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 →The Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) rejects the complaint — remedies are exhausted
The 2nd Criminal Division (Strafsenat) of the Kammergericht — Judges Herb, Kupferschmidt, Hollering — rejects my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against the order of the Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer) of 24.06.2026 “for the correct reasons given in the contested decision”, at my expense. Az. 2 Ws 111/26.
The Division additionally addresses three objections: an expert report under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO was unnecessary, it says, because suspension of the remainder of the sentence was “entirely remote”; the note of the hearing on 24.06.2026 showed no violation of the right to be heard; and § 169 Abs. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in proceedings concerning the execution of criminal sentences.
Commentary — assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
Circular reasoning. An expert report was said to be unnecessary because suspension of the remainder of the sentence had been ruled out from the outset, and it had been ruled out because of the characterisations from the diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026, for which no evidence is identified in any document. The procedure’s only measurable value, LSI-R 20, no longer appears in any decision.
The note of the hearing. The Division relies on a document that was available to it but not to me. I received the full statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) only twenty days after the decision.
What I accept. On the lack of a public hearing, the Division follows the prevailing view. I do not pursue that point further.
Document provenance
Annex 194_F2 — certified copy, three pages with a covering letter from the registry of 19.08.2026.