Supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision), part 8, for the record

Tiergarten Local Court at Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit), before the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin). Appeared: Mr Bagrash, Dmitry, register number 2796/22/6. Berlin, 20.05.2025. Via the Berlin Regional Court I, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23), to the Federal Court of Justice, case reference 5 StR 72/25. 6 pages of the record.

Complete text, as of 12.08.2026. Names of private individuals are abbreviated. Obvious typing and OCR errors in the record have been silently corrected. For context: This is the only part that the Federal Court of Justice, by its own account, could no longer consider — the order of 19.06.2025 states that supplement, part 8, could not have been considered in the decision of 07.05.2025 (Chronology No. 46).

I. Procedural errors and violation of rights

1. Failure to consider the final statement. The judgment ignores essential submissions in my final statement. This constitutes a flagrant violation of my right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG. My concluding statement contained concrete references to evidence, witnesses, contradictory investigation results and suspicions of manipulation — all of this was entirely passed over in the judgment.

2. Active obstruction of the search for witnesses by the prosecution. Despite repeated indications, a central female witness who had travelled in my vehicle with Mr T. was neither questioned by the police nor brought to give evidence by the prosecution. I had to locate the witness myself together with defence counsel and summon her to court. Her evidence showed that Mr T. did indeed exist and was connected with the vehicle — thus directly refuting a central prosecution assertion. Nevertheless, this witness is not mentioned anywhere in the judgment.

3. Refused investigation of surveillance. In November 2022, while attending an opposition congress in Warsaw, I was watched by a person presumed to be working for Russian services. I immediately informed the German state security division (Staatsschutz), handed over my vehicle for examination and a photograph of the suspect. The responsible officer confirmed the seriousness of the situation in his witness testimony in court. Yet no investigation was initiated. Judge Groß commented derisively on these facts in the courtroom. The state security officer publicly contradicted him with the words: “But Bagrash can come to us with facts.”

4. Criminal complaints concerning false testimony and suppression of evidence — ignored. During the proceedings, I filed a written criminal complaint against criminal police officer (Kriminalkommissar) Weiß for deliberate false testimony, and against Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs and Judge Groß for systematic suppression of evidence. None of these complaints was processed. There was no response, no case reference and no procedural reaction. Nor is there any mention in the judgment.

5. Unlawful obstruction of rights of appeal on points of law. The filing of my appeal on points of law was deliberately obstructed. The court registry repeatedly refused to accept and forward my submissions to the Federal Court of Justice. This conduct constitutes serious interference with my right to a fair trial.

II. Erroneous findings of fact

1. Incorrect finding that I committed the act. The assertion that I am the perpetrator rests on a construct of conjecture and selective assessment of evidence. There is no concrete observation of the act, no confession and no technical proof.

2. Disregard of central movement data concerning my vehicle. Despite documented data, the judgment completely omitted that my BMW, marked “Press”, had been seen on Lepsiusstraße several times before the act: 19.04.2022 (20:36–21:00), 01.04.2022 (22:32–22:55), 02.04.2022 (15:39–15:58), 03.04.2022 (00:15–01:19 and 07:18–07:50), 04.05.2022 (18:10–18:30). Moreover, my second mobile phone, which was mostly used by housemates, was registered in the Lepsiusstraße cell on 01.05.2022 at 17:44. These data were on file and raised at trial — but completely ignored in the judgment.

Why would a perpetrator bring his conspicuous vehicle to a place where it had already been photographed and was known? This only makes sense if I was not the perpetrator myself but was observing — or became the victim of a surveillance or manipulation scenario.

3. Unexplained 13 days before discovery. The device lay undiscovered in the light shaft for 13 days. It was found only by chance on 6 May while sweeping up broken glass after a bottle had been thrown. This prolonged undisturbed presence contradicts the assumption of planned, immediate ignition by me. The chamber completely passes over this circumstance, although it undermines the entire account of the act.

III. Further contradictions

1. Downplaying of my political activity. The judgment states that my political activities were “tiny”. This wording contradicts numerous facts. Over many years I organised extensive protests against Putin’s regime: vigils lasting several weeks, a 758-day protest camp opposite the Federal Chancellery (Kanzleramt), coordinated actions with international groups, open letters to the Federal Government and the EU, and numerous media appearances. Two official OSCE reports expressly mentioned my organisation Unkremlin e. V. Russian state media publicly attacked me. My car was set alight, I was shadowed, threatened and defamed on social networks.

All of this was documented, raised at trial and partly confirmed by witnesses. Yet the judgment classified these activities as “tiny” — in my assessment, to attribute an irrational individual motivation to me and obscure the political reach of my involvement.

2. DNA traces of other persons ignored. The traces secured on the device demonstrate involvement of at least two further unknown persons — including a woman. These indications were not pursued further. The traces were documented but not evaluated; no investigation to establish the persons’ identities took place.

IV. Conclusion

The judgment relies on selective circumstantial evidence, ignores exculpatory evidence and systematically disregards central facts. It is a wrongful judgment with structural, political and legal defects that must be set aside in full on the appeal on points of law.

Supplementary legal assessment

At the same time, I expressly point out that this submission supplements my original grounds of appeal of 28.11.2024. Those grounds were drafted by my appointed defence counsel. Looking back, it must be noted that essential factual and legal aspects are absent from them, although in my view they are relevant to the decision. I also reiterate that since September I have de facto been without an effective defence and have not been granted full access to the case file to this day.

Regarding I.1 — Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, § 258 Abs. 3 StPO; BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court), order of 05.05.1997 – 2 BvR 1990/96; BGH, order of 28.11.2000 – 1 StR 364/00. The guarantee of the right to be heard includes the defendant’s final statement; completely ignoring it in the written judgment leads to the judgment being set aside.

Regarding I.2 — §§ 244 Abs. 2, 160 Abs. 2 StPO; BGH, judgment of 29.03.1995 – 2 StR 672/94; BGH, order of 20.12.1995 – 5 StR 584/95. Suppression of a central exculpatory witness violates the duty to establish the facts.

Regarding I.3 — §§ 244 Abs. 2, 160 Abs. 2 StPO; BGH, order of 19.11.2003 – 5 StR 221/03; BGH, judgment of 25.11.1987 – 3 StR 359/87. The investigating authorities must also pursue unlikely versions of the act that cannot be ruled out.

Regarding I.4 — § 152 Abs. 2 StPO, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG; BGH, order of 17.06.2021 – 5 StR 620/20; BVerfG, order of 08.11.2006 – 2 BvR 1353/05.

Regarding I.5 — § 345 StPO, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, § 339 StGB; BVerfG, order of 04.10.2000 – 2 BvR 2325/00; BGH, judgment of 10.04.2002 – 5 StR 148/01. Failure to forward appeal letters submitted within the deadline violates the right of access to a court.

Regarding II.1 — § 261 StPO; BGH, judgment of 10.03.1994 – 4 StR 627/93; BGH, judgment of 28.06.2000 – 2 StR 197/00. Regarding II.2 — §§ 261, 267 StPO; BGH, judgment of 21.01.1998 – 3 StR 367/97. Regarding II.3 — §§ 244 Abs. 2, 267 StPO; BGH, order of 15.09.2005 – 1 StR 260/05. Regarding III.1 — § 261 StPO; BGH, judgment of 06.07.1995 – 5 StR 50/95. Regarding III.2 — §§ 160 Abs. 2, 244 Abs. 2 StPO; BGH, judgment of 27.06.2001 – 1 StR 108/01.

Read, approved, signed. Closed: judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).