Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference denotes registration in the proceedings register, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a case reference · criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 undecided; the presumption of innocence applies · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz declared in time for the record before the registry clerk on 09.09.2026 (the episode) · video-call ban of 22.07.2026 set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the episode) · criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with the Potsdam Public Prosecutor’s Office under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
Political prisoner; ECtHR application lodged; deportation threatened. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Four episodes you can check in ten minutes each
This page is intended for journalists with little time and many submissions. It offers case references rather than outrage — and a way to test the account without our documents.
Domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate complaint) against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). No further remedy is available.
I have prepared a separate dossier for newsrooms in which each ground of challenge rests on a sentence from the contested decisions themselves — and which expressly identifies the two allegations of my own that I dropped after checking them.
Supporting documents: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Transmission records · Chronology archive
The case is not difficult to check. It is merely laborious.
What is documented here initially sounds improbable: a convicted person claims that for months he was denied access to the court registry, letters were opened, access to files was refused and a judgment was subsequently supplemented. Such claims regularly reach every newsroom, and most do not withstand scrutiny.
The difference here lies in verifiability, not tone. Almost every episode is backed by a case reference, a date and an original document. Where a document is missing, this is stated on the relevant page. Where a statement comes only from Dmitry Bagrash, it is identified as such. This distinction is the fundamental rule of this website — including where it harms his position.
Four episodes that can each be checked in ten minutes
1. A judgment that lacked the list of applied provisions for 373 days
The judgment of the Berlin Regional Court I of 22.07.2024 did not contain the list of applied criminal provisions required by § 260 Abs. 5 StPO. It was added on 30.07.2025 — described as the correction of a clerical error, after the judgment had become final and after the Federal Court of Justice’s decision on the Revision (appeal on points of law) of 07.05.2025.
2. The Federal Court of Justice itself confirms what was before it
The order of the 5th Criminal Division of 07.05.2025 records: “The defendant’s letters (‘supplements to the grounds of the Revision’) were before the Division and were the subject of deliberation.” The order of 19.06.2025 specifies “up to and including Part 7”. All eight supplements are reproduced verbatim on this website. The order itself addresses none of the points raised in them.
3. A court confirms “fully established facts” while writing that it did not look at the supporting evidence
The order of 31.07.2026 states verbatim of the submitted documentation that the Chamber had “not scanned and reviewed it and therefore not used it as a basis for its decision”. The documentation concerned precisely what actually constitutes what the prison calls the “fight against the German justice system”.
4. Two statements by the Russian Federation before the OSCE
On 23.09.2021, the Russian delegation to the OSCE Permanent Council mentioned the association Unkremlin e.V. by name — under an agenda item introduced by Germany and the Netherlands. A second statement followed on 08.04.2022. Both can be found using the OSCE document numbers: PC.DEL/1483/21 and PC.DEL/526/22.
What is not claimed here
This website does not claim that there is a conspiracy. It does not claim that individual office-holders acted on instructions. It does not claim that the conviction was instigated by foreign states. There is no evidence for any of this, and Dmitry Bagrash expressly does not make these claims on the website.
The claim that is made is narrower and therefore verifiable: that over a long period he was deprived of the procedural means by which a judgment can be challenged — declarations recorded at the court registry, access to files, referral of complaints to the next higher court and acknowledgement of receipt. Each of these episodes is documented individually.
The presumption of innocence applies without qualification to everyone named on this website. Evaluations are identified as Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment and do not replace a judicial finding.
The test that does not require our documents
Anyone wishing to check whether the account is correct need not read our files. There is a simpler way: Instruct a lawyer you trust. Dmitry Bagrash will give a power of attorney; the lawyer will request access to the files in his name and document every step — when the request was made, when and whether it was answered, what reasons were given and how often they had to follow up.
If it goes smoothly, the account is refuted, and you should write that. If it unfolds as documented here since 2024, you will have the episode first-hand and independently of us. Either is a result.
Material, citation, contact
- Chronology archive — each event on its own page, with a date, case reference, original document and an assessment by the person concerned.
- The annotated judgment — the judgment text page by page, with annotations at the contested passages.
- The “Deception” series — eight episodes in which, according to Dmitry Bagrash’s account, deception or misleading conduct occurred.
- The office-holders involved — following the structure: fact, supporting evidence, provision, significance.
- Previous media coverage.
All original documents are unchanged. Please send questions about individual episodes, requests for higher-resolution scans or requests to establish contact with the person concerned to bagrash.presse@gmail.com.