Final statement and public documentation opposing the reinterpretation of seeking legal protection as dangerousness
On 15.06.2026 I sent a final statement to the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) in proceedings 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz. In it, I maintained in full my application of 28.04.2026 challenging the sentence and reintegration plan and requested, among other things, that the challenged parts of the sentence planAccording to Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment, the sentence plan (Annex 115_F2) links prison-regime relaxations to abandoning his legal action. be set aside, that a fresh decision be made on the open prison regime and relaxations, and that the adverse use of my actions seeking legal protection, public criticism, defence of my innocence, further complaints, publications and parliamentary scrutiny be found unlawful.
At the same time, I prepared two annexes for public and judicial documentation: Annex A as an Open Statement / Public Declaration and Annex B as documentation of specific actions seeking legal protection. These documents show that, according to my account, the allegation of fighting the justice system describes statutory remedies, requests for access to files, complaints, requests for recording, constitutional complaints, applications to the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), public scrutiny and parliamentary examination, rather than a criminal act.
(Annexes 129_F2 / proof of fax transmission, 130_F2, 131_F2)
Subsequent proof of transmission: the fax-evidence bundle sent later shows that Annexes 129_F2 to 131_F2 were transmitted by fax on 16.06.2026 and the transmission was recorded as “OK”.
(Additionally: proof of fax transmission in the annex bundle Anlage 140-141_F2)
Berlin / JVA Heidering, 15 June 2026 — To the Berlin Regional Court I, 95th Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences. Az. 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz
With reference to the letter of 01.06.2026, I make my final response to the JVA Moabit statement of 28.05.2026 (Annex 128_F2) and maintain in full my application of 28.04.2026 challenging the sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026.
I. Requests
- Set aside the sentence and reintegration plan in the challenged parts insofar as they prescribe confinement in a closed prison regime and deny regime relaxations
- Require JVA Moabit to make a fresh decision on an open prison regime and relaxations
- Find that the adverse use of actions seeking legal protection, public criticism and insistence on innocence as prognostic criteria is unlawful
- Require the JVA to produce the complete material underlying the decision
- Give a further opportunity to be heard after these documents have been obtained
III. Annex 128_F2 confirms the core of the application
JVA Moabit bases its refusal of an open prison regime principally on an alleged “strong focus on fighting the German justice system”, insistence on innocence and the intention to continue taking action against certain persons in the justice system. The JVA identifies no specific new offence, preparations to escape, threat or breach of prison rules. Instead, applications, complaints, remedies, public criticism and media contact are used adversely — thus it is the conduct of seeking legal protection itself that is assessed, rather than a specific risk.
IV. Legal errors in the statement
1. Insufficient factual basis: The risk of escape and misuse must be based on specific, current facts. Specific facts are absent — no disciplinary measures, preparations to escape or specific plan to commit an offence.
2. Unlawful use of the absence of an admission of guilt: A prisoner must not effectively be compelled to accept a judgment while pursuing legal remedies and reopening of the proceedings (Wiederaufnahme).
3. Impermissible equating of legal remedies with dangerousness: Complaints, applications, constitutional complaints and media contact are actions provided for by the rule of law, not security risks.
4. Misuse of discretion: The JVA does not seriously examine less restrictive measures, such as accompanied outings or directions, but rules out every relaxation indiscriminately.
5. Violation of the requirement of social reintegration (Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG in conjunction with Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG): an open prison regime and relaxations are central instruments of reintegration and must not be treated as a reward for admitting guilt.
V. Legal bases
Art. 1 Abs. 1, 2 Abs. 1, 2 Abs. 2, 3 Abs. 1, 5 Abs. 1, 19 Abs. 4, 20 Abs. 3, 103 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 6, 10, 13 EMRK · §§ 109 ff., 114, 115 StVollzG · §§ 9, 10, 16, 42 StVollzG Bln. Cited case law: Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) 21.09.2018 – 2 BvR 1649/17; BVerfG 06.11.2019 – 2 BvR 2267/18; BVerfG 19.12.2023 – 2 BvR 1936/22; BVerfG 20.06.2023 – 2 BvR 166/16, 2 BvR 1683/17.
VI. The alleged risk of escape
The assumption of a risk of escape is not comprehensible: a minor child with whom there is regular contact, a centre of life in Germany for decades, an expired Russian passport, and a return to Russia would be dangerous for a publicly known opponent of the regime. The stated aim is rehabilitation and parliamentary examination, not escape.
Comment — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
These three documents belong together in substance. The statement to the court, the Open Statement and the documentation of actions seeking legal protection form a single response to Annex 128_F2 and are intended to prevent my legal defence and public documentation from being reinterpreted as dangerousness or a risk of misuse.