⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin
Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Case 2 · Own statement · 25.06.2026 · 589 StVK 86/26
Annex 133_F2 — statement after the hearing of 24.06.2026
My statement to Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) after the hearing on suspension of the remainder of the sentence. Seven episodes are challenged:
• the prison’s statement of 07.05.2026 only arrived on 22.06.2026 at 19:25 — effectively one working day before the hearing;
• the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) had previously been sent only in incomplete form;
• access to all documents relevant to the decision was lacking;
• my application for the admission of press representatives was not decided;
• the hearing was held in closed session;
• my objections were not recorded, or not recorded in full;
• my early release was effectively linked to work on the offence (Straftataufarbeitung) that I rejected.
In it, I clarified that I continue to deny the act, consider the judgment wrong and will not confess in order to obtain freedom, and objected that this refusal must not be used as a sign of dangerousness. I also stated that my hunger strikes were protests against blocked legal protection and must not subsequently be used against me as negative conduct during sentence enforcement.
• the prison’s statement of 07.05.2026 only arrived on 22.06.2026 at 19:25 — effectively one working day before the hearing;
• the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) had previously been sent only in incomplete form;
• access to all documents relevant to the decision was lacking;
• my application for the admission of press representatives was not decided;
• the hearing was held in closed session;
• my objections were not recorded, or not recorded in full;
• my early release was effectively linked to work on the offence (Straftataufarbeitung) that I rejected.
In it, I clarified that I continue to deny the act, consider the judgment wrong and will not confess in order to obtain freedom, and objected that this refusal must not be used as a sign of dangerousness. I also stated that my hunger strikes were protests against blocked legal protection and must not subsequently be used against me as negative conduct during sentence enforcement.
Position in the chain. The order challenged by this objection is Annex 139_F2.
Source of information: the chronology of case 2 maintained by Dmitry Bagrash. This page summarises the material content rather than reproducing the document in full; the original is linked. Assessments are identified as such and do not replace a judicial finding.