Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference denotes an 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 (appeal on points of law), 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz, declared in time for recording by the court registry official on 09.09.2026 (the matter) · 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 matter) · criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with StA Potsdam (Potsdam Public Prosecutor's Office) under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Five sets of facts — with supporting evidence and documents to be obtained
This page does not file a criminal complaint or allege a criminal offence. It organises matters, identifies what each is based on and states which document would confirm or refute it. The question of jurisdiction comes first.
Domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). There is no further legal remedy.
On 02.09.2026, I filed a criminal complaint against Presiding Regional Court Judge Groß (VRiLG) and senior public prosecutor Wachs (OStA), and at the same time suggested transferring the matter to a Prosecutor General's Office based outside Berlin because the Berlin authority is itself a party to the proceedings. I expressly make no assessment of whether the threshold of § 339 StGB has been reached; the presumption of innocence applies until a decision is made.
Evidence: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Transmission records · Chronology archive
An account of facts, not a criminal complaint
This page files no criminal complaint. A complaint is filed with the competent authority, not on a website, and requires evidence for every individual point. Anyone publicly alleging offences they cannot substantiate themselves commits an offence under § 164 StGB.
What appears here is different: an organised account of matters which, in Dmitry Bagrash's view, require clarification by the authorities — each with an indication of its basis and the document that would confirm or refute it. The presumption of innocence applies without qualification to every person named.
Who would be responsible for what
This question comes first because a submission to the wrong body achieves nothing and costs time.
| Body | Responsible for | In this case |
|---|---|---|
| Generalbundesanwalt beim BGH (Federal Prosecutor General at the BGH) | State security offences, § 120 GVG; proceedings of particular significance for the Federal Republic | Not responsible for official misconduct offences by individual state employees. This remit might be engaged only if there were indications of foreign intelligence services influencing the act — there is no reliable evidence of that so far. |
| Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office, Prosecutor General's Office | Official misconduct offences, Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice, § 339 StGB), violation of postal and telecommunications secrecy (§ 206 StGB), document offences, false unsworn testimony (§ 153 StGB) | Has subject-matter jurisdiction — while also being the authority whose handling of matters is challenged in some of the incidents. This dual position is itself a circumstance that should be stated. |
| Federal President | Pardons in federal matters | Not competent. Following conviction by a Regional Court, the power of pardon belongs to the relevant state. A submission to the Federal President's Office would have no effect; the available avenue is the Petitions Committee. |
| Administrative supervision and petitions committees | Proper conduct of official business; parliamentary scrutiny | Pursued. The administrative supervisory complaint of 05.09.2025 was decided on 26.06.2026 without addressing the three matters identified. |
Information on legal remedies made up of two templates
Documented: A reply letter encloses information on legal remedies whose text visibly consists of two unrelated blocks. It begins correctly with information about a complaint under § 304 StPO, breaks off mid-sentence and moves into form text about electronic submission and about Berufung (appeal on facts and law), Revision (appeal on points of law), Nebenklage (participation as a private accessory prosecutor) and a declaration of joinder — remedies not available against an order. No time limit is stated anywhere.
Not established: how the sheet came into being. The person concerned considers it possible that two templates were copied over one another; that is his assessment.
To clarify, obtain: the original of Annex 29_F3 and a technical examination. §§ 35a, 44 Satz 2 StPO would be relevant; whether an offence is also implicated cannot be assessed without knowing how the document originated.
Postal and telecommunications secrecy in prison
Documented: Several items from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), the European Court of Human Rights and the defence arrived opened; this mail is not subject to prison inspection. On 26.05.2025 and 08.10.2025, letters arrived in envelopes with no postage and no postmark — in the second case without the annexes expressly announced in the covering letter. In its statement of 07.11.2025, the prison stated that incoming and handed-over mail was not logged.
Evidence: An envelope without postage or a postmark cannot have travelled through the postal system — that can be objectively established. Who conveyed the item and by what route remains unresolved.
To clarify, obtain: the original envelopes, whose production was already requested by written submission of 21.10.2025 and has not been ordered to this day. Relevant: § 206 StGB, Art. 10 GG, § 29 StVollzG.
Witness testimony and a complaint that was not processed
Documented: On 23.01.2024, the person concerned filed a criminal complaint against a criminal police officer for false testimony, recorded by the registry of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court). The complaint identifies three specific points and two lawyers as witnesses. No acknowledgement of receipt was issued; no file reference was provided in response to the status enquiry of 06.01.2025.
Account of the person concerned: Only around a year and a half after the complaint — after the judgment and dismissal of the appeal on points of law — was he reportedly informed that the proceedings had been discontinued for lack of an offence; the conviction was said to serve as evidence. The person concerned does not have the relevant letter. One of the named witnesses has since died.
To clarify, obtain: the trial record in 522 Ks 5/23 and the file concerning the complaint of 23.01.2024, including the discontinuance decision.
A statement in the closing address that can be checked against one sheet of paper
Account of the person concerned: It was reportedly submitted in the proceedings that an earlier case against him — the seizure of a protest banner on 17.09.2021 — had been discontinued because the Embassy of the Russian Federation had not filed a Strafantrag (formal request for prosecution).
Case file: The proceedings under reference (348 Gs) 231 Js 3707/21 (3115/21) were discontinued under § 170 Abs. 2 StPO, thus for lack of sufficient suspicion of an offence. Following examination of the file by the defence lawyer at the time — its transmission to him is evidenced by a letter of 22.10.2021 — it contains no mention of the embassy other than its address as the demonstration venue.
To clarify, obtain: the discontinuance decision. It states the reason for discontinuance; the statement can therefore be checked in one minute.
Two applications addressed to other courts
Documented: On 13.02.2025, two applications expressly addressed to the Bundesgerichtshof and the Kammergericht were recorded by the court registry; the addressees are identified in the record. The Regional Court replied. The registry and the court of origin are located on the same premises.
Not established: how the documents reached it. The person concerned does not allege removal of documents from the file; he records the matter and requests clarification.
To clarify, obtain: the registry workflow at Amtsgericht Tiergarten for these two matters.
A pattern of reasoning repeated in four letters
In four reply letters, a challenged decision is used to justify its own correctness. The entire reasoning section of the Prosecutor General's Office's letter of 01.07.2025 reads:
This is not a criminal offence and is not described as one. It is a circumstance relevant to whether effective scrutiny by the authorities took place — and should therefore be considered in every further examination.
Documents, access, contact
All the matters mentioned are documented in the Chronology archive with their dates, case references and original documents. The person concerned's written submissions to the Bundesgerichtshof appear in full; the index of grounds of complaint organises them by provision and source location.
The person concerned is in detention and has no unrestricted access to the files. Missing documents are noted on the relevant page; the corresponding information appears as a declaration in lieu of oath.
Correspondence and requests for documents: bagrash.presse@gmail.com
How this website is made and how to reach me →