Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Constitutional complaint, September 2026
Against the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) order of 18.08.2026 (2 Ws 111/26) and the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) order of 24.06.2026 (589f StVK 86/26). Four fundamental-rights challenges. Each relies on a sentence from the challenged decisions themselves — not on my account.
The case in five sentences
1. I am serving five years and four months; two thirds had been served on 05.07.2026. I am the founder and chair of Unkremlin e. V. and have lived in Germany since 1992.
2. The sentence implementation and reintegration plan on which everything that followed rests did not exist for over eight months after finality. It was produced only after I formally requested it.
3. The diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026 contains the proceedings’ only measurable value — LSI-R 20, a below-average risk of reoffending. The number is never mentioned again in any decision. Instead, wording about ‘feelings of anger, experiences of hurt, an urge for retribution’ passes verbatim through five official documents.
4. The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) considers an expert report unnecessary because release was ‘ruled out from the outset’ — ruled out because of precisely that attributed characteristic, for which no evidence is identified.
5. The domestic legal remedies have therefore been exhausted.
What the decisions themselves say
1. Art. 103 para. 1 GG — a document both courts had and I did not
The order of 24.06.2026 records that I was heard and refers ‘to the record of the hearing drawn up’. The Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) rejects my complaint of a violation of the right to be heard ‘as evidenced by the record of the hearing on 24 June 2026’.
This record has never been made available to me. I could not comment on the document used to refute my challenge. Furthermore, the order’s decisive wording appeared on a page missing from the version sent to me before the hearing. I received the complete version on 14.07.2026 — twenty days after the decision.
2. Art. 19 para. 4 GG — the assumption becomes the reason not to examine it
An expert report was said to be unnecessary because suspension of the sentence was ‘entirely remote’. Why it was remote follows from an assessment for which no document identifies any evidence. The only standardised measurement points in the opposite direction and no longer appears.
The counter-evidence that exists: On 19.08.2026, JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) examined a camera recording and found that in a physical altercation I was not the aggressor. The suspension was lifted and lost earnings reimbursed. The only empirical examination of the attributed impulsiveness went against that attribution — and took a few days.
3. Art. 5 para. 1 GG — the sentence at issue
The order of 24.06.2026 lists as prison conduct that was not free of criticism: hunger strikes against mail monitoring and against the failure to take me to a court registry officer; publication of the documents reaching me; the announced intention to publish names and photographs of justice-system staff. It also records that I was asked whether I intended to continue my political activities and answered that I would do so in any event.
The exercise of freedom of expression and rights to legal protection therefore supports the denial of liberty in itself.
4. Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 para. 3 GG — freedom in exchange for self-incrimination
The order considers it essential that I engage with the offence before release and treats my denial as an obstacle. In the same file, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) concedes that an admission of guilt is not an indispensable condition and that denial alone cannot support a negative prognosis. Nevertheless, precisely that denial is used.
What I expressly do not claim
I do not request a finding of my innocence. My denial of the act is my position — it is not the subject of these proceedings.
I have dropped one challenge. On the lack of a public hearing, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) follows the prevailing view: § 169 para. 1 GVG does not apply to hearings in sentence-enforcement proceedings. I do not pursue this point, and it is not in the complaint.
I examined and rejected another suspicion. The sentence-enforcement chamber’s composition of a single judge initially seemed questionable to me. Under § 78b para. 1 GVG, however, this is the statutory composition for a fixed-term custodial sentence. The point is unsustainable and was therefore not raised.
I make no claim about the role of the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Senate Administration for Justice). I do not know how knowledge of my video address reached the prison. This is an open question, not a claim.
The original documents
All identified documents can be viewed in full. Newsrooms wishing to verify them need no information from me — the documents speak for themselves.
For newsrooms
Written enquiries can reach me via bagrash.presse@gmail.com or at the address of Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering (Heidering correctional facility), Ernst-Stargardt-Allee 1, 14979 Großbeeren, prison registration no. 327/25/7.
Note on contact availability: My video calls were banned from 17.07.2026 until the court set aside the ban decision on 11.09.2026 — expressly imposed in connection with a video address to the German Bundestag (dossier on this matter).
Page status: 02.09.2026. The constitutional complaint has been lodged — transmitted on 02.09.2026 at 17:16 by fax to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), 17 pages, transmission OK (Proof of transmission). On the same day at 17:00, the criminal complaint went to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) (15 pages, OK). The file reference will be added here.