Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference indicates entry 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 (complaint on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz declared in time on 09.09.2026 for recording by the Urkundsbeamten (authorised court registry officer) (the event) · video-call ban of 22.07.2026 quashed by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the event) · criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner is with StA Potsdam (Potsdam Public Prosecutor’s Office) under 496 Js 34084/26 being processed.
Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Four subject areas that can be considered separately from guilt
This page addresses organisations that observe proceedings and examine structural questions. It does not ask them to take sides in a criminal case but presents four documented subject areas, specifying the status of each set of proceedings.
Domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026 the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). There is no further remedy.
Exhaustion of domestic judicial remedies brings the international route within reach, but it requires a decision from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). In parallel, the Landesamt für Einwanderung (State Immigration Office) is pursuing my expulsion.
Evidence: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Proof of transmission · Chronology archive
A case at the intersection of prison law and political activity
Dmitry Bagrash has lived in Germany since 1992 and holds an unlimited residence permit. He is founder and chair of Unkremlin e.V., a Berlin-registered association opposing the current Russian regime. On 01.09.2023, the organisation was designated “undesirable” in the Russian Federation.
He has been in prison since December 2022; on 22.07.2024 he was sentenced to five years and four months. He disputes the conviction; that question is not to be decided here.
For human rights organisations, four subject areas in this case are relevant, each separable from the question of guilt and independently documented.
Access to court — Art. 6 and Art. 13 EMRK
After reachable defence counsel was no longer available, the statutory route was a declaration recorded at the court registry. Recording it was refused on four documented occasions; staff said they were acting on instructions. No written, challengeable decision was issued, so no legal remedy was available either.
Actual access was obtained twice through refusal of food rather than an application: on 11.08.2025 after eight days of hunger strike. Both hunger strikes were later assessed in prison documents as “extortion” and a negative personality trait.
Expression and correspondence — Art. 8 and Art. 10 EMRK
- Opened privileged mail. Several instances of mail from the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the European Court of Human Rights and the defence arriving opened are documented. In its statement of 07.11.2025, the prison explained that incoming and delivered mail was not logged.
- Items without postage or a postmark. On 26.05.2025 and 08.10.2025, official and court letters arrived in envelopes without any trace of postal handling; in the second case, the annexes expressly announced in the covering letter were missing.
- Ban on video calls. On 22.07.2026, video contact was banned for three months. The decision expressly relies on an email of 12.07.2026 in which the person concerned informed, among others, the press office of the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (State Department of Justice) about a constitutional complaint and referred to a public video statement. The reasons state that publication jeopardised rehabilitation because he “still did not engage with the offence”. The Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) quashed this decision as unlawful on 11.09.2026 (dossier on the event).
Sentence enforcement decisions and abandoning one’s legal position
The sentence and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026 refuses an open prison regime, citing the “strong focus on the fight against the German justice system”. It records a risk of future offences, “even though Mr B. insists that he intends always to act within the law”.
On 31.07.2026, the Landgericht Berlin I endorsed these considerations. It correctly cites the case law that refusal must not be based solely on denying the offence, and records that the prison had “not exclusively” relied on this.
At the same time, the chamber states that it “did not scan or view, and therefore did not use as a basis for its decision”, the documentation submitted by the person concerned on precisely those actions assessed as a “fight”.
Termination of residence and non-refoulement
Immigration proceedings to terminate residence run in parallel with the sentence enforcement proceedings. The person concerned is a Russian citizen; his organisation is designated “undesirable” in the Russian Federation, with criminally punishable consequences there for participants. Two statements by the Russian delegation in the OSCE Permanent Council name the association: PC.DEL/1483/21 of 23.09.2021 and PC.DEL/526/22 of 08.04.2022.
An expert report of 02.07.2026 addresses the danger in the event of transfer. Relevant provisions are § 60 AufenthG, Art. 3 and Art. 8 EMRK and Art. 33 of the Geneva Refugee Convention.
Domestic judicial remedies and international proceedings
| Proceedings | Status |
|---|---|
| Appeal on points of law (Revision) to the Bundesgerichtshof | dismissed on 07.05.2025; complaints of violations of the right to be heard rejected on 19.06.2025 |
| Two constitutional complaints | not accepted for decision without reasons, 01.09.2025 |
| Further constitutional complaint | filed on 10.07.2026 |
| Individual application to the ECtHR | filed; initial application comprises 313 pages |
| Sentence enforcement matters | complaint on points of law 5 Ws 17/26 dismissed; complaint proceedings 2 Ws 111/26 open |
| UN special procedures | contacted: Special Rapporteur on judges and lawyers, Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention |
Observation, without taking sides
There is no request to declare a convicted person innocent. Three things are requested:
- Observation of the ongoing proceedings. There is still no final decision on the complaint on points of law against the order of 31.07.2026 or on the complaint proceedings 2 Ws 111/26.
- Examination of structural questions. In particular: the lack of logging of prison mail, the absence of consequences for failure to forward a complaint under § 306 Abs. 2 StPO, and the linking of prison regime relaxations to one’s attitude towards one’s own conviction.
- Independent verification. Every statement on this website is marked according to the available evidence. Where a document is missing, that is stated. We expressly ask for this to be checked.
The presumption of innocence applies without restriction to all named persons; assessments are identified as those of the person concerned.