“Yes, only offence work”: JVA Heidering makes open prison conditional on an admission of guilt – Bagrash turns to the court and the supervisory line

At the sentence-plan conference of 23 October 2026, JVA Heidering certified that Dmitry Bagrash has no drug problem, no violations and very good feedback from work. The only condition for relaxations and open prison was “offence work” on the offences for which he was convicted. Asked whether there were other obstacles, the head of the house replied: “Yes, only offence work.” Bagrash denies the offence and is seeking a reopening of his case. For him this means freedom only in exchange for a confession. On 26 October 2026 he applied to the sentence enforcement chamber of the Regional Court Berlin I and lodged a disciplinary complaint.

What happened at the conference

• Present: the new head of House 1, the group leader and the social worker. Duration: ten minutes at most.
• Bagrash was not asked a single question; only results were announced. Two of the three officials did not say a word.
• Asked who was responsible for the conference being six weeks late (deadline under the plan: 13 September 2026), the head of the house said she had received nothing – although his application of 15 October 2026 verifiably reached the prison by fax on 14 October 2026 at 22:56.
• At the end Bagrash summed up: open prison only with offence work, and thus with an admission of guilt, although there are no other obstacles. The head of the house confirmed this. He recorded the conference in an affidavit the same day.

What the law says

• Under §§ 16 and 42 of the Berlin Prison Act, open prison and relaxations depend on suitability and on the risk of absconding or misuse. A confession is not a requirement – not even in the Senate Department’s administrative rules.
• The sentence plan must be discussed with the prisoner and his suggestions taken into account (§ 9 StVollzG Bln).

What the courts say

• Federal Constitutional Court, order of 11.01.2016 – 2 BvR 2961/12: “That the convicted person denies the offence cannot by itself support a negative social prognosis.”
• Higher Regional Court Hamm, order of 29.09.2015 – III-1 Vollz (Ws) 411/15: “Denial of the offence by the convicted person is not in itself a reason to refuse measures opening the regime.”
• And the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office itself, in Bagrash’s case on 26 May 2026: a “(full) admission of guilt” is “not an indispensable requirement”.

What Bagrash is asking for

• At the Regional Court Berlin I – sentence enforcement chamber: to set aside the condition and the plan update based on it; to declare the condition unlawful; to declare that his request for information of 15 October 2026 was unlawfully left unanswered; to declare that the conference was not a discussion.
• From the prison management, copied to the Senate Department for Justice: a review of the head of house’s conduct, a written statement whether the prison maintains the condition, information on what happened to his fax.

“I reject freedom in exchange for self-incrimination. Such freedom does not interest me. I demand that the law be applied.” – Dmitry Bagrash

Also: since its letter of 16 October 2026 the Federal Constitutional Court has kept Bagrash’s second constitutional complaint (against the refusal of two-thirds release) under case number 2 BvR 1974/26; it has been assigned to the competent chamber. No decision has been taken on acceptance.

This is the next stage of a pattern Bagrash has documented since April 2026: the same assessment of his insistence on his innocence runs through diagnostics, sentence plan, statements and court orders. We will report on every further step and publish all documents.

No decision has been taken on the application or the complaint. The assessments are those of the person concerned; there is no finding by a court or supervisory authority.

Documents

Contact: bagrash.presse@gmail.com · Press ID 2135610 · Dmitry Bagrash, JVA Heidering, Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren. This press release may be passed on unchanged.