The role of provocateurs
During my pre-trial detention and imprisonment, people were repeatedly brought near me or sent to me whose behaviour can be placed within a recurring pattern. This page provides a brief, general contextual assessment. I provide journalists with detailed documentation of individual incidents, naming those involved, on request.
These two statements came from different people at different times — including, according to my account, a lecturer at a German university. Both follow the same pattern: a demand to confess, coupled with the claim that the system will never admit mistakes anyway, and the threat of deportation, which in my view would endanger my life.
First: To make my time in custody as unbearable as possible, to induce me to confess in exchange for freedom.
Second: To provoke me into a confrontation or another unlawful reaction — then to justify what I consider the judgment’s errors by saying I am unpredictable, aggressive or psychologically unstable.
Third, as a plausible but unsubstantiable explanation: personal displeasure on the part of Mr Wachs and Mr Groß at my continuing public criticism of their conduct of the proceedings.
These three points are my own assessment of the recurring incidents — they are not facts established by a court.
On page 20 of my judgment, my intention to join the so-called ‘Russian Legion’ is used to support an assessment of dangerousness — without mentioning that it is an official unit of the Ukrainian armed forces and that my corresponding request was addressed to President Wolodymyr Selenskyj, not to a Russian body. I am also described there as having published an announcement on Facebook of arson against Russian propagandists.
I regard both passages as misrepresentations with a substantial effect on the judgment’s reasoning — in my view, they fit the same pattern as the attempted provocations described above: portraying me as a dangerous, unpredictable person regardless of the actual facts.