The Silence of the LLAMS

Human Rights Violations in Germany

Introduction

Human rights abuses in Germany are perpetrated at low level. "Low Level" in this context does not mean diminished ferocity but rather reduced visibility. For that reason the violations go largely unnoticed by watch organizations. The nature of the abuses is also somewhat different to older notions of the "pulled-out fingernails". This paper shows some such violations in live cases and finishes by considering the implications of the virtual abolition on 14.10.2004 of the European Convention for Human Rights and Basic Freedoms in Germany, which up to now has in any case been 'more honored in the breech than in the observance'.

The following links are provided for convenience:

The LLAMS-Model

The LLAMS-Model: A Packet of Abuses

There is ample evidence of systematic human rights abuses having been perpetrated in West Germany ( now the re-unified Federal Republic ) during the post-war occupation and thereafter. This went largely unnoticed even by the western powers, mainly because the abuses were surreptitious and well camouflaged, kept at low level, "under the radar" of the watch organizations.

The LLAMS ( Low Level Abuse Model ) Model has three major organisational components, Administration, Justice and Industry. The perpetrated abuses take place mostly at municipal level, where they are best organised and easiest to conceal. Certainly nobody would seriously go looking for pulled-out finger nails and cigarette burns in Germany in 2005. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals multiple structure systems capable of extreme viciousness against selected victims and their families. Because all three organisations are controlled by the extraneous structures of local government ( the municipalities in Germany are thoroughly corrupt with the asynchronous form of corruption known as "Vetternwirtschaft" or "Brotherhood Economies") , a frontal attack on individuals and their families can be conducted using all three elements to make up a packet of abuses, which is known as the "Total Sociological Attack (TSA)" and is mostly characterized by an almost unbelievable viciousness.

The way in which the LLAMS works in the Justice System was described by "Attorney X" in a letter to the author on 11.01.2001. What "Attorney X" said about freedom of speech in Germany is very revealing:

The LLAMS is only known for sure in Germany. However, glimpses of similar manifestations in France and the United Kingdom, but reduced in scale, have been noted. A detailed description of the Model is at present in restricted circulation. At the time of writing it is not known when the Model can be generally released.

1. Live Cases of Human Rights Abuses

Dissident Helmut Palmer

Helmut Palmer died on 24.12.2004 of cancer. He was a well-known dissident of mixed Aryan and Jewish parentage propagating anti-authoritarian politics. Palmer was very direct, always calling a spade a spade and not for instance a "top-soil relocation device". In one case he opined that a local politician was "about as suitable for a political career as a hedgehog is for wiping one's behind". It is hard to imagine, however, any adult person being seriously bothered by Palmer's brand of "poetry". On the contrary, Palmer was a very gifted orator, who was able to enchant his audiences with the skillful use of his local dialect.

The statistics in Fig A1 showing Palmers convictions for 'insult' demonstrate just how much maturity exists in public life in Germany today and just to what measure the shadow of dictatorship still hangs over that country.

Fig A1. Helmut Palmer's Convictions for 'Insult' since 1968. The three terms of imprisonment have been converted to fictional day-units for the sake of comparison.

Palmer thought that the violations of his human rights were indicative of still present Nazism in the system. At the time of his first conviction and prison sentence, according to the Free University of Berlin, about 70% of the judges of West Germany's higher courts had been the perpetrators in Hitler's judicial murder system ( 5,500 arbitrary executions by the notorious Volksgerichtshof and over 22,000 military executions during WWII compared to 146 military executions in the combined French, British and American Forces. No former Nazi judiciary was ever prosecuted for these crimes in post-war Germany ). By 1985 these creatures would have disappeared from the scene. The profile of Palmer's persecution, however, shows no sign of a let-up in the abuses after 1985. The trend shows rather a small jump in ferocity after 1988. If Palmer had been right, then the Nazi ethos would seem to have an extraordinarily high persistence or an infinite "Radiation Half Life". On the other hand, it could be a blind alley leading to erroneous conclusions. A resolution of this question will, therefore, have to be left to properly qualified specialists.

