Political prisoner, complaint filed with the EGMR (European Court of Human Rights), facing deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Declaration in lieu of oath (Eidesstattliche Versicherung) concerning the final statement, its interruptions and the visit by Prof. Dr. Heinemann-Grüder
On 28.08.2026 I signed a declaration in lieu of oath under § 156 StGB. It concerns three sets of facts for which no official record has been made available to me and which therefore rested solely on my account until then.
I. Content of the final statement on 22.07.2024
I affirm that, at the end of my final statement before the Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I), I said in substance that after my release I would have my own criminal proceedings examined by the German Bundestag (Deutscher Bundestag), so that the system for detecting and neutralising Russian agents in Germany could be changed. This referred expressly to my own proceedings and the Berlin justice and security authorities involved in them.
II. Interruptions
I affirm that I was interrupted at least three times during my final statement: when describing my political activity, the seizure of the “Putin is a Killer” banner in September 2021, and the coronavirus emergency assistance (Corona-Soforthilfe) and Rambach Industrie GmbH. At the first interruption I was told in substance that my political activity was irrelevant, and the possibility of ending my final statement was raised.
III. The visit in September 2024
I affirm that the visit by Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder in early September 2024 was observed by the State Criminal Police Office (Landeskriminalamt) and that I was expressly prohibited from discussing my ongoing criminal proceedings with him.
What this declaration expressly does not allege
Point 13: A causal connection between the announced parliamentary investigation and the subsequent decisions of the justice and prison authorities is not alleged. The declaration affirms only that the announcement was made in those terms. Point 12 makes clear that third parties’ remarks are conveyed in substance rather than as verbatim quotations.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
I sign this declaration because I take the distinction between evidence and allegation on this website seriously. Until now, the event was labelled as my account, because the record of the trial has still not been made available to me. By this declaration, I affirm the same content subject to the criminal penalty provided for in § 156 StGB.
The substance has been recorded in writing in the file since 20.01.2025: a judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin) from the Local Court Tiergarten (Amtsgericht Tiergarten) took my declaration for the record at two appointments in JVA Moabit; it forms part of the supplement to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision), Part 1. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) recorded in its order of 19.06.2025 that the supplements up to and including Part 7 had been before it on 07.05.2025.
The resulting question is not addressed to me: if an announcement of an intention to have the institution itself investigated by parliament has been in the file since January 2025, why has no authority yet examined whether the subsequent decisions were unaffected by it?
Document provenance
Annex 192_F2 — declaration in lieu of oath under § 156 StGB, signed in Großbeeren on 28.08.2026, 14 points in four sections. The signed original can be viewed in full.
Annex 192_F2 — view the signed original →
Related supporting documents: Supplement to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision), Part 1 (20.01.2025) · Discharge of appointed defence counsel (12.09.2024)