Key legal question
Whether the public complaint alleging arbitrariness and denial of hearing was admissible and well-founded
Extracted holding
The complaint was admissible only within the limits of the constitutional arguments actually and sufficiently pleaded; the challenged refusals of further evidence and factual findings did not show arbitrariness or a hearing violation.
Extracted reasoning
The Federal Court reviewed only clearly motivated constitutional grievances. The cantonal court could refuse further psychiatric expertise and additional hearings on an anticipatory assessment of evidence that was not arbitrary; several complaints were insufficiently reasoned.