Eight stages, one connection —
and the question of a committee of inquiry

Contents of this page

Each section can be linked to and cited separately. Anyone wishing to check just one point need not read the others.

What I announced in my final statement — and when it entered the case file

On file in a written submission Affirmed in a declaration in lieu of oath

On 22.07.2024, I delivered my final statement before the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I). At the end, I stated that after my release I would have my own criminal proceedings investigated by the Deutscher Bundestag (German federal parliament) — so that the system for detecting Russian agents in Germany could be changed.

What makes this relevant to this House is not the content, but the date and the form. This statement is not in a letter or an interview. It was taken down in an official record: a Rechtspflegerin from the Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) attended JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison) for this purpose on two occasions — on 17.01.2025 from 8:30 to 11:00 and on 20.01.2025 from 8:30 to 10:15 — and recorded my statement under §§ 344, 345 StPO. The document is dated 20.01.2025.

In its order of 19.06.2025, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, BGH) expressly recorded that on 07.05.2025 it had received the supplements up to and including Part 7 and that they were considered in its deliberations. The announcement of a parliamentary inquiry is thus on file not only with the Berlin justice system, but also with Germany's highest criminal court.

The same document contains a second procedural objection that is material to assessing the proceedings: according to my account, I was interrupted several times during my final statement — when I spoke about my political activity, when I mentioned the seizure of the banner in September 2021, and when I wanted to address the coronavirus emergency aid. None of those statements appears in the written judgment. This objection under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and § 258 Abs. 2 StPO is the subject of the supplements Part 1 and Part 2.

Part 2 was initially not forwarded to the court hearing the Revision; I had to request this separately in the supplement, Part 6, dated 07.05.2025. Only the BGH order of 19.06.2025 documents that the supplements arrived there.

The Bundeskriminalamt expert report is in the judgment itself

Officially established

During the ongoing trial, the presiding judge commissioned on 28.08.2023 Ms Dr. Cox — a qualified chemist and head of the Fire and Room Explosion unit at the Bundeskriminalamt — to prepare an expert report on whether the device, at the specific location where it was placed, was capable of causing a fire or an explosion. The report was received on 27.09.2023 and forwarded to the parties to the proceedings the following day; the expert was heard on it on 15.11.2023.

The chamber incorporated her findings into the judgment (original pages 29 to 31):

• Setting the building on fire was not possible at the specific location — essentially because of the lack of air and oxygen supply in the light well.
• The window-pane scenario, too — a fire burning long enough to shatter the double glazing — was, she said, almost ruled out by the dimensions of the well.
• The police's conception of the effect of the gas cartridge was described by the BKA expert as rather implausible from a technical perspective; an explosive reaction would have required mixing that could not have been achieved in the well.
• The second BKA expert, Dipl.-Ing. Blumberg, could not determine the intended purpose of the electronics because of the degree of destruction — and, according to the judgment, could not even reliably assess whether it was a dummy. The device had been detonated for safety reasons before it was fully examined.

The question for a parliament is therefore different — and concerns not guilt, but the proportionality of everything that follows:

• How does a danger ruled out at the specific location by the Bundeskriminalamt's own expert report nevertheless become a basis for sentencing?
• And above all: how does that same assumption of dangerousness then carry over into the prognosis for sentence enforcement, under which I am still refused open prison conditions — despite a prison record that the same institution describes as “free of incident reports”?

How this assumption of dangerousness enters the prognosis for sentence enforcement — the documented path ↓

The complete judgment, with page-by-page commentary → · If this holds, what follows?

How an allegation of an offence became a character trait — and what the camera showed

Officially established On file in a written submission

The preceding section ends with a question: how does a danger ruled out at the specific location by the Bundeskriminalamt's expert report carry over into the decision on open prison conditions? The path is documented and can be traced date by date through five official documents.

In August 2026, this assumption was tested against a real incident for the first time

On 05.08.2026, a physical altercation with a fellow prisoner occurred in workshop 3 at JVA Heidering. I was suspended from work — so the initial assumption went against me. The prison then reviewed the camera footage.

I expressly acknowledge that the prison acted correctly here. It examined objective evidence, assessed it in my favour, lifted the adverse measure on its own initiative and compensated the loss. I acknowledge this — and that is precisely why the incident matters to this House.

