Sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit (Moabit prison)
— and what it reveals about the justice system
Exercise of fundamental rights is treated as an indication of dangerousness
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash — not a judicially established fact: to me, this sentence enforcement and reintegration plan reads as the culmination of a recurring pattern. What is documented is what the document itself says: the exercise of my constitutional rights — lodging remedies and complaints, press contacts, criticism of state action — is counted here as evidence of dangerousness and insufficient capacity for rehabilitation. I cannot prove, with the documents available to me, whether a planned “strategy” by several bodies lies behind this; that is my assessment, not a conclusive finding. This is the core of the contradiction I have been trying to break through for years.
Dmitry Bagrash addresses the German people
Video address with a reasoned demand to initiate criminal proceedings against Judge Groß concerning forgery of documents and denial of justice, as well as a demand for removal from office.
The video will be embedded here as soon as it is available. Channel: YouTube: Unkremlin
The document contains neither a handwritten signature nor the name of a responsible person. It only states “Bearb. (handled by): E4” and, at the end, “Im Auftrag (on behalf) / E4”. Who is personally responsible for the decision thus remains unclear, which considerably hampers challenging the document and violates §§ 37 para. 3, 39 VwVfG.
Analysis of unlawful passages
1. Legal protection as a prognostic risk — violation of Art. 19 para. 4 GG
“The risk of misuse arises from the current strong focus on the fight against the German justice system, which continues to determine Mr B.’s entire experience and conduct even two years after conviction. [...] He wishes to continue his fight against certain individuals in the German justice system immediately after transfer to an open prison regime and to organise further protest actions."
Seeking legal protection — lodging remedies, complaints and petitions, media contacts, criticism of state action — is labelled here as a “fight against the justice system” and used as a basis for refusing an open prison regime.
Violation of: Art. 19 para. 4 GG (effective legal protection), Art. 5 GG (freedom of expression), Art. 8 GG (freedom of assembly), § 115 para. 3 StVollzG BIn (requirement of reintegration)
2. Absence of an admission of guilt as an exclusion criterion
„Work on the offence (Straftatauseinandersetzung) is currently not possible, since Mr B. feels he has been wrongly convicted. [...] No work on the offence has yet taken place, and Mr B. also rejects its actual purpose."
The absence of an admission of guilt is treated as a negative prognostic factor. Bagrash is thereby effectively pressured to admit guilt that he — following a finalThe judgment of 22.07.2024 was subsequently altered after it had already become final: the list of provisions applied (§ 260 para. 5 StPO) was originally entirely absent and was only inserted on 30.07.2025 — 373 days later and after the BGH decision. In Dmitry Bagrash’s view, this demonstrates falsification of the judgment. but challenged judgment — denies. This contradicts the principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (prohibition of compelled self-incrimination).
Violation of: Art. 6 EMRK (nemo tenetur principle), BVerfGE 38, 105 — the accused’s right to remain silent continues to apply
3. Temporal coincidence — coordinated measures
— 17.04.2026: sentence plan drawn up (JVA Moabit)
— 24.04.2026: sentence plan handed to Bagrash (Annex 115_F2)
— 27.04.2026: letter from the State Office for Immigration (Landesamt für Einwanderung) providing an opportunity to comment (Anhörung) on intended expulsion
— 28.04.2026: Bagrash applies for a judicial decision against the sentence plan (Annex 116_F2)
The State Office’s expulsion letter followed only three days after the sentence plan was handed over and one day before the application for a judicial decision. This temporal coincidence grounds the documented suspicion of institutionally coordinated measures.
Reference: the statement of JVA Heidering submitted to the court on 26.09.2025 (Annex 84_F2) expressly records that a “common approach” was developed with the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) on 11.08.2025.
4. Bagrash’s fight: for access to the registry official (Urkundsbeamter), rather than against the justice system
What the sentence plan calls a “fight against the justice system” is actually the documented fight for:
- Access to the prison’s registry official (Urkundsbeamter) (case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz)
- Acceptance of written submissions by the registry official (Urkundsbeamter)
- Forwarding of complaints to the competent courts
- Access to the file (refused since December 2024)
- Replacement of court-appointed defence counsel (application of 17.12.2024 remains unprocessed)
All these actions are constitutionally guaranteed. Their denial is documented in 10 declarations in lieu of oath (eidesstattliche Erklärungen) and 119 annexes.