Nazi justice or not, the convictions are a damning indictment of post-war German Justice as well as the infantile and simplistic mentality still widespread in German public life. The memorandum of the Organanization for Security and Cooperation in Europe volume 35 No 12 of May 24, 2002 contains the following statement:

The scorn of the OSCE members for Germany with its backward 'insult' laws seems to have escaped the notice of the leadership here. The same hardness of hearing was demonstrated by Palmer's conviction in 1989 for 'insult' under Germany's infamous former Paragraph 185a, which prescribed additional penalties for the 'insult' of a person in political life and was a substantial contempt of the European Court of Human Rights, which forbade such discrimination in its judgement in the case Lingens v. The Republic of Austria in 1986. Since then this Paragraph has been replaced by Paragraph 188 which prescribes additional penalties for the libel or slander of 'politicians'. A comparison here with the ridiculous but nevertheless vicious "Arian" Paragraphs which came from the Nuremberg rallies in the 1930s and the equally preposterous notion of the existence of a "Master Race" is not inappropriate.

The profile of the convictions show no sign of the principle of escalation, i.e. stiffer penalties for repetition of offences. They wander up and down inside the envelope where they would not be conspicuous. This is just another mark of the complete lack of credibility of the German criminal justice system.

The Model "Alice in Heidelberg"

The generic abuse model "Alice in Heidelberg" is directly derived the real case described here (11 Cs 12 Js 22734/ 02-AK 677/03 ) in which the Justice authorities of Heidelberg, represented by District Attorney Peter Wechsung, local judge Olbrich and Justice Mühlhoff of the District Court, participated. The name was inspired by the fictional court in "Alice in Wonderland" in which the principle "First the sentence then the verdict !" ( the Queen of Hearts ) came into use.

The model "Alice" itself is a generic cocktail of certain types of human rights abuses in the criminal justice system and is widely employed by the justice authorities throughout the Federal Republic. It can be best understood using the diagram in the file below:

Download the model "Alice in Heidelberg" as pdf-file

An essential part of the model is the use of the Summary Penalty Order (SPO, "Strafbefehl") which is a method of pushing human rights abuses through in secret. There is no public hearing. Although the accused has the right to refuse the SPO, it is a court verdict signed by a judge. The SPO can result in a registered conviction and would therefore not be comparable to a parking ticket. Should the accused be on vacation for two weeks then on return he or she could have a previous conviction.

Steps 1-3,4-8 and 11 of the Model were used against Mrs. Egbers resulting in a conviction and a fine of 1,800 EUR

As in very many cases, the story begins with criticism, in this case of an attorney with good connections to the justice authorities. The Attorney, a Dr. Peter Hausen from Ebersbach, received a satirical certificate ( "Contra Legem" ) from the Association of Victims of Justice in Koblenz (JOB). The certificate says that "were the abuse of the legal process to be made an Olympic event, then Hausen would be in line for a gold medal". A covering letter accused Hausen of representing both sides in a divorce case.

Hausen suspected a certain Mrs Annerose Egbers of JOB had been the sender of the certificate and went to the District Attorney's office in Heidelberg on 12.11.2002 with a formal legal complaint of 'insult' against Egbers. As evidence he offered plenty of indignation but was very careful to avoid saying that he did not represent both sides in a divorce case. For this there may be good reason: According to Egbers a judge in the said divorce case had rebuked Hausen for the same irregularity. The District Attorney Peter Wechsung, apparently decided that Hausen's indignation would be admissible evidence without asking him the difficult question. His calculation turned out to be right because Local judge Olbrich was also prepared to convict on the basis of indignation - but no evidence.

True to the "Alice" model local Judge Olbrich approved the illegal SPO on 24.11.2003 and imposed a fine of 90 days pay, which carries also the stigma of a centrally recorded conviction in Germany. Mrs. Egbers formally objected to the SPO which caused Olbrich to plan a hearing for 18.02.2004. Olbrich decided also to make use of the psychiatric procurement agency at his disposal and got Judge Mrs. Biedert to task her husband with psychiatric examination of Mrs. Egbers. As it happened Mrs. Egbers was ill on the day and could not attend the hearing. Although the accused produced a medical certificate Olbrich decided that it was not in order ( without ringing Mrs. Egber's general practitioner, of course ). In the absence of the accused, Olbrich seized the golden opportunity to legalize all the perversions and declared the SPO to be final.

The Olbrich, Biedert and Biedert Psychiatric Service did not of course get to the lucrative core of the business on 18.02.2004. However, as a consolation prize, Wechsung stuck 148,00 EUR onto the court costs to help stock up the poor professor's pocket money. Perhaps Judge Mrs. Biedert will at least get a percentage of the somewhat diminished profit.

