Political prisoner; ECtHR application lodged; deportation threatened. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Responsible parties
On the lawfulness of this page
Everyone named on this page is mentioned solely in their official, public capacity — not in relation to their private lives. Every statement is based on an official document (court order, administrative decision or submission) signed by, or the responsibility of, the person concerned, which arose in my proceedings and which I possess as a party to those proceedings and am entitled to publish.
Only statements of fact are reproduced (who signed which document, when, and with what content) — no value judgments about the person, no insults and no unsupported allegations. German law draws a fundamental distinction between true statements of fact and abusive criticism; only the former are disseminated here.
This documentation relies, among other things, on the following principles:
- Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG (freedom of expression and information) and Art. 17 GG (the right to petition) protect public discussion of state action.
- According to the settled case law of the Federal Constitutional Court on the so-called social sphere (including BVerfGE 66, 116 — “Wallraff”; BVerfGE 7, 198 — “Lüth”), office-holders must accept factual public discussion of their official activities to a greater extent than statements concerning their private or intimate lives.
- § 193 StGB (safeguarding legitimate interests) justifies factual criticism of official action where there is a legitimate interest in the information — here, my right to defend myself against criminal prosecution that I consider unlawful, as well as the public interest in scrutiny of the justice system.
- Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG (the rule-of-law principle) establishes a legitimate public interest in ensuring that the exercise of state power remains understandable and open to scrutiny.
Note: these observations are a general legal assessment by Dmitry Bagrash and his supporters, not legal advice from a lawyer. A review by a lawyer is sought before each expansion of this page.
Still in progress
This list is continually expanded and ordered by priority: those with the greatest responsibility for the denial of judicial protection appear first, followed by a grouping by institution. Still to be identified are the other members of the 5th Criminal Division of the Kammergericht (so far only its presiding judge, Presiding Judge at the Kammergericht Herb (VRi), is known by name), and — once assigned and published — the competent Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court for the constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026.
Principal responsible parties
The senior public prosecutor responsible for the original proceedings 522 Ks 5/23. According to my account, he discontinued investigations into my surveillance by Russian intelligence services and the arson attack on my vehicle, and did not pursue indications of a disinformation campaign against me.
Separate dossier: OStA Klaus-Michael Wachs
Alternative hypothesis A public prosecutor’s office sets priorities; investigative leads without reliable indications are discontinued, and § 170 Abs. 2 StPO provides the procedure for doing so.
Pronounced the judgment of 22.07.2024. Signed the correction order of 30.07.2025, which added a list of provisions to the operative part of the judgment 373 days after pronouncement. The subject of several supervisory complaints concerning unanswered applications and missing acknowledgements of receipt.
Sources: Annexes 68_F2, 69_F2, 147_F2 — Analysis
Alternative hypothesis A judgment document is prepared under time pressure; § 267 StPO expressly permits the correction of obvious errors, and supervisory complaints are often concluded without criticism because judicial action is outside the scope of administrative supervision.
Political responsibility
She was contacted personally and repeatedly by email — including on 02.08.2025 (announcement of a hunger strike), 05.08.2025 (start of the hunger strike, copied to OHCHR, EGMR, ICC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others), 09.09.2025 (open letter, copied to over 40 newsrooms and human rights organisations), and on 24.04., 05.05. and 05.06.2025. Each submission is confirmed as having “been before the Senator’s office”. She independently examined none of them herself; all were referred back, on grounds of competence, to the same bodies against which the respective complaint was directed. As of 02.09.2026: Two requests submitted to the administration — clarification of the information route leading to the video-call ban and information under § 147 GVG on the handling of the criminal complaint against OStA Wachs.
Source: Annexes 56_F2, 84_F2, 152_F2 · emails sent to senatorin@senjustva.berlin.de
Alternative hypothesis A senator does not personally answer every email addressed to her; signature by the relevant specialist department is the normal procedure, not a sign of disregard.
Between April and June 2025, these three names repeatedly appear as signatories “on behalf of” the Senate administration in replies issued in place of the Senator.
Source: Annex 56_F2
Alternative hypothesis Signing “on behalf of” is normal practice in any administration and says nothing about the care taken in processing the matter.
On 14.09.2026, she issued a combined reply to six submissions, including my two requests of 02.09.2026. She answered the question about the information route leading to the video-call ban by noting that I make my activities publicly accessible myself — without mentioning the order issued three days earlier by the Berlin Regional Court I, which had set aside the ban decision as unlawful. The complaint against OStA Wachs remains “forwarded, with no response”.
Separate dossier: Ms Hehmann · Source: Annex 220_F2
Alternative hypothesis She signed “on behalf of” the administration, not under decision-making authority of her own; it is not established whether the Senate administration even knew of the order of 11.09.2026 when the reply was drafted.
Berlin Regional Court I
Under his official title, a reply was issued on 26.06.2026 to my supervisory complaint of 06.09.2025 against VRiLG Groß — signed not by him personally but “on behalf of” by a staff member named Jura. The reply addresses none of the three specific facts I raised (see the box below). I received two responses on 09.07.2026 — one concerning a complaint of 06.09.2025, thus after almost ten months. Both invoke judicial independence without examining the documented facts.
