Pressure to confess as a condition for freedom
This subject area is not an access problem in the narrow sense but a distinct central issue: my lack of “working through the offence”, meaning my insistence on my innocence, is repeatedly held against my freedom even though the Prosecutor General’s Office itself writes that a confession is not a mandatory requirement.
In its statement of 26.05.2026, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) writes verbatim: a “(comprehensive) admission of guilt” is “not an indispensable requirement” for working through the offence, and denying the offence “cannot in itself support a negative social prognosis”.
Nevertheless, the same document criticises me as being “driven by strong feelings of anger, a pronounced experience of grievance and a clearly expressed urge for retribution”, and it is precisely my failure to acknowledge the offence that is used substantively against my release.
I opposed the Prosecutor General’s Office’s application to dismiss my immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) as unfounded and made clear that lawful complaints, hunger strikes against blocked legal protection, publication of official documents, political activity and insistence on my innocence must not be used as indicators of dangerousness without a specific factual basis.
The pressure to confess is not isolated. While I am in prison, immigration proceedings concerning my intended expulsion are running in parallel. The scientific and practical expert report by the International Association “Institut für nationale Politik” (Kyiv, as of 02.07.2026) assesses the individual danger to me if transferred under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, referring to my public visibility as an activist critical of the regime and my connection with UnKremlin e.V.
The connection as I see it is this: someone who does not “work through” the offence (that is, confess) stays in prison longer, and the longer the proceedings continue, the longer the risk of a measure terminating residence remains unresolved, with the dangers described in the report if transferred to Russia. This connection is my own assessment of the concurrent proceedings; it is not expressly stated in these words in any official document.
The sentence denying my “working through the offence” and used against me does not have a single origin. The same or almost the same wording — “strong feelings of anger”, “a pronounced experience of grievance”, “a clearly expressed urge for retribution”, or the attribution of an ongoing “fight against the German justice system” — passes through six successive stages:
94_F2 (my application of 16.01.2026 because the legally required sentence plan had been missing for eight months) → 137_F2 (diagnostic procedure of 17.04.2026, where the attribution first appears) → 115_F2 (sentence and reintegration plan, adopting the wording) → 138_F2 (statement of JVA Heidering, 07.05.2026) → 148_F2 (statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office, 26.05.2026, almost verbatim) → 139_F2 (order of the Strafvollstreckungskammer, the sentence enforcement chamber, 24.06.2026, refusing suspension of the remainder of the sentence) → 194_F2 (the Kammergericht, Berlin Higher Regional Court, dismisses the immediate complaint).
What I claim: The verbatim or near-verbatim adoption of the same wording across five documents formally originating from three different bodies (JVA Moabit, JVA Heidering and the Prosecutor General’s Office), before the Landgericht and Kammergericht decide on that basis, is documented. This is reuse of a single basis for assessment, rather than a recognisably independent examination at every stage.
What I do not claim: I do not claim that the formulations are falsified or that coordination between the bodies has been proved. I do not know their internal procedures and cannot rule out an independent examination at individual stages, even if it is not visible in the wording.
Opposing position: The Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), in its order of 31.07.2026, did not address the adoption of the wording. On the separate issue of the missing signature on 115_F2, it stated that validity did not require “the staff involved to be named”, as they were “sufficiently identifiable through the descriptions of their functions”. This does not answer the question of the adopted wording, but is expressly included here to avoid presenting the chain one-sidedly.
What is missing: Insight into the internal working processes of the bodies involved that would establish or refute whether and how an independent examination actually took place at each stage.
Why this is my central theme
I could probably shorten this situation by confessing. I refuse, not out of stubbornness but because I consider the judgment of 22.07.2024 wrong and a confession would make that error definitive. This page documents the means by which precisely this point is used against me.