Mrs. Egbers complained to the district court ( Judge Mühlhoff ) among other things about the violations of the European Convention for Human Rights and received the usual pseudo-judicial verisimilitude in reply. Mühlhoff studiously avoided referring to the complaint about the violations of European Law in his judgement. The author, needing to clarify this point, rang Mühlhoff on 04.08.2004. The conversation is recorded in the attached memorandum which also went to Mühlhoff. Page three contains the English version. Mühlhoff managed to express succinctly what he and his colleagues throughout the Federal Republic think of European Law.

Telelcon Briody/ Mühlhoff 04.08.2004

Dr. Brosa and the 'Modersohn Alternatives'

The house in the picture shows symbols of old and new Nazism. From left to right: The 'Wolfsangel' ( the symbol of the 2. SS-Tank-Division, which perpetrated the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane in 1944 - with particular savagery ) and frequently used by neo Nazis today, '95' ( unknown, but maybe the year of the Oklahoma bombing), '88' ( code for 'Heil Hitler' ), the Symbol 'W' ( used both by neo Nazi movements and the 'White Church of the Creation' - now Creativity Movement - in the USA, a vicious white supremacy movement whose modus operandi includes murder ) and '98'(unknown). The Symbols are all painted in the colors of the Third Reich. As far as can be determined the State of Hessen, which includes Kirchhain is the biggest hot-bed of Nazism in the Federal Republic of Germany, and is also home to Martin Hohmann the Member of Parliament who delivered the Infamous "Perpetrator Race" speech. Hohmann was expelled from the CDU only because of exposure of the offences in the USA, otherwise he would still be gracing the Christian Democrats with his presence. It should, therefore, surprise no-one, that in this environment the Symbols on the house had been on public display for over five years before being brought to public attention by a Dr. Ulrich Brosa from Amöneburg ( Hessen ) and Irmela Mensah-Schramm from Berlin. Brosa and the Ant-Racial Telephone Service Marburg submitted criminal complaints in the spring of 2003.

The subsequent investigation by the Police Authorities in Hessen was evaluated by the Author using the investigation standards of the Royal Air Force. The evaluation report ( German ) can be downloaded under:

By way of comparison, an investigation report of the business crime department in Tübingen was evaluated using the same standards. In Summary the results of the main items were:

Whilst there is as yet no standardized marking system, the Hessen Police would get about 3% of the marks and the Tübingen Police ( Chief Inspector Turski ) about 95% ( with the reservation under point 10, this was excellent work by Turski ). The witness-interrogation by the Berlin Police ( Chief Inspector Ms. Lewert ) was in contrast to the poor quality produced by the Hessen Police very convincing. In standard German performance ranking (1- 6) , Chief Inspectors Turski and Ms Lewert would receive a '1' and the Marburg Police a '6'. ( A '6' is as bad as it can get .)

The reason for including the work of the Tübingen Police here demonstrates that the author is not an unreasonable perfectionist and that the standards of Royal Air Force Investigations, which he applied for the evaluation here, are also practiced in Germany by some authorities.

There is a built-in dilemma in the evaluation of the work of German Justice Authorities, which was expressed in the world-wide acclaimed novel by Hans Helmut Kirst "Officer Factory". After listening to the verbal report of "Oberkriegsgerichtsrat" ( military judge third level ) Wirrmann on the investigation into a murder, General Modersohn remarked,

Whilst "Officer Factory" is a novel, it is based on Kirst's own experiences as a professional soldier ( and one-time instructor in an officer school ) of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Kirst was an acutely accurate observer who was able to dig deep into the psyche of the characters he was portraying. For that reason his novels contain very many useful models of behavior. The investigation by Wirrmann shows the typical characteristics of many of the so-called investigations by very many DA's offices in Germany today. Logically, the 'Modersohn Alternatives' always lead to the same result. Modersohn in the novel thus made no attempt to determine which of the two possibilities had been true, because he was only interested in the outcome.

From the international point of view it is also not necessary to resolve the question because the responsible heads, Hessen Justice Minster Wagner, Hessen Minister of the Interior Bouffier and Hessen Attorney-General Anders were all fully informed. It had been their responsibility to resolve the matter but in the end the guilty party is the Federal Republic of Germany which allowed these repugnant Nazi Symbols to be displayed for over 5 years on a house in Hessen. Whether this was through criminal behavior of the Hessen authorities or just sheer incompetence is of no interest to the international community - only the result matters.

