This page concerns the decision of 24.06.2026 on suspension of the remainder of the sentence under § 57 StGB and the events preceding it. Structure: Fact – supporting evidence – provision – significance. The evaluations are my assessment and do not replace a judicial finding.
1 The application to admit the press remained undecided
In a letter of 11.06.2026 sent by fax, I expressly requested that press representatives be permitted to attend the hearing on 24.06.2026. The application relied on § 169 Abs. 1 GVG, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG and Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG and stated that none of the grounds for exclusion under §§ 171b, 172 GVG applied.
“However, the public cannot be excluded from the outset if none of the exceptions specified in § 171b, § 172 GVG applies.” — Annex 125_F2 of 11.06.2026
No decision was made on this application — neither granting nor refusing it, neither before nor at the hearing. The press was not admitted. The order of 24.06.2026 does not mention the application either.
§ 169 Abs. 1 GVG · §§ 171b, 172 GVG · § 34 StPO (duty to give reasons) · Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Significance: a refused application can be challenged; an undecided one cannot. The hearing at which my liberty was decided therefore took place without the public, without any reasoned decision on that point ever being issued.
Chronology No. 152Alternative hypothesis Hearings in sentence-enforcement proceedings are not public; § 169 Abs. 1 GVG does not apply to them. The application had no prospect of success on the merits, and in practice such an application is often disposed of implicitly with the other matters.
What is missing The decision itself. I have dropped the ground concerning the absence of publicity — it was unfounded, and I have corrected it on this page. What is missing is not admission of the press but a decision: § 34 StPO requires an application to be decided even when it is refused.
2 The other side’s submission arrived incomplete — and too late
In the same letter, I requested advance transmission of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s submission, to which the summons of 04.06.2026 already referred. The documents arrived incomplete (Chronology No. 157, 17.06.2026).
§ 454 Abs. 1 Satz 3 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK · BVerfGE 7, 275; 86, 133
Significance: someone who does not know the other side’s arguments cannot respond to them. The hearing then fulfils the form, not the purpose.
Alternative hypothesis Transmission errors occur; the complete version was supplied later, and the hearing offered an opportunity to respond orally.
What is missing Time. The complete version arrived on 14.07.2026 — twenty days after the decision. The sentence supporting the prognosis is on precisely the page that was initially missing. An opportunity to comment after the decision is no opportunity at all.
3 The hunger strike as an adverse factor — its reason goes unmentioned
The decision lists my hunger strike among the circumstances weighing against me. It does not mention why I began the hunger strike: to obtain access to the Urkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle (registry clerk authorised to record applications), which I had been denied for months. The sequence is documented throughout in the chronology — four documented refusals to record submissions, an application of 11.06.2025 decided only on 04.11.2025, and the escorted presentation offered only on the eleventh day without food.
Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · § 57 StGB · § 2 StVollzG
Significance: the means to which the denial of judicial remedies forced me to resort thus becomes the reason not to release me.
Chronology No. 57 ·
No. 103 ·
No. 107Alternative hypothesis A court may assess prison conduct as a whole; the motives behind individual incidents need not be set out in full.
What is missing The reason. Without it, a protest against denied access to court becomes a breach of order. The four documented refusals to record submissions appear in the chronology; they do not appear in the order.
4 “No social ties”
According to my account, the assumption that I lack social ties is incorrect. I have lived in Germany since 1992, am the founder and chair of a registered association, have family in Berlin and remain in ongoing contact with journalists, academics and members of parliament. These contacts are documented on this website and partly published.
§ 57 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StGB · Art. 8 EMRK
The sentence plan itself says the opposite. Point 12 of the sentence plan states: “The existing level of education, a pronounced drive to achieve and existing family ties, particularly to his son, should be taken into account as generally favourable factors. … Social contacts do exist, but have only a limited protective effect…” The wording is reproduced in the order of 31.07.2026 (Chronology No. 178).
Alternative hypothesis The Chamber relies on the information in the prison records; a person who names no close contacts in the diagnostic process appears there as lacking social ties.
What is missing A comparison. The same prison records identify family ties, particularly with the son, and provide for a fathers’ group as a measure. Both statements stand side by side without the Chamber relating them to one another.
