Home › Chronology archive › Annex 137_F2
Access to court · Annex 137_F2 · Diagnostic procedure
The document from which all later assessments originate
The diagnostic procedure under § 8 StVollzG Bln of 17.04.2026 is the source of the negative prognosis. It underlies the sentence and reintegration plan (Annex 115_F2), the statement of JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) of 07.05.2026 (Annex 138_F2) and — verbatim — the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) of 26.05.2026 (Annex 148_F2). Anyone seeking to understand why early release was refused must read this document.
Publication note. This page does not reproduce the document in full. Omitted are the technical description of the device used in the offence, all information about Dmitry Bagrash’s minor son and former wife, and individual passages of the diagnostic interview unrelated to the prognosis. Everything material to assessing the prognosis is included.
1. The statistical risk of reoffending is at the lower end of the average range
This figure appears in the document itself — and is mentioned in none of the later decisions.
20
LSI-R score. The document associates it with an estimated risk of reoffending at the lower end of the average range, below 20–30 % for a further custodial sentence within two years.The procedure identifies “financial situation”, “leisure activities” and “attitudes/orientations/values” as risk areas. It also notes that missing information about friendships and family reduces the result’s informative value.
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThe only standardised, verifiable measurement tool in my proceedings yields a below-average risk. The adverse prognosis emerges only afterwards — through a discretionary assessment of my conduct towards the justice system.
2. The sentence later adopted verbatim by the Prosecutor General’s Office
17.04.2026 in the diagnostic procedure — 26.05.2026 in the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
“… with strong feelings of anger combined with a pronounced experience of hurt and a clearly expressed urge for retaliation …”Diagnostic procedure of JVA Moabit, 17.04.2026, prognosis (Annex 137_F2)
“The convicted person is driven by strong feelings of anger, a pronounced experience of hurt and a clearly expressed urge for retaliation.”Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin), statement of 26.05.2026, signed by prosecutor/group leader at the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office Lazarenko (GL) (Annex 148_F2)
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThe prosecution’s assessment is not an independent examination but an adoption of wording from the diagnostic procedure. The page containing this sentence was not sent to me before the hearing on 24.06.2026; I received it only on 14.07.2026 — twenty days after the decision.
3. Activism is expressly not the problem — yet becomes a risk factor
The document states the principle and departs from it in the same paragraph.
“Engagement in activism or the exercise of one’s own rights should in principle not be considered problematic, provided it takes place within the law.”Diagnostic procedure of JVA Moabit, 17.04.2026 (Annex 137_F2)
Immediately afterwards, the “strong substantive and emotional narrowing onto this topic” is described as adverse to the prognosis and as a central risk factor for further offending.
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThus, exercising rights is permitted, but its intensity is dangerous. This construction is the core of what I call reinterpreting legal protection as dangerousness (Gefährlichkeit) — and it reappears in the sentence plan (Annex 115_F2) as a “fight against the German justice system”.
4. Need for treatment: yes — treatment: no
Working through the offence is required and at the same time is not offered.
The document expressly identifies a need for therapeutic treatment. However, an indication for treatment is not established — on the grounds of lack of insight, lack of motivation and distrust of prison services, making the current prospects of success low, it states. At the same time, “working through the offence with an external provider” is listed as an available service.
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThe absence of work on the offence is the main reason for refusing my release. The same authority states that it does not offer me the treatment intended for that purpose. The required evidence therefore cannot be supplied for structural reasons.
5. No legal remedy is available against this document
This is stated in the document’s own notice of legal remedies.
“An application for a judicial decision against the diagnostic procedure is not possible.”Notice of legal remedies, diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026 (Annex 137_F2)
The only provision is to place one’s own written account in the personal file. The document bears neither a signature nor the name of a responsible person, ending instead with “On behalf / E4”.
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashA document without an identified author, against which no legal remedy is available, ultimately determines my freedom through the sentence plan, the prison’s statement and the prosecution’s statement. That is precisely what I mean when I speak of denied access to justice.
7. The document underpinning everything cannot be challenged in court
From the diagnostic procedure’s own notice of legal remedies.
“If you consider the diagnostic procedure to contain inaccuracies or wish to add information, you may submit a corresponding written account for the personal file and placement documents. An application for a judicial decision against the diagnostic procedure is not possible.“Diagnostic procedure, notice of legal remedies, p. 15
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThe situation is thereby fully described. All negative assessments originate in this document. It bears no signature, it identifies no author — only “On behalf E4” — and according to its own notice it is not subject to judicial review. What I can do in response is place a counterstatement in the file.
The order of the Landgericht (Regional Court) of 31.07.2026 stated on the missing names that staff were “sufficiently identifiable through the descriptions of their functions”. It does not address the missing signature. These are two different questions: a name can be requested. A document without a signature has no attributable author.
The order of the Landgericht (Regional Court) of 31.07.2026 stated on the missing names that staff were “sufficiently identifiable through the descriptions of their functions”. It does not address the missing signature. These are two different questions: a name can be requested. A document without a signature has no attributable author.