Annex 84_F2 — statement of JVA Heidering (26.09.2025)
This document contains the crucial sentence: on 11.08.2025 Bagrash’s case was discussed with the Senate Department for Justice and there “a common approach was developed”.
This means that the prison did not decide alone how to deal with Bagrash, but in coordination with the Senate Department for Justice. This grounds a suspicion of an institutionally coordinated restriction of access to legal protection.
The application, Annex 116_F2 (28.04.2026), refers to this document as evidence of coordinated institutional pressure.
Annex 116_F2 — application for a judicial decision (28.04.2026)
On 28.04.2026, Bagrash applied to Berlin Regional Court I (LG Berlin I), chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer), for a judicial decision and interim judicial protection against the sentence plan.
To date, Bagrash has received no acknowledgement of receipt of this application from the court. This means that he does not know whether his remedy was registered at all.
Violation of: § 37 StPO (duty of service), Art. 19 para. 4 GG (effective legal protection). The missing acknowledgement of receipt follows the documented pattern in Annex 2 (chronology of case 2, 57+ events).
Independent expert report (02.07.2026) — confirmation of the danger
The sentence plan effectively requires Bagrash to give up his legal resistance — otherwise he would receive no relaxations of the prison regime. How dangerous abandoning that resistance and a possible transfer to Russia would actually be is shown by an independent scientific and practical expert report by the International Association “Institute of National Policy” (Institut für nationale Politik) (Kyjiw) of 2 July 2026: it identifies an increased risk of state repression against Bagrash if he returns to Russia, owing to his public political profile.
The sentence plan assesses precisely the conduct that, according to the independent report, grounds his need for protection — public visibility as a critic — as a “fight against the justice system” and thus a reason to exclude relaxations of the prison regime. Taken together, the documents show that the demanded withdrawal from public life would not make Bagrash safer, but would expose him to precisely the danger he is trying to document.
Source: International Association “Institute of National Policy” (Institut für nationale Politik), Kyjiw (identification code 41941956, document no. IA-INP/SG-2026-001), 02.07.2026.
Demand: criminal proceedings against Judge Groß — forgery of documents and denial of justice
Dmitry Bagrash directly addresses the German people with a reasoned demand to initiate criminal proceedings against presiding Regional Court judge Groß (VRiLG) concerning the subsequent insertion of legal provisions into a final judgment (rectification order of 30.07.2025) and systematic denial of justice.
The video will be embedded here as soon as it is available. Channel: YouTube: Unkremlin
For journalists and parliamentarians
All original documents (Annexes 115_F2, 116_F2, 84_F2, expert report of 02.07.2026) are publicly available in Google Drive. This document may be freely used. For background information and interviews:
bagrash.presse@gmail.com → Folder containing all annexes to this chapter →Supplementary analysis — as of 16.08.2026
The following section was added after the order of Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) of 31.07.2026 (595 StVK 68/26 Vollz) and examination of the complete document text. It quotes only the wording of the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan.
7. The plan contradicts itself on social ties
“Factors that are favourable in principle and should be taken into account are his existing level of education, a pronounced drive to achieve, and existing family ties, especially to his son. […] Social contacts do exist, but have only a limited protective effect […]”
“The risk that Mr B., when experiencing hurt or injustice, will decide to […] abscond is despite his social ties currently assessed as still too high.”
“Fathers’ group / fathers’ coaching to strengthen the father–son relationship“
In three passages, the plan finds that family and social ties exist and even plans a measure to strengthen them. Yet the decision on early release of 24.06.2026 holds an absence of social ties against me. I note that this assumption cannot be based on the sentence plan, since it says the opposite.
Provisions concerned: § 57 para. 1 no. 2 StGB, Art. 8 EMRK · see Chronology no. 161 and Dossier on the chamber for matters concerning execution of sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer)
8. A condition that has already been met
“Prerequisites for relaxations of the regime are an ability to keep agreements, discernible participation in achieving the aim of the sentence, demonstrable work on his offences, and no reports of misconduct.“
“Mr B. obtains his rights by threatening to make and making complaints, and by using hunger strikes […]. Apart from this, Mr B.’s conduct during sentence enforcement is free of reported misconduct.“
Freedom from reported misconduct is stated as a condition and established in the same document. In three and a half years in custody, not a single disciplinary measure has been imposed on me. The condition is met, yet continues to be treated as outstanding.
