Terrorist trial targets the left, again
01 January 2004
On 16 December 2003, two left-wing activists were sentenced to two and a half and two years imprisonment by the regional high court of Naumburg for four instances of arson, (two of them attempted). A third defendant was acquitted. Two of the accused were arrested in Magdeburg in November 2002 and spent almost one year and 8 months respectively in prison on remand. The police had claimed that the mens' local autonomous network (AZ) was part of was a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Whilst the Magdeburg "terrorist trial" under paragraph 129a of the German criminal code only lasted a few months, the prosecution under the same paragraph of six people in Berlin for membership of the Revolutionary Cells organisation is still going on after more than two years of proceedings (see Statewatch vol 10 no 1). The anti-terrorist legislation allows for far-reaching interception powers, extendable remand imprisonment (in some cases for up to two years) and curtails defence rights. Paragraph 129a further allows for high sentences without the prosecution having to prove participation in criminal acts - being a "member" of an organisation deemed terrorist is sufficient.
On 27 November 2002, two activists from Magdeburg (Daniel W. and Marco H.) were arrested and accused of membership of an alleged terrorist organisation, Kommando Freilassung aller politischen Gefangenen (Free all Political Prisoners Commando). It was claimed that they had carried out arson attacks under different names on vehicles belonging to Daimler-Chrysler and Telecom, the regional crime police office (BKA) and the Federal Border Guard between August 2001 and March 2002. As it requires at least three people to form a terrorist organisation that would enable the public prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings on grounds of 129a StGB (Criminal Code), activists were predicting another arrest. This followed on 16 April 2003 when Carsten S, a prominent figure in the left-wing scene in Magdeburg, was detained. Charges of membership of a terrorist organisation were later dropped and he was acquitted of all charges because of a lack of evidence. Six more people had their homes raided but no charges were brought against them.
As with the majority of 129a proceedings the trial was characterised by a lack of evidence, (see Statewatch Vol 9 no 5). The evidence for the arson attacks consisted of underlined books found in flats, open political statements, handwriting comparisons, bicycle lamps and batteries. The strongest piece of evidence was a fingerprint of one of the accused allegedly found on a box containing a device placed under a BKA van, which did not explode. Other fingerprints could not be identified. In November 2003, after eight days of cross-examination the court admitted that the evidence was meagre and dropped the charges of leadership and membership of a terrorist organisation. The court then accepted the defence lawyers' request to release their clients from remand imprisonment. One month later, however, the judge did see enough evidence to convict Daniel and Marco of arson.
In line with the claim put forward by civil liberties groups and activists that paragraph 129a is used to "spy on" the left-wing movement, police raided a large number of homes, workplaces and cultural centres during the course of the investigation, confiscating computers and personal material. Arrests were carried out with the use of force on the street and the left scene in the Magdeburg area was subjected to surveillance and intimidatory tactics, in particular towards those unwilling to talk to the police.
According to the legal support organisation Rote Hilfe e.V., these measures were applied systematically to criminalise and to impede legal political activities with the aim of undermining the left. It also criticises the use of intimidatory tactics against witnesses who made use of their right to silence under paragraph 55 of the criminal code. Daniel W's lawyer, Martin Poe