Political prisoner, application lodged with the ECtHR, threatened with deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Annex 139_F2 — The order refusing suspension of the remainder of the sentence
This is the document in which the chain of prognoses moves from administration into adjudication. Everything previously contained in the prison’s diagnostic assessment and sentence plan becomes here a judicial decision concerning my liberty.
1. The dangerousness of the offence — contrary to the report of the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt). The order relies on the “extraordinary danger to the life and health of third parties posed by the offence”. The expert from the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), Dr. Cox, found in the same proceedings that setting the building on fire was impossible at the specific placement site — as can be read in the judgment itself, pages 29 to 31. The order does not mention this finding.
2. The “urge for retaliation” — the same wording for the third time. It originates in the diagnostic assessment of Moabit prison (JVA Moabit) of 17.04.2026 (Annex 137_F2), was copied verbatim by the Prosecutor General’s Office on 26.05.2026 (Annex 148_F2), and now appears in the court’s order. The only standardised measurement in the entire process — LSI-R 20, a risk of reoffending in the lower average range, established in that same diagnostic assessment — does not appear in the order.
3. The question about political activity. The order records that I was asked whether I intended to continue my political activities and replied that I would do so in any event. That answer appears in the reasons for refusal.
4. Actions to obtain legal protection as a prognostic factor. The conduct cited as falling short of an unblemished prison record consists of my hunger strikes against mail inspection and a failure to escort me to a court registry officer authorised to record applications (Urkundsbeamter), publication of documents sent to me, and my announcement that I would publish the real names and photographs of justice-system staff.
5. “No social contacts or ties”. The order finds that an adequate social support environment after release does not exist in Germany. I have lived in Germany since 1992, am the founder and chair of an association registered in Berlin, and have a son living here with whom I speak regularly on the telephone — the latter is stated in the order itself.
I did not refuse liberty on 24.06.2026. I refused liberty at the price of self-incrimination. The order requires me to work through an offence I did not commit and makes my refusal the principal reason for keeping me in custody.
What I do not assert here: that the chamber is not permitted to take work on the offence into account. § 57 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB expressly refers to personality and previous life, and a court may assess my conduct during the execution of my sentence. Nor do I assert that there is an entitlement to release after two thirds of the sentence.
My objection is narrower: the order relies on an extraordinary danger to life and health, without even mentioning the contrary finding of its own Federal Criminal Police Office expert. It also adopts a characterisation of personality from a prison document whose only verifiable measurement points in the opposite direction. The full chain →