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 →Annex 194_F2 — the Kammergericht dismisses the appeal: legal remedies are exhausted
This exhausts the domestic legal remedies in this matter. No further remedy is available against this decision.
The Division additionally addresses three of my objections:
1. No expert opinion under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO. The court considers this legally unobjectionable: in view of the circumstances set out by the Regional Court (Landgericht), the possibility of conditional release was “entirely remote” and “ruled out from the outset”.
2. No violation of the right to be heard. According to the record of the hearing on 24 June 2026 the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft)’s application for refusal and the reasoning underlying it were discussed with me.
3. No public hearing. The principle in § 169 Abs. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in criminal sentence-enforcement proceedings.
On point 1 — circular reasoning. The court considers an expert opinion unnecessary because the circumstances ruled out conditional release from the outset. Those circumstances are the attributions from the diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026 — “feelings of anger”, “experience of hurt”, “urge for retaliation” — for which no item of evidence is identified in any document (Annex 137_F2). The procedure’s only standardised measurement, LSI-R 20, is not mentioned in any of the decisions. An unproven attribution thus becomes the reason for not having to examine it.
On point 2 — the record exists. The Division relies on a record of the hearing of 24.06.2026. That record therefore existed and was available to the Division — it was not available to me. I objected to the incomplete provision of documents (Annex 132_F2) and received the full prosecution statement only on 14.07.2026, twenty days after the decision (Annex 148_F2). Having a matter “discussed” with me does not replace being able to read the relevant documents beforehand.
On point 3 — I accept this. That § 169 Abs. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in enforcement proceedings accords with the prevailing view. I do not pursue this point further.