This page concerns the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection as the authority supervising the prison system and as the politically responsible administration. It organises the episodes according to the structure Fact – supporting evidence – provision – significance and presents my assessment; it does not replace a judicial finding.
1 Referral instead of examination — a closed circle
The administration consistently responded to my submissions by referring them to the body against which the complaint was directed. The reasoning is set out in the letter of 05.05.2025: the supervisory authority would act only once the prison management had taken a final position and made a decision.
“Only once the prison management has finally dealt with your concern and made a decision can the Senate administration … review the decision of the prison management” — letter of 05.05.2025, Annex 56_F2
At the same time, the prison refused to issue precisely such a final written decision. On 11.08.2025, the head of the prison subdivision expressly stated that no written decision would be issued (Annex 67_F2).
§ 151 StVollzG (supervision) · §§ 108, 109 StVollzG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: until the prison makes a written decision, the supervisory authority, on its own reading, does not become competent — and as long as the supervisory authority does not act, the prison need not make one. For the person concerned, this is not a legal avenue but a circle.
Chronology No. 90,
No. 100,
No. 105Alternative hypothesis Supervisory authorities regularly refer matters back to the specialist authority so that it first makes a final decision itself — this reflects the subsidiary role of supervision in relation to the prison’s substantive decision, not indifference.
What is missing A date for reconsideration on which the supervisory authority follows up on its own initiative if the prison has not taken a final position. Without it, the circle remains open.
2 Three personal submissions to the Senator — three referrals
According to confirmation by the administration, my letters of 24.04.2025, 05.05.2025 and 05.06.2025 had been before the Senator’s office. Each was processed by referral; no independent substantive examination has been documented to me.
Art. 17 GG (right to petition) · § 2 Abs. 1 IVG (referral to the competent authority)
Significance: formally, each individual referral is correct. Taken together, however, they produce not a single substantive decision by the supervisory authority over a period of months.
Chronology No. 52,
No. 112Alternative hypothesis For a Senate administration receiving numerous submissions, delegation to the competent specialist department is normal practice, not a personal rejection by the Senator.
What is missing Evidence that at least one of the three submissions was examined on its merits before it was referred onward.
3 The “common approach” of 11.08.2025
In its submission to the Regional Court of 26.09.2025, JVA Heidering (Heidering prison) states that my case was discussed with the Senate administration on 11.08.2025 and that a common approach was developed there. This is the only written evidence known to me of coordination between the prison and the supervisory authority in my case — and it comes from the prison, not from me.
§ 151 StVollzG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
Significance: in my view, a supervisory authority that agrees a common approach with the body it supervises is no longer examining the matter independently. The date is six days after my complaint to the Senator of 05.08.2025.
Chronology No. 126Alternative hypothesis Coordination between the supervisory authority and the prison in ongoing proceedings under public discussion may be ordinary administrative practice to ensure a consistent approach — not necessarily an agreement directed against me.
Correction of 26.09.2026: The content is no longer entirely unknown. JVA Heidering’s own submission (Annex 84_F2, transcribed in
Chronology No. 126) describes the “common approach” as follows: I was then to be “allowed a one-off escorted visit to the registry clerk in this matter” — at the same time to “show that JVA Heidering will not permit an excessive proliferation of escorted visits to the registry clerk”.
What is missing The Senate administration’s own account of that discussion, the name of the responsible case officer, and evidence of who coined the phrase “common approach”. What is known is therefore the outcome from the prison’s perspective, not the course of the discussion itself.
4 Transfer to Heidering — without a sentence plan or a commission
On 10.06.2025, without prior notice and in the middle of proceedings with running time limits, I was transferred from JVA Moabit to JVA Heidering. At that time, neither a sentence plan nor a treatment assessment existed: I was not summoned to the first commission (EWA) until 13.03.2026 — more than three years after the start of custody and nine months after the transfer. The sentence and reintegration plan was not handed to me until 24.04.2026.
§§ 8, 9 StVollzG Bln (treatment assessment and sentence plan) · § 2 StVollzG
Significance: in my assessment, the sequence was reversed — first the transfer, years later the planning meant to underpin it. I have no evidence that the transfer was initiated by the Senate administration; I record that it occurred during the weeks in which my submissions to that administration remained unanswered. The events of 13.03.2026 are described in a declaration in lieu of oath (Annex 156_F2).
Chronology No. 82,
No. 137,
No. 176Alternative hypothesis Transfers between prisons may take place for purely organisational reasons, independently of the status of the sentence plan, which is then completed at the new prison.
What is missing An explanation of why the first treatment assessment took place only three years after the start of custody and more than eight months after the transfer.
