Declaration in lieu of oath (Eidesstattliche Erklärung) concerning the events of 13.03.2026 at Moabit prison (JVA Moabit)
On 07.08.2026, I submitted a declaration in lieu of oath (eidesstattliche Erklärung) concerning the events of 13 March 2026 at Moabit prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Moabit). It fills the gap that arose because neither the diagnostic assessment of 17.04.2026 (Annex 137_F2) nor the sentence and reintegration plan (Annex 115_F2) identifies a responsible person by name.
I record the following in it: on the morning of 13.03.2026, I had an exploratory assessment interview with a prison psychologist at JVA Moabit lasting more than two hours. At the end, she told me, in substance, that she would have to write a very unfavourable statement about me and that the management had prompted her to do so. She asked me not to read her findings after receiving them. I do not know her name.
About half an hour later, I was brought before the conference. The psychologist was present but, as I perceived it, did not say a word there. A female group leader whom I was seeing for the first time did the talking. She stated that she was categorically opposed to a transfer to open prison conditions or early release, expressly giving two reasons: that I do not acknowledge my guilt and that I intend to publish the names of office-holders.
The declaration contrasts these accounts with what the documents themselves say: the diagnostic assessment records my announced intention to publish real names and photographs and lists my hunger strikes and complaints concerning staff as observations from the execution of the sentence. The statement of JVA Heidering of 26.09.2025 (Annex 84_F2) calls the hunger strike through which I sought access to the court registry officer authorised to record applications (Urkundsbeamter) “blackmail”.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
All the forms of behaviour held against me are lawful: denying the offence, legal remedies, complaints, a hunger strike as a last resort to obtain access to the Urkundsbeamter, and the publication of official decisions. The diagnostic assessment itself states that activism and the exercise of one’s own rights should not, in principle, be viewed as problematic if they remain within the law — yet ultimately treats precisely this exercise of rights as a central risk factor.
Document provenance
Annex 156_F2: Google Drive
Related material: No. 137 — EWA commission on 13.03.2026 · Analysis of the diagnostic assessment (Annex 137_F2) · Sentence plan (Annex 115_F2)
Note: this page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment. It distinguishes documented events from the affected person’s statements that remain to be checked and does not replace a judicial finding.