Terror and Law - Is the German Legal System able to deal with Terrorism? - The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decision in the case against El Motassadeq -

German Law Journal

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 515-524

  Safferling, Christoph J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964223602     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200012669     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. A second trial was opened against the Maroccan Abdelghani Mzoudi at the OLG Hamburg. He was released on bail on 11 December 2004 and has been found not guilty on 5 February 2004. The public prosecutor has appealed against the acquittal to the BGH.
2. Cases of national security are to be prosecuted by the General Federal Prosecutor in Karlsruhe by virtue of Section 142a, 120 of the Organisation of the Courts Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz).
3. Punishable under Section 211 of the German Criminal Code.
4. Punishable under Section 129a of the German Criminal Code, which reads as: (1) Whoever forms an organization, the objectives or activity of which are directed towards the commission of: 1. murder, manslaughter or genocide (Sections 