Source: Annexes 147_F2, 153_F2
Alternative hypothesis Administrative supervision may not review judicial decisions (Art. 97 GG); a brief reply may therefore be legally required rather than negligent.
Signed the order of 24.06.2026 (case reference 589 StVK 86/26) refusing my early release. Its reasons incorporate my insistence on my innocence, my hunger strikes and my political activity into the negative prognosis. The order expressly bases that prognosis on hunger strikes against denied access to court, the publication of my own documents and the answer that political activity would continue: “On that basis alone, there is no positive prognosis of lawful conduct.” Upheld by the Kammergericht on 18.08.2026.
Source: Annex 139_F2 — Chronology F2-161, 194_F2
Alternative hypothesis The prognosis under § 57 StGB requires an overall assessment of conduct in prison; conflicts in prison may be taken into account without an intention thereby to assess the legal remedies themselves.
She ruled repeatedly on my applications for access to the Urkundsbeamter (registry clerk) (04.11., 10.12.2025). Her name is also connected with an unresolved episode involving an empty, unstamped envelope that was supposed to contain an announced prison submission. For months, there was no demonstrable referral to the Kammergericht of the Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) against the order of 10.12.2025; on 30.03.2026, the matter was escalated on four levels.
Source: Annexes 79_F2, 82_F2, 83_F2 — Chronology F2-121
Tiergarten Local Court
On 15.01.2025, they refused to record my supplement to the Revision — on instructions which, according to Ms Lukas, were based on a direct direction from the Regional Court.
Source: Annex 9_F2
Alternative hypothesis A registry may refuse to record a submission if it considers doing so inadmissible, and staff are bound by instructions.
Kammergericht Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court)
Presiding judge in complaint proceedings 2 Ws 111/26. By an order of 18.08.2026 he dismissed my immediate appeal against the refusal of early release “for the correct reasons set out in the contested decision”, at my expense. He regards an expert report under § 454 Abs. 2 StPO as unnecessary because suspension had been “ruled out from the outset”, and denies a violation of the right to be heard by referring to a hearing note that was never made available to me. With this decision, domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted.
Source: Annexes 149_F2, 194_F2
Alternative hypothesis Reference to the correct reasons of the lower court is customary and permissible in complaint proceedings; an expert report need not be obtained where the decision is settled on several grounds.
Participation in the order of 18.08.2026 (2 Ws 111/26), which dismissed the immediate appeal against the refusal of early release. No personal allegation is made; it is the decision that is documented.
Source: Annex 194_F2
Alternative hypothesis Other members of a judicial division share in its decision; this does not give rise to an individual allegation, and the documentation makes none.
Participation in the order of 18.08.2026 (2 Ws 111/26), which dismissed the immediate appeal against the refusal of early release. No personal allegation is made; it is the decision that is documented.
Source: Annex 194_F2
Alternative hypothesis As in any collegiate court, participation in a decision is an official duty, not a personal contribution to an outcome.
On 31.10.2025, they dismissed my complaint against the correction order, and on 12.02.2025 my complaint concerning contact with the Jewish community, as unfounded and inadmissible respectively — in each case on purely procedural grounds, without examination of the substance.
Source: Annexes 82_F2, 33_F3
Alternative hypothesis Procedural dismissals are the normal course where a remedy is not available; in that situation, the law specifically does not provide for a substantive examination.
Co-signature of the letter of 17.02.2025 in which the 3rd Criminal Division declared that it lacked jurisdiction and returned my documents instead of referring them to the competent body. No personal allegation is made.
Source: Annex 26_F2
Alternative hypothesis A division lacking jurisdiction returns documents because referral of its own motion is not provided for in every case.
Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office
In a letter of 01.07.2025, he informed me that he had found no procedural violations and, as his reason, referred to the dismissal of my Revision by the Federal Court of Justice — without addressing any of the facts I had raised.
Source: Annex 89_F2
Alternative hypothesis After Revision proceedings have concluded, the supervisory authority may rely on their outcome; a fresh substantive examination would be alien to the system.
Author of the submission of 14.07.2026, which addresses none of the specific procedural facts raised and instead refers generally to the reasons for the order of 24.06.2026.
Source: Annex 149_F2 — Chronology F2-170
Alternative hypothesis Reference to the reasons for the contested decision is permissible in complaint proceedings if the authority considers them correct.
Federal Court of Justice, 5th Criminal Division
As presiding judge, she signed the order of the 5th Criminal Division of 07.05.2025 (case reference 5 StR 72/25) rejecting my application to discharge my court-appointed defence lawyer RA Römer and my applications for access to the files. Addendum 09/2026: A complete review of the judgment text shows that the list of provisions appeared neither after the operative part nor anywhere in the judgment — including at the end on page 38.