5 An email to the press office becomes the basis of the prison’s decision
JVA Heidering’s decision of 22.07.2026 imposing a three-month ban on my video calls expressly relies on an email that I sent on 12.07.2026 to, among others, the press office of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection.
“On 12 July 2026, you sent an email to, among others, the press office of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection …” — Annex 152_F2
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 17 GG · §§ 30, 40 StVollzG Bln
Alternative hypothesis If an email is sent to several recipients, the prison may have been on the same distribution list without the Senate administration separately forwarding it.
Correction of 26.09.2026: The information route has now been clarified and turned out differently from what I initially suspected. In its submission of 25.08.2026, JVA Heidering (
Annex 205_F2) states that an email from the Senate administration to the prison in this matter did
not exist; the prison itself was an addressee of the press letter of 12.07.2026; in this case, coordination with the Senate administration did
not take place. I accept this information (see also
Annex 159_F2 and
Annex 160_F2, both with corrections of 08.09.2026). What remains unchanged is that, according to the prison’s own account, the measure was triggered solely by a press communication — not by a referral from the Senate administration.
What is missing Evidence of how, within the prison itself, the press communication moved from the press office to become the basis for the prison department’s decision.
6 Two specific requests to your administration, submitted on 02.09.2026
With the petition to the Petitions Committee, I submitted two requests to your administration — by fax on 02.09.2026 via both numbers, at 17:18 and 17:35, 23 pages each, transmission OK.
First: clarification of the information route by which knowledge of my press letter of 12.07.2026 or the video link reached JVA Heidering — five days before the ban on my video calls. I expressly do not claim that your administration issued an instruction. I ask for clarification of the route.
Second: information under § 147 GVG on how my criminal complaint against Oberstaatsanwalt (Senior Public Prosecutor) Klaus-Michael Wachs, filed back in 2024, has been handled and why no outcome has been communicated to me to this day. How an authority handles a criminal complaint is administrative action.
§ 147 GVG · Art. 17 GG · § 3 PetG Bln
Alternative hypothesis A petition containing two requests may be in the administration’s normal processing queue and need not be answered within days.
What is missing An acknowledgement of receipt showing that the petition was registered at all.
7 Your administration’s first fax channel failed twice
Transmissions to (030) 9013 2000 failed on 24.08.2026 and 01.09.2026. Only the second number, (030) 9028 3783, and another attempt on 02.09.2026 succeeded.
I record this as a technical finding, not an allegation. For a prisoner who cannot send materials from the prison by post, the functioning of a supervisory authority’s fax line is nevertheless significant.
Art. 17 GG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Alternative hypothesis Technical transmission errors in fax connections frequently occur regardless of the sender and need not indicate a pattern — I expressly record that myself.
What is missing A response from the administration explaining why a central communication channel failed twice within two weeks and whether other senders experienced the same problem.
8 The reply to both requests: issued on 14.09.2026, without the order of 11.09.2026
On 14.09.2026, your administration — case officer Ms Hehmann, signed “on behalf of” — replied to the two requests listed under point 6, combined with four other submissions. On the first request, concerning the information route leading to the video-call ban:
“Since you make your activities and the video you mentioned publicly accessible on the internet, I see no reason to ask Heidering prison to provide me with information about the information route.” — Annex 220_F2
On the second request, concerning the Wachs complaint: “forwarded to the competent specialist department, awaiting its response” — without a date. Between JVA Heidering’s own information, relied on elsewhere in the same letter (09.09.2026), and the drafting of this reply (14.09.2026), the Berlin Regional Court I issued its order of 11.09.2026 setting aside the video-call ban decision as unlawful (Annex 218_F2). The reply does not mention it.
Art. 17 GG · § 151 StVollzG · § 147 GVG
Significance: the supervisory authority answers the question about the information route in precisely the matter in which its own court had set aside the decision as unlawful three days earlier, without mentioning that order. Detailed assessment:
Ms Hehmann dossier,
Annex 220_F2.
Alternative hypothesis According to the letter, the referral to the specialist officer is dated the same day (14.09.2026); without an established notification route between the Regional Court and the supervisory authority, it cannot be ruled out that the case officer simply did not yet know of the order at that time.
What is missing Evidence of whether and how court decisions against JVA Heidering are routinely reported back to the supervisory authority — and a date for the still-outstanding response concerning the Wachs complaint.
Sources: Annexes 56_F2, 67_F2, 84_F2, 152_F2, 156_F2 · Case 2 chronology Nos. 52, 82, 90, 100, 105, 112, 126, 137, 167, 176. Added on 02.09.2026: Annexes 198_F2, 199_F2 · Case 2 chronology Nos. 193, 196. Added on 14.09.2026: Annex 220_F2 · see
Ms Hehmann dossier. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment, distinguishing between documented episodes and the statements of the person concerned.