
.
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
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O