For many types of NGO in Germany a resolution of the Modersohn Alternatives is important. For example one of the three who submitted criminal complaints about the Nazi Symbols on Display in Kirchhain, Dr. Ulrich Brosa, an anti-Nazi, certainly has an interest in knowing whether or not the Marburg Police had deliberately and criminally covered up the 'Wolfsangel'-affair ( as evaluated by the author above ). Brosa obtained a copy of the investigation file early in 2004 and submitted a complaint against the three police Lieutenants. Details of the actions of the three policemen ( anonymized for future instructional purposes ) are included in the Evaluation.

According to the DA's office in Marburg, a complaint from Brosa dated 04.02.2004 went to Minister of the Interior Bouffier. The DA's office - represented by the same individual who had misdirected the investigation in the first place - drafted a charge against Brosa alleging "false accusation" on 07.06.2004. This was eagerly declared admissible by the director of the local court in Kirchain, Laudi. A 'trial' of Brosa took place on 04.11.2004.

Before looking at the 'trial' of Dr. Brosa in Kirchhain, it is of interest to look at the doings of Attorney-General Anders' people in Marburg and Frankfurt. The individual in Marburg terminated his 'investigation' with the extraordinary comment, that the house owner had committed no offences because "as a bank employee he could not have afforded to do so". ( The man in Marburg is an older member of the DA's office, who has been passed over - which should surprise no-one ). A complaint from Brosa about the termination of the investigation drew further amounts of pseudo-judicial verisimilitude from a member of Anders' staff in Frankfurt. This fellow thought that it would be possible to establish criminal intent from his office in Frankfurt and came to the conclusion that the owner of the house could not possibly have intended to commit a crime. One of his other key statements was that the 'Wolfsangel' on the house could only be recognized as such "with a big stretch of the imagination". The comparison below ( taken from the author's evaluation report ) shows just how difficult this would be:

From left to right:4.1.1 'Wolfsangel' on the house, 4.1.2 as SS-emblem, 4.1.3 as SS-vehicle marking WWII,4.1.4 in police catalog Hessen, 4.1.5 in police catalog Sachsen-Anhalt.

The relevant questions are:

The assertion of the two patrol car officers that they had been unable to find such a conspicuous house in their own precinct would tend to support the incompetence theory. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the two officers are both senior policemen with lieutenant ( inspector ) rank, which would make their version of events for every adult person a "cock-and bull" story. Furthermore, the investigating officer also has lieutenant rank and specialist training in state security so that one would expect that he would know how to work systematically and interrogate the right witnesses. So many novice mistakes, as recorded above, on his part would seem highly improbable. The appallingly weak leadership by the DA's office in Marburg could not seriously have hampered an experienced policeman. On balance Dr. Brosa had been perfectly entitled to interpret what he saw as a blatant cover-up.

The trial opened just after 09:00 on 04.11.2004. The relatively early start would normally have guaranteed a reduced public presence, especially for those who could have been expected to travel long distances. This well-known tactic failed and there were 8 members of the public present including a journalist and the author.

Anyone expecting eloquent debate from the middle of the bench or from the prosecutors portion of it, was headed for a disappointment on that day. Only coarse tones came from that direction including those of Judge Laudi whose voice sometimes descended into a kind of rasping noise reminiscent of the "Pop-Eye" films of the 1930s.

At about 09:02 the accused took the stand and was interrogated by Laudi in the nastiest possible way about his earnings. The StPO of course gives no guidance as to when such sensitive information should be presented. After a verdict of guilty and if a fine is to be imposed is the right time in most civilized countries. However German judiciaries always know better and of course there is the so-called "Vorfahrtsmentalität" the "right of way" mentality. What is not expressly forbidden, I can do: even if it exposes my own eminent lack of instinct.

The DA's Office Marburg under the leadership of minor District Attorney Ms Opitz then read out the full hypocrisy in the charge sheet ( the charge: False accusation ) Of course Opitz did not attempt to resolve the conflict with Article 17 of the German constitution giving every German Citizen the right of complaint nor did she check the relevant commentaries "Leipziger Kommentar, 10. Auflage zu $ 193 StGB Rdn. 22" and "Rudolphi, Horn, Samson, Bd. 2 zu § 193 StGB Rdn. 15 ff". In view of the performances of her department documented above, she and her assistents might not know to research and make use of these works.