9. The plan declares activism unproblematic, then assesses it negatively
„Engagement in activism or the exercise of one’s own rights should not, in principle, be assessed as problematic provided it takes place within the law. At present, the strong substantive and emotional narrowing of focus to this subject has an unfavourable prognostic effect […]”
„Although Mr B. insists that he always intends to act within the law in doing so, it is found that there is a risk of […] offences involving threats, stalking or insult occurring.”
The plan states the correct standard and does not apply it. My use of exclusively lawful means is reported as an assurance and disregarded in the same sentence. The basis for the alleged risk of future offences is not identified; only the intensity with which I pursue my legal remedies is mentioned.
Provisions concerned: Art. 5 para. 1 GG, Art. 19 para. 4 GG · On 12.06.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) found that preliminary examination of legal remedies was not for the prison to undertake — Chronology no. 163
10. The prognostic score contradicts the prognosis
“He obtained a score of 20, corresponding to an estimated risk of reoffending in the lower average range of under 20 – 30 % of a further custodial sentence within two years. […] Missing items in the areas “Friendships and acquaintances” and “Family and partnership” reduce the informative value.“
The standardised prognostic instrument yields a below-average risk of reoffending. At the same time, the plan qualifies its informative value because information about friendships and family is missing — the very areas in which existing ties are expressly established elsewhere. The subsequent overall prognosis is nevertheless unfavourable.
11. A factual assertion not contained in the judgment
“In the context of the offence giving rise to these proceedings, he selects residential and work premises of a Russian intelligence service and also published the associated names online, as a result of which third parties subsequently attacked the premises.“
This is an assertion of fact of considerable weight, rather than an assessment: my publication is said to have prompted third parties to attack. The judgment of 22.07.2024 contains no such finding. The plan does not disclose its source or basis. My post of 03.03.2022 is reproduced in full on this website; anyone can check what it says and what it does not.
For the verbatim post: What was public before the act · On 31.07.2026, the Regional Court (Landgericht) adopted this assertion without examining my contrary documents — Chronology No. 178
12. Previous convictions, some of which have been expunged
“Alongside the current conviction, the indictment refers to an earlier conviction that resulted in imprisonment for fraud. The current BZR (Federal Central Register) contains an entry for trespass.”
The earlier conviction referred to dates from 2000 and has been expunged from the Federal Central Register (Bundeszentralregister); the indictment itself records this. Under § 51 BZRG, an expunged entry may no longer be held against the person concerned in legal dealings. Here it is incorporated into a prognosis via the indictment and supports the formulation of a “fundamental readiness for dissocial conduct”.
Provision concerned: § 51 para. 1 BZRG (prohibition on use of the entry)
13. The passage on suicide prevention
“At the time of admission, there were no indications of acute suicidality. However, Mr B. stated that, in the event of deportation, he intended to threaten suicide and had prepared a corresponding press release.”
I reproduce this passage because this website shows the complete document text, rather than only what helps me. To clarify: I have no suicidal intentions. What was meant was the announcement of a public statement in the event of deportation to a country that has designated my organisation “undesirable” — a political protest, rather than an intention to harm myself. In the same sentence, the plan records that there were no indications of acute suicidality.
14. And the formal point underlying everything above
„On behalf
E4”
The document ends without a signature or a name. Responsibility is indicated by an abbreviation. The Regional Court (Landgericht) order of 31.07.2026 stated that validity required “no naming of the […] staff members acting”, since they were “sufficiently identifiable by their functional designations”. That answers a different question from the one I asked. I asked about the signature, rather than the name. A name can be requested; in my assessment a document without a signature has no author to whom it can be attributed in the usual sense; the Regional Court did not expressly address the signature itself. This document underlies the refusal of an open prison regime, refusal of regime relaxations and, via the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office, refusal of early release.
Provisions concerned: §§ 37 para. 3, 39 VwVfG · The order of 31.07.2026 · Annex 137_F2 — the same problem · Open Statements · The video-call ban — four documents with commentary
Against this sentence enforcement and reintegration plan, on 28.04.2026 I applied for a judicial decision under § 109 StVollzG. I never received an acknowledgement of receipt. The urgent application was dismissed on 18.05.2026; the decision on the merits was issued on 31.07.2026 and reached me on 11.08.2026 — more than three months after the complete exchange of statements. The application was dismissed with costs.
Update of the plan: by 13.09.2026 at the latest.