• Why is the procedure's only standardised measurement — LSI-R 20, a below-average risk of reoffending — no longer mentioned in any decision after 17.04.2026?
• What verifiable evidence supports “strong feelings of anger” and a “clearly expressed urge for retribution” — and why does a Prosecutor General's Office adopt such wording verbatim instead of examining it?
• How can a prisoner challenge an assessment whose decisive sentence he sees only twenty days after the decision based on it?
• Why do the two original documents — the diagnostic procedure and the sentence plan — bear neither a signature nor the name of a responsible person?
• Are the prison and the Prosecutor General's Office aware of the finding of 21.08.2026 — and has it been incorporated into the subsequent prognosis?

Status of supporting material: I have the full wording of the letter of 21.08.2026; a scan of the original will be supplied later and added here. Until then, the account is marked as a paraphrase.

On 18.08.2026, the chain closed — legal remedies have been exhausted

Officially established

The Kammergericht, 2nd Criminal Senate (judges Herb, Kupferschmidt, Hollering), rejected my sofortige Beschwerde against the refusal of early release — “for the correct reasons given in the contested decision”, at my expense. There is no further remedy.

The circular reasoning in one sentence: An expert was said to be unnecessary because suspension of the remaining sentence was “ruled out from the outset” — and it was ruled out because of an assessment for which none of the documents involved identifies evidence. The assumption becomes the reason not to examine it.

The Senate also relies on the note of the hearing on 24 June 2026. The court had that note. I did not — nor did I have the complete statement of the Prosecutor General's Office, which I received only twenty days after the decision.

Professionally supported, monitored by the state — and heard only to a limited extent in the proceedings

Officially established My account

A recurring objection to me is that my actions were those of an isolated individual without wider connections. That is not true, and it can be checked. Since 2021, my public work against the Putin regime was coordinated with German specialists on Eastern Europe — including Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, a political scientist in Bonn, a researcher at the Internationales Konversionszentrum Bonn (BICC, Bonn International Center for Conversion) and a long-standing adviser to German government bodies on Eastern European affairs. He took part by video link in the democracy camp outside the Brandenburg Gate.

In my final statement, I expressly named him as one of the witnesses who confirm that all my activity against Russian agents and propagandists was conducted through lawful and official channels — alongside the witnesses Wiedemann, Wendling and Sander. This passage appears verbatim in the recorded Supplement, Part 1, of 20.01.2025.

What happened in September 2024. Prof. Heinemann-Grüder visited me in detention in early September 2024. The visit was monitored by the Landeskriminalamt (State Criminal Police Office, LKA); I was expressly prohibited from speaking about the ongoing proceedings. I could only tell him that I no longer had contact with my defence lawyers and wanted to initiate an investigation into Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs.

This gives rise to two questions that this House can ask and I cannot:

• Which office arranged the monitoring of a government adviser's visit to a prisoner, what did the resulting assessment contain — and to whom was it passed?
• On what legal basis is a prisoner prohibited from speaking about his own proceedings with a witness he has named?

Further material on the role of knowledgeable witnesses in the proceedings: Feoktistov dossier, section 3 · Deception as a modus operandi

Travelled from Bonn twice — and was not questioned about a single circumstance for which he was summoned

Affirmed in a declaration in lieu of oath

Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder was summoned as a witness at my defence lawyers' request. He lives and teaches in Bonn and travelled to Berlin specifically for this purpose — twice.

During the first examination, the court asked how often we had been in contact after the war began, specifically from March to May 2022. In the courtroom, the witness took out his mobile phone, opened our message history and told the court: practically every other day.

When the witness identified his sources — offices of the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence service) and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) — the prosecution and the court demanded, in open court, the names of the individual informants. He did not name one of them. The presiding judge ended the examination and suggested that he reflect on his conduct.

The witness attended the second hearing with a lawyer. He gave the name. The presiding judge said that he had no further questions. The witness spent no more than about five minutes in the courtroom that day.

The witness was not questioned about a single circumstance for which he had been summoned: not about the coordination of my public activity, not about its content, not about its legality, and not about the reactions it had prompted. Precisely these circumstances concern the construction of the motive on which the judgment rests.

What the witness could have reported

In spring 2022, I asked him what was preventing Germany from supplying arms to Ukraine. His answer: opponents of such supplies invoked Germany's “historical guilt” towards Russia. I then drafted two template letters on behalf of Russian citizens — to Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz and to MEP Sergey Lagodinsky — and made them publicly available as Word and PDF files with the recipient's address already entered. Anyone could enter their name, sign and send the letter for 85 cents in postage. The witness helped with the wording.