Source: BGH order 5 StR 72/25 of 07.05.2025
Alternative hypothesis The Division decides applications to discharge counsel and for access to files according to its own standard; a refusal is a legal view, not negligence.
Other members of the judicial panel that made the order of 07.05.2025. Jan Gericke is the Division’s deputy presiding judge.
Source: composition of the 5th Criminal Division, BGH
Alternative hypothesis Participation in a division’s order is an official duty; no individual allegation can be inferred from it.
Federal Constitutional Court, 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate
By the unanimous order of 01.09.2025 (2 BvR 964/25), she declined to accept my constitutional complaint for decision on the ground that I had not submitted the Federal Prosecutor General’s application under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO. Submitting it requires access to the files, which I was denied. As of 09/2026: The constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 remains undecided; a further complaint was lodged on 02.09.2026.
Source: order 2 BvR 964/25
Alternative hypothesis The Federal Constitutional Court may require substantiation; submission of the essential documents is required by settled Chamber case law and applies equally to all applicants.
Participation in the order of 01.09.2025 declining to accept the complaint — without substantive examination of the alleged constitutional violations. As of 09/2026: The constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 remains undecided; a further complaint was lodged on 02.09.2026.
Source: order 2 BvR 964/25
Alternative hypothesis Orders declining to accept a complaint are made unanimously and without a duty to provide reasons on the merits; that is the procedure provided by law.
Participation in the order of 01.09.2025 declining to accept the complaint. This order and the parallel order 2 BvR 1069/25 brought domestic judicial remedies for my Revision to an end. As of 09/2026: The constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 remains undecided; a further complaint was lodged on 02.09.2026.
Source: orders 2 BvR 964/25, 2 BvR 1069/25
Alternative hypothesis The same applies here: declining to accept a complaint is a form of decision provided by law, not a substantive assessment of the arguments submitted.
Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office — background in 2021
According to my account, on 17.09.2021 — the weekend of the Russian Duma election — he personally ordered the immediate seizure of my “Putin is a Killer” banner at a notified demonstration opposite the Russian embassy. The subsequent proceedings against me were discontinued under § 170 StPO.
Source: Annex 120_F2
Alternative hypothesis At a demonstration, the operational command takes decisions under time pressure; subsequent discontinuance under § 170 StPO shows precisely that the proceedings were examined and brought to an end.
JVA Heidering (Heidering prison)
On 17.07.2026, he orally informed me of a three-month ban on my video calls without identifying a legal basis. The later written decision confirms that the prison learned of my video address through an email to the Senate administration’s press office.
Source: Annexes 146_F2, 152_F2, 91_F2
Alternative hypothesis There is no statutory entitlement to video calls; a prison may withdraw a voluntary additional service if it considers its purpose to be at risk. Addendum of 08.09.2026: The prison has since stated that there was no email from the Senate administration to it — it was itself an addressee of the press letter. Addendum of 19.09.2026: On 11.09.2026, the Berlin Regional Court I set aside the decision based on this as unlawful (dossier).
In June 2025, she decided my application for an escorted visit to the registry clerk and found that the relevant time limits had expired before my transfer.
Source: Annexes 43_F2, 44_F2, 84_F2
Alternative hypothesis If a time limit appears from the files to have expired, an escorted visit may be considered pointless; that is a misjudgment, not a deprivation of access.
Took part in the discussion of 17.07.2026 concerning the video-call ban. According to Dmitrij Bagrash’s account, in a separate conversation she suggested that he report sick to avoid the danger from a fellow prisoner that he described — a suggestion he rejected.
Source: Annex 146_F2; Case 5 documents (the spelling “Mahlow” is a working version)
Expressly excluded — with thanks
Rechtspflegerin Böhme (judicial officer with independent procedural responsibilities) (Zossen Local Court) duly recorded my Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) at the registry on 13.01.2026. She does not belong on this list — on the contrary, she performed her task correctly, and I expressly thank her for it.
Public discussion
Can my refusal to exchange freedom for a confession be regarded as discrediting the German legal order?
Can the subsequent amendment of a final judgment and the continuing denial of judicial remedies be justified on the ground that the Prosecutor General’s Office and the courts wanted to prevent me — as announced in my final statement — from contacting a member of the German Bundestag to initiate an investigation independent of the justice system and a reform of the response to hybrid Russian threats?
Does my fight for rehabilitation and the attribution of responsibility — conducted in full accordance with German law — discredit the German legal order, as the Prosecutor General’s Office suggests in its submission?
Statement by Dmitry Bagrash
I will immediately document and publish any attempt to put pressure on me in this matter — whether by offering freedom in exchange for a confession, threatening my life or health, or demanding that this page be removed. The name of the person responsible will then appear in larger type in this list and take its corresponding place in the public examination of this case, with the press duly informed.
German taxpayers have a right to know the names of those whose official work they finance.
I also declare: no official, prosecutor or judge has yet been born who could make me confess to something I did not do — whether to save the face of the justice system or to save my freedom or my life.
Alternative hypothesis The suggestion may have been intended as pragmatic protective advice to defuse an acute danger in the short term.