Chains — dates placed side by side

Observation: A supervisory authority that makes no substantive decision for months agrees a common approach with the body it supervises six days after a complaint. The evidence comes not from me but from the prison itself.

What approach was agreed on 11 August 2025 — and where is it recorded?

Would resolve this: the record of the discussion of 11.08.2025 between JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) and the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Senate Administration for Justice).

Can obtain it: Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 5 para. 1 point b PetG Bln.

Observation: The planning intended to underpin a transfer is produced nine months after it. Three days after its delivery, the proceedings to end residence begin.

On what written basis did the transfer on 10.06.2025 take place — and why was the treatment assessment conducted only nine months later?

Would resolve this: the transfer decision with its reasons; the sentence implementation file for May/June 2025.

Can obtain it: Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 5 para. 1 point b PetG Bln.

Observation: Four adverse decisions within nine weeks of a public statement. The decision of 22.07.2026 itself connects the email addressed to the supervisory authority, the video and the ban.

By what route did a communication addressed to the Senate Administration’s press office become part of the prison’s basis for its decision?

Expressly on this point: According to my own sent mail, the same email also went directly to the prison. I do not establish the information route — I demand that it be clarified.

Would resolve this: the prison’s file on the ban decision, including receipt records.

Can obtain it: Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz · Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 5 para. 1 point b PetG Bln.

Observation: The standard disputed since January 2025 is written down by the court itself in June 2026. The same order counters that writing the submission oneself was reasonable — while refusal of writing materials during the same period is documented in a declaration in lieu of oath.

Whose instruction did the staff invoke on the six documented days — and does it exist in writing?

Would resolve this: the service instruction or record to which the staff referred.

Can obtain it: Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 5 para. 1 points a and b PetG Bln; additionally, questioning under § 6 PetG Bln.

Observation: The prison eventually confirms in writing a threat situation that must be taken seriously — the same situation reported since October 2025, in which proximity was increased by a transfer in June 2026. The person reporting the threat lost his job along with the person he reported.

On what basis did the transfer on 10.06.2026 take place, although the danger had been recorded in the file since 27.10.2025?

Would resolve this: the transfer decision of June 2026 with the record of the safety assessment.

Can obtain it: Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 5 para. 1 point b and § 5 para. 2 PetG Bln (unannounced visit, conversation without third parties).

Observation: The pattern was challenged on the record before the judgment, not constructed afterwards. It recurs in a different branch of proceedings involving different people.

How is a prisoner to demonstrate engagement with the offence when, according to the same authority’s assessment, it is not offered to him?

Would resolve this: the trial record in 522 Ks 5/23 for 02.04.2024.

Can obtain it: Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee), § 10 para. 1 PetG Bln.

Observation: The premise of the explanation of the motive — that attention was lacking — is refuted by two documents that come not from the defence but from the state whose policies the protest opposed. The second is dated sixteen days before the alleged act.

If attention was lacking — what are these two statements? And if it existed — what supports the judgment’s explanation of the motive?

Would resolve this: the trial record; the file on whether those statements appear in it.

Can obtain it: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) (§ 147 StPO) · Petitionsausschuss (Petitions Committee) (§ 10 para. 1 PetG Bln).

* Two dates, no contradiction: Permanent Council meeting no. 1336 took place on 23.09.2021 (confirmed by the contemporaneous EU statement to the same meeting); the OSCE conference service distributed document PC.DEL/1483/21 the following day, 24.09.2021.