The Complainant is not obliged to deliver evidence, sworn statements from witnesses or forensic samples. Leaving aside the question of competence for the moment, that is the task of the authorities, who have the means and the authority to procure such evidence. On the balance of probabilities and with regard to the compelling weight of the evidence Brosa had been right anyway. It all boils down to the low level abuse of human rights: The victim can take the human rights violation to the constitutional court, if he has five years to spare. After all 25,000 judicial murders of German Citizens in WWII went unpunished in the post-war years, so why should the likes of Opitz be punished for just a little bending ? That would not be fair.

The muddled process went over into the presentation of evidence. Both Laudi and Opitz's man forgot to check whether or not Brosa had sent the complaint. whether or not Brosa had signed the letter allegedly on the 'investigation' file or not. This of course means that Laudi and Opitz had conducted a process without introducing the main piece of evidence. Even most other courts in Germany get at least that one right. Outside of Germany this would of course mean that the charade on 04.11.2004 was about nothing and had, therefore, not been worth 20 cents. That is a monument particularly to Laudi's amateurishness.

After the accused, it was the turn of the two senior policeman in the patrol car to take the witness stand. Laudi of course thought it to be perfectly feasible that the two 'professionals' had not been able to find the house. Since the house is only 10 minutes walk from Laudis office, anything else would have been embarrassing. If Laudi had not seen the house with its symbols over five years how could you expect two police lieutenants to find it in one afternoon ? There was a witness who was saying other things of course. Dressed in a snow-white overall Mrs Irmela Mensah-Schramm had seen the two policemen drive past the house three times, ignoring her signals to stop. The picture on the left shows her wearing the same overall in front of the court building. Laudi refused to call this witness. After all witnesses and evidence only serve to confuse the issue in Laudi's courtroom.

Just as the court was dispersing for the first break at 10:48, a theatre troop unfurled a backdrop for a mock-TV-program. Laudi immediately jumped in and started shoving and tugging the participants, presumably trying to pull away the backdrop. He was later joined by the court-orderly and subsequently by the inspector who had conducted the 'Wolfsangel'-Investigation. The scrum with Laudi in the middle broke up as it became clear that a member of the public was photographing the incident and in a kind of "up-and-under" rush pounced on the photographer, wresting his camera from him. Shortly afterwards Ms Mensah-Schramm stood up to display her white overall to the public and was attacked by the court orderly, who attempted without success to tear away the overall. The three incidents took place within the space of about 2 Minutes.

The fact that Laudi as the presiding judge did not try to leave the scene of the incidents or at least seek refuge behind the bench, but instead took part in the scuffles is another mark of the quality of the court hearing on that day. Every law student knows why a judge should try to avoid physical contact during an altercation in the courtroom. The most obvious being that a judge lying KO would not be able to proceed with the court hearing. Secondly the judge dressed conspicuously is the one figure most likely to get 'socked', should socking be part of the act. Thirdly, the dignity and credibility of a court hearing would suffer greatly under a judge involved in a courtroom scuffle. As it happened, Laudi's courtroom had already lost its credibility and dignity though its other qualities. Since the three Marburg policeman were present at the time, Laudi's 'pitching in' may have been a mark of his confidence in the Marburg police to be able to deal with a scuffle alone. Whatever the ins and outs, Laudi had exposed himself once again as an eminently incompetent judiciary.

Certainly, it is correct for a judge to discard evidence if he sees no place for it. It would have been possible to dismiss the two police lieutenants in the patrol car as a stereo pair of jokers who could not under any circumstances be taken seriously. In that case, the correct procedure would have been to announce that he was not going to use this evidence and to inform the prosecutor and defender that he was not going to call Mrs Mensah-Schramm to testify. A judiciary with nefarious motives on the other hand would not want to put such cards on the table.

Indeed in Laudi's written judgement he made a big deal of the incident with the patrol car. In that case his refusal to hear a material witness to the incident had been a serious transgression.

The 'trial' ended with a conviction of the anti-Nazi for false accusation (73 day units which leads to a registered conviction ). Anyone thinking that such a result could only be justified with copious amounts of insincerity and verisimilitude is right. A glance at the performance figures for the Marburg police would be enough to recognize it for what it is. For that reason, the author has spared himself the task of translating Laudi's junk. The full text in German is included, however, for downloading as a zip-file.

The Law Professor and the Medical Tribunal

The South Württemberg Medical Council ( Bezirksärztekammer ) is situated in the town of Reutlingen. Among its tasks this Council holds disciplinary tribunals for charges against medical doctors in its area of responsibility. The legal procedures are supervised by a professor of law, so that one should expect a specially high quality of due process.