5 Adopting formulations from a document without an author
The decision relies on the prison records, whose assessments in turn originate from the diagnostic process. This document bears no signature and identifies no author. The Prosecutor General’s Office also refers to the same source in its submission.
§ 454 StPO · § 34 StPO · Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG
Alternative hypothesis Prison authorities’ submissions are regularly signed in an official capacity; a court may use them without making every finding itself.
What is missing The author. A person formulating a significant personality-related prognosis must be identifiable and their professional competence assessable — otherwise its basis cannot be examined. The document ends with “On behalf of / E4”.
6 The exercise of fundamental rights alone supports the negative prognosis
The order lists as prison conduct that was not free from criticism: several hunger strikes by which I sought to protest “against a mail inspection that had taken place or an escorted visit to a registry clerk that had not taken place”; the fact that I publish all documents I receive; and the announcement that I would publish justice-system employees’ real names and photographs.
The order immediately follows this with the sentence: “On that basis alone, there is no positive prognosis of lawful conduct.” All four forms of conduct mentioned consist in the exercise of rights — two of them in protest against denied access to court.
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · § 57 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB
Significance: those who defend themselves prolong their detention. This ground of challenge is the subject of the constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026.
Annex 139_F2, page 2 ·
Annex 197_F2Alternative hypothesis The list may be intended merely to describe conflictual conduct in prison, not to assess the legal remedies as such; the order also mentions other circumstances.
What is missing The boundary. It does not say where the permissible exercise of rights ends and conduct relevant to the prognosis begins. Without that boundary, every complaint is a risk factor.
7 The question about political activity and the answer in the reasons for refusal
The order records: “When asked whether he intended to continue his political activities in the future, he stated that he would do so in any event.” This answer appears in the reasons for refusing me my liberty.
Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · Art. 3 Abs. 3 GG
Significance: at a hearing, a court asked about the continuation of lawful political activity and made use of the affirmative answer.
Annex 139_F2, page 3
Alternative hypothesis Asking about future plans is part of every prognostic assessment; the answer is reported, not evaluated.
What is missing The assessment. The sentence appears in the reasons for refusal without explaining what is supposed to be prognostically adverse about announced lawful political activity. Art. 3 Abs. 3 GG prohibits disadvantage on grounds of political views.
8 The contradiction about the social environment after release within the same paragraph
The order finds that a supportive social environment after release is insufficient, that I had identified “no social contacts or ties” — and records in the same paragraph that I speak regularly by telephone with my 16-year-old son. I have lived in Germany since 1992 and chair an association registered in Berlin.
§ 57 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: the contradiction appears within a single paragraph. It indicates that the factual basis was assumed rather than established.
Annex 139_F2, page 3
Alternative hypothesis Regular telephone calls with the son and a viable supportive social environment after release are not the same thing; the Chamber can find both without contradicting itself.
What is missing A resolution. The order places both statements in the same paragraph without explaining why the established contact is irrelevant to the social environment after release.
9 The hearing note relied on by the order
The order records that I was heard orally on 24.06.2026 and refers “to the hearing note prepared”. The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) later relies on the same note to reject my complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard.
This note has never been made available to me.
Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG · § 147 StPO
Significance: two courts rely on a document unknown to the person concerned.
Annex 194_F2Alternative hypothesis A hearing note is an internal part of the case file; access is granted on application, and no such application was before the court when the decision was made.
What is missing The opportunity. Both instances rely decisively on the note — the Regional Court for the hearing, the Kammergericht for the rejection of the complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard. It has never been made available to me.
10 Procedural status: upheld, then before the Federal Constitutional Court
The Kammergericht dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) against this order on 18.08.2026 (2 Ws 111/26), “for the correct reasons set out in the contested decision”. Domestic judicial remedies have therefore been exhausted.
On 01.09.2026, I lodged a constitutional complaint against both orders. It alleges violations of Art. 103 Abs. 1, Art. 19 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 and Art. 2 Abs. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG.
Sources: Annex 125_F2 (11.06.2026) · Annex 126_F2 · Annex 132_F2 · Annex 139_F2 · Annex 148_F2 · Annexes 115_F2, 137_F2 · Case 2 chronology Nos. 152, 155, 156, 157, 161, 189, 192. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment, distinguishing between documented episodes and the statements of the person concerned.