8. The prison records in its own documents: no prior convictions
Personal record sheet of JVA Heidering, as of 29.05.2026 — attached to the diagnostic procedure.
“Number of prior convictions or earlier measures: 0“ … „Observe deletion and the prohibition on use under §§ 51, 52 BZRG!“Personal record sheet of JVA Heidering, as of 29.05.2026
“In addition to the current conviction, the indictment refers to an earlier conviction resulting in imprisonment for fraud. … A lasting effect of previous sanctions is therefore not apparent and reveals a fundamental readiness to act dissocially …“Diagnostic procedure, prognosis, p. 12
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashBoth sentences come from the same file. The prison’s personal record sheet lists zero prior convictions and expressly warns of the prohibition on use under §§ 51, 52 BZRG. Nevertheless, the diagnostic procedure bases its prognosis on a conviction from 2000 which — as the document itself states elsewhere — in the Federal Central Register (Bundeszentralregister) has been expunged.
The wording about a “fundamental readiness to act dissocially” is derived from this expunged entry. That wording then moves into the sentence plan and from there into the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I regard this as the document’s most serious formal defect.
The wording about a “fundamental readiness to act dissocially” is derived from this expunged entry. That wording then moves into the sentence plan and from there into the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I regard this as the document’s most serious formal defect.
9. Therapy is declared necessary — and is not offered
Point III.2 of the diagnostic procedure.
“In principle, a need for therapeutic treatment is identified. However, an indication for treatment, owing to the lack of insight and motivation to address one’s own problematic aspects and the strong distrust of prison services, is not established, since the current prospects of success are said to be low.”Diagnostic procedure, p. 14
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashA need for treatment is identified, but treatment is not indicated — because I would presumably not accept it. The later decisions then hold against me that I have not worked through the offence. This was not offered.
In the interview I expressly said that working through the offence with a suitable provider “would appeal to me”. That appears in the same document.
In the interview I expressly said that working through the offence with a suitable provider “would appeal to me”. That appears in the same document.
10. What is described as “paranoid processing” (paranoide Verarbeitung)
Point II.1, personality assessment.
“These convictions remain within the bounds of essentially preserved reality testing, but in their thematic concentration and subjective certainty appear difficult to qualify and display paranoid processing.”Diagnostic procedure, p. 11
“He is convinced that the intelligence service is observing him and that the justice system deliberately restricts his rights and deliberately boycotts fair proceedings.”Sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026, point 2.1
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashI am not a doctor and do not assess the professional classification. I place alongside it three circumstances documented in the file.
First: The document itself states that my reality testing is preserved, and no diagnosis is made.
Second: In the interview I described another prisoner conspicuously seeking proximity to me and being assigned to my workplace. This report had been on file since October 2025. On 05.08.2026, a death threat and antisemitic insults by the same person occurred at that very workplace. The incident is documented.
Third: Two statements by the Russian Federation before the OSCE (OSZE) name my association, and my vehicle burned in January 2022 — which a journalist reported publicly at the time. I leave it to the reader to decide whether, in these circumstances, the assumption of being observed is a processing disorder.
First: The document itself states that my reality testing is preserved, and no diagnosis is made.
Second: In the interview I described another prisoner conspicuously seeking proximity to me and being assigned to my workplace. This report had been on file since October 2025. On 05.08.2026, a death threat and antisemitic insults by the same person occurred at that very workplace. The incident is documented.
Third: Two statements by the Russian Federation before the OSCE (OSZE) name my association, and my vehicle burned in January 2022 — which a journalist reported publicly at the time. I leave it to the reader to decide whether, in these circumstances, the assumption of being observed is a processing disorder.
11. A file sheet that does not support the prognosis itself
The prison’s personal record sheet and sentence-execution sheet.
“Number of children: 0” — while a measure entitled “fathers’ group / coaching for fathers to strengthen the father–son relationship” is planned.Personal record sheet of JVA Heidering / sentence plan, point 4.1
Sentence-execution sheet, offence: “arson (schw. Brandstiftung)” — elsewhere on this page the offence designation in the judgment of 22.07.2024 is reproduced differently.Sentence-execution sheet of JVA Heidering, as of 29.07.2025
Assessment by Dmitry BagrashThese two points are minor in themselves. I mention them because the findings used to decide on my freedom are based on the same file sheets — and because elsewhere my family ties are disputed while the same authority plans coaching for fathers and records the number of children as zero.
Open question concerning the offence designation: The exact offence designation in the judgment of 22.07.2024 is reproduced inconsistently across this website. Without comparison with the operative part of the judgment itself, none of the versions is asserted here as authoritative; this will be added when the operative part becomes available.
Open question concerning the offence designation: The exact offence designation in the judgment of 22.07.2024 is reproduced inconsistently across this website. Without comparison with the operative part of the judgment itself, none of the versions is asserted here as authoritative; this will be added when the operative part becomes available.