Ms Metz | Responsible parties

Ms Metz introduced herself to me on 23 October 2026 as the new head of House 1. I met her for the first time at the sentence-plan conference that day. This page sets what the law requires next to what happened in that conference. It is based on my affidavit of the same day (Anlage 248_F2).

Status: on 26 October 2026 I lodged a disciplinary complaint against Ms Metz (Anlage 250_F2) and applied to the sentence enforcement chamber (Anlage 249_F2). Neither has been decided. The assessments on this page are mine.

Addendum 28 October 2026: Ms Metz is named as contact person in the prison management’s decision of 16 October 2026 on my disciplinary complaint against her predecessor Mr Lohmeier; the decision is signed with the governor’s name (F2-228). On 27 October 2026 I was handed the written sentence plan – unsigned (F2-229).

Addendum 30 October 2026: through the social worker, Ms Metz repeatedly offered me a private meeting; the social worker would not give her first name. I replied in writing: a conversation yes – with an agenda, a record and a person I trust; no private talk about a confession (Anlage 264_F2).

What the law requires	What happened on 23 October 2026
Open prison and relaxations: suitability, no risk of absconding or misuse (§§ 16, 42 StVollzG Bln). A confession is not a requirement.	“Yes, only offence work.” – the only condition named, with other obstacles expressly absent.
Refusal only where a risk is positively established; denial of the offence alone is not enough (BVerfG 2 BvR 2961/12; OLG Hamm III-1 Vollz (Ws) 411/15).	No drugs, no violations, very good work – established by the prison itself. No risk named.
The plan is discussed with the prisoner; his suggestions are taken into account (§ 9 StVollzG Bln).	Not one question to me; results only; ten minutes at most; two of three participants silent.
Plan update by 13 September 2026 at the latest (§ 9(3) StVollzG Bln and the plan itself); a written application must be answered.	Fax of 14 October 2026, 22:56, transmission OK: “received nothing, seen nothing”. No information on the delay.

1Open prison only in exchange for “offence work”

Ms Metz stated that I have no drug problem, no violations and very good feedback from work. For outings, relaxations and open prison, all I still had to do was work through, with the social worker, the offences for which I was convicted. Asked whether there were no other obstacles: “Yes, only offence work.” When I objected that this was coercion to confess, she replied that she did not demand a confession but insisted on offence work. She confirmed my closing summary – open prison only with offence work, and thus with an admission of guilt.

§§ 16, 42 StVollzG Bln · Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG · BVerfG, 11.01.2016 – 2 BvR 2961/12

Significance: “That the convicted person denies the offence cannot by itself support a negative social prognosis” (BVerfG). Even the Prosecutor General’s Office wrote in my case that an admission of guilt is “not an indispensable requirement” (Anlage 148_F2). Here it is the only one.

Counter-hypothesisWorking through the offence is a recognised treatment goal in prison, and the Constitutional Court accepts that a lack of it can make the prognosis harder. Ms Metz may have meant engaging with the circumstances of the offence, which is possible without a confession; she expressly said she did not demand one.

What is missingAn explanation of how one is to work through offences “for which one was convicted” without accepting them as one’s own – and a written reasoning that can be challenged.

2A delivered fax “not received”

My application of 15 October 2026 on the missed plan update reached the prison by fax on 14 October 2026 at 22:56, 5 pages, transmission OK (transmission report). Asked who was responsible for the delay, Ms Metz said she knew nothing, had received nothing and seen nothing. She gave no answer, written or oral.

§ 9(3) StVollzG Bln · § 113 StVollzG · Art. 19(4) GG

Significance: if a verifiably delivered letter does not reach the responsible management, that is an organisational failure; if it did reach it, information has been refused. F2-218

Counter-hypothesisMs Metz is new in office. The fax was addressed to her predecessor Mr Lohmeier and may have been lost in the handover.

What is missingThe prison’s receipt note and information on whom the fax was forwarded to.

3A conference without discussion

I was not asked a single question. From the start, results were announced. Ms Dahms and Ms Mahlow said not a word. When I asked whether anyone had questions for me, those present shook their heads. The conference lasted ten minutes at most. Twice Ms Metz said that I was highly praised at work.

§ 9(4) and (5) StVollzG Bln

Significance: the law does not require every participant to speak; it requires the plan to be discussed with the prisoner. Here the outcome was fixed before I entered the room.

Counter-hypothesisThe professional coordination may have taken place internally beforehand; discussion may follow in talks with the social worker.

What is missingThe minutes of the conference and the written, updated plan – I have neither to this day.

Sources: Anlage 248_F2 (affidavit of 23 October 2026), 236_F2, 237_F2, 249_F2, 250_F2, 148_F2 · Chronicle F2-225, F2-226, F2-227 · topic page Coerced confession. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.