A disciplinary process against a medical professor at one of the South Württemberg clinics in the summer of 2000 produced an astonishing case history which, without the evidence, would probably be written off as pure fantasy.

A medical professor, head of the pathology department at a large clinic came to the author in the Summer of 2003 with the documentation of charges against him which had been before the medical council. The accused is known in this under the pseudonym, "Prof. Miller". The documentation received by Prof. Miller consisted of twelve A4 pages of closely written text. This was accompanied by a covering letter bearing the date 07.08.2000, from Professor of Law Dr. Kamps, the legal advisor and managing director of the council. The documentation, suitably anomymized is reproduced under:

Documentation ( Prof Kamps) of 07.08.2000 (html - German)

Download as pdf-File (2.2 MByte )

This paper covers the violations of Prof. Miller's human rights which are laid down in the European Convention for human rights. The Convention is largely a collection of safeguards expressed as procedural articles. For that reason a blow by blow translation of Prof. Kamps' paper was not considered necessary. Instead the defects in it are analyzed in the table below.

The letter announced that the disciplinary council had decided to withdraw the accused's authority to train other medical doctors as a disciplinary measure. Such a measure represents a particularly damaging attack on the reputation of the pathologist, tantamount to professional ruination. The covering letter does not indicate what kind of procedure was used for such drastic decision, stating only that they had considered three letters from colleagues or pupils of the accused.

Most German judiciaries do not seem to know the difference between narrative, rationale and deduction - probably that is the reason why they lump everything together under what they laughingly call "Begründung" or "Gründe" in court verdicts. The muddle produced by Prof Kamps and his people, however takes this general 'PISA' effect in the written work of the German Justice System several steps further.

The reputation of a medical doctor is one of his or her most precious and vital assets, which should only be called into question if there is compelling evidence in prima facie against him or her. In that case the accused has untouchable rights to a meticulous investigation, followed by a fair hearing. The medical tribunal here lead by Prof. Kamps made no effort to fulfil these requirements. Instead it produced an appalling piece of work which in its amateurishness could not be excelled.

Kamps' trial and punishment of Professor Miller without charges was a gross violation of Art 6-3-a of the European Convention for Human Rights which accords every accused person the right to be informed in detail of the charges against him or her. The conduct of a hearing without revealing its constitution was a gross violation of Art 6-1 of the Convention, because the accused has no way of testing the impartiality of the board members.

The Law Professor, Cardinal Santori and The Document Shredder

The procedures adopted by Professor Dr. Kamps against Prof. Miller are not unknown in European History: The Grand Inquisitor Cardinal Santori ( 1532 - 1602 ) would arraign the accused person and open the proceedings with the question "Knowest Thou, why Thou art here ?". This very effective opening gambit, similar to some of the techniques used by the KGB during the Cold War, brought results for Santori, because the accused would somehow end up accusing himself - Santori knew how to engineer that. Whilst by contrast no one would want to accuse Prof Kamps of being systematic, Santori was not only the Vatican's most successful inquisitor, he was also a meticulous and industrious bureaucrat. His perfectly kept records can be seen today in the archives of the Vatican.

Professor Kamps, on the other hand, operates a very different archiving concept: Dr. Rudolf Seuffer, a clinical pathologist and civil rights activist, together with his attorney found that out with a vengeance. As Seuffer wanted to gain access to a process file containing a discredited complaint against himself by a colleague, he inquired about the procedure for doing so on 06.02.2000. According to the advice received, Seuffer tasked his attorney to formally apply for access to the file on 19.04.2000. The medical council replied on 02.10.200 stating that the file has been destroyed between the first inquiry and the formal application. An investigation by the Data Protection Authority of the state of Baden-Württemvberg found in its report of the 14.12.2000 that the council had acted incorrectly in destroying the file after the first inquiry. Seuffer submitted criminal charges against Kamps and his medical court attorn ( Kammeranwalt ) on 17.12.2000. The DA's office in Tübingen could, however, not proceed against Kamps because the new more stringent data protection laws had come into force about a month after the offences had been committed.

Human Rights Abuses on Display in Courtroom Soaps

The "Strafprozessordnung" ( StPO) which is supposed to be the equivalent of rules of procedure ( RPs ) is a product of the thoroughness of German Judiciaries over decades and as such is completely unusable for the purpose of standardizing any form of orderly court hearing. Court hearings in Germany run on the principle "Durchwurschteln", literally "sausaging through" and that just about sums up the procedures on display in the television courtroom series "Richterin Barabra Salesch" and "Richter Alexander Hold" ( SAT 1 Afternoon Programs: A parabolic dish may be needed for reception ( Astra Footprint). ).

The programs reflect perfectly the kind of bedlam which rules in German courtrooms: Right from the word go the accused takes the stand and gets interrogated about his or her earnings and other sensitive social data, very often in the nastiest possible way. The StPO of course gives no guidance as to when such sensitive information should be presented. After a verdict of guilty and if a fine is to be imposed is the right time in most civilized countries. This procedure also not only offends against the European Convention for Human Rights, by treating the accused differently to other witnesses, it also offends against Germany's data protection laws: If a verdict of not guilty is reached, then social data will have unnecessarily been made public, for which the offending judge can himself be prosecuted. However German judiciaries always know better and of course there is the so-called "Vorfahrtsmentalität" the "right of way" mentality. What is not expressly forbidden in the StPO I can do - even if it exposes my own eminent lack of instinct.

Witnesses do not get properly briefed on their obligations not to discuss the case with others before being heard. Very often a witness, already heard is told to remain on call - and sit in the courtroom. Strange variations of musical chairs infrequently get played out with witnesses being circulated between stand and public gallery.

Courtroom discipline is severely lacking. Witnesses are allowed to bellow at one another which would offend against the Convention Article 6 ( a hearing at all ), if the accused happens to have a speech defect or a sore throat. ( In civil law you need a good loud voice in Germany, otherwise your claims are likely to get lost in the acoustics. )

The principles of the chain of custody and introduction of evidence are unknown entities in Germany. Inadequately certified items are the rule and not the exception. Sometimes Barbara Salesch seems to be pulling items from under the bench or even out of her handbag. The necessary formalities of donor and recipient are foreign languages here. There are also no such things as "laws of discovery". Ambush prosecution and ambush defence are a way of life.

The program does not of course show the representative quality of the court documentation or the condition of the process files. That needs to be seen to be believed in real life. You can get some idea from the section "Dr. Brosa and the 'Modersohn Alternatives' in Marburg " above. These shocking reports together with the TV program sections are all indications as to what extent German Judiciaries set themselves appallingly low standards - which they consistently fail to achieve.

Human Rights: Germany "outs" itself in Karlsruhe

The Decision of the Supreme Court of the Constitution 14.10.2004

The Supreme Court of the Constitution decided on 14.10.2004 that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights EUCHR were not binding on German Courts. A translation in English was posted on the Web-site of the Court under:

http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104.html


The meaningful Passage in the Judgement

The passage under check mark 17 - which was accurately translated - is interesting:

The Court is saying effectively that European Law is subordinate to German Law ( in Germany presumably ) and that German courts can please themselves as to whether they adhere to the decisions of the EUCHR or not.


What the Convention on Human Rights says

The European Convention on Human rights was signed by Germany on 4.11.1950. Article 46 makes abundantly clear that the decisions of the EUHCR are binding.

The decision by the Supreme Court of the Constitution of 14.110.2004 was according to Article 46, therefore, a gross violation of the convention.

What the Treaty of Maastricht says

Through violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the Federal Republic of Germany has, therefore, also violated the Treaty of Maastricht.

Concluding Remarks

Sanctions

The decision by the Supreme Court of the Constitution was effectively a tangible "Outing" of Germany's long standing but well-camouflaged contempt for and violations of human rights. This enables German NGOs to make the point without long arguments.

Germany's violation of the European Convention for Human Rights and Basic Freedoms as well as the treaty of Maastricht make it unsuitable for continued full membership of the EU. In particular Germany should not be allowed to represent the EU in foreign policy or especially in international committees where human rights are at issue. Possibly the model proposed by the parliamentary opposition ( CDU/CSU ) for Turkey, i.e. privileged partnership instead of full membership may be of interest. Whatever really is suitable in the end, at least swingeing sanctions against Germany for its live abuses of human rights is long overdue.

The EU-Commission has been asked to report Germany to the OSCE with a view to expelling it from the Council of Europe, because membership in this body is tied to the observance of the European Convention for Human Rights and the decisions of the EUCHR.

01.11.2004
Peter Briody

"institut voigt"