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), Part 2 — the witness who travelled from Bonn twice
On 30.08.2026 I signed a second declaration in lieu of oath under § 156 StGB: 33 points in eight sections concerning events in the investigation and trial proceedings for which no official record is available to me.
The central event is the examination of Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder. He travelled specially from Bonn twice. At the first examination he demonstrated, using his mobile telephone in the courtroom, that from March to May 2022 we had communicated practically every other day. Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs intervened immediately afterwards; from then on, the discussion concerned only the witness’s knowledge of my proceedings. At the second hearing he remained in the courtroom for no more than about five minutes.
I further affirm the following: the prohibition on looking for witnesses in my own seized mobile telephone (April 2023); the arson attack on my vehicle in January 2022 and the compromise of my WhatsApp account in May 2022; and the spring 2022 campaign with two template letters to Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) Scholz and Member of the European Parliament Lagodinsky, which could be posted for 85 cents.
The limits set by the declaration itself
Point 13: The declaration affirms only that the witness made that statement about third parties, not that his statement is accurate. Point 31: It is not alleged that Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs prohibited an examination. Point 32: It is not alleged that the vehicle fire and account compromise were instigated by particular authorities. Point 15: The names of employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) and the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) are withheld to protect those concerned.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
My documented method in spring 2022 was a template letter to the Federal Chancellor for 85 cents in postage. This falls in the same period as the event for which I was convicted of attempted murder. Exactly one witness could testify about that method and the coordination of my actions, and he was not asked about them.
The resulting question concerns the conduct of the hearing, not the judgment: is the duty to establish the facts under § 244 Abs. 2 StPO satisfied where a witness who travelled specially twice is questioned exclusively about his own knowledge and about none of the evidential matters for which he was summoned?
Document provenance
Annex 193_F2 — declaration in lieu of oath under § 156 StGB, signed in Großbeeren on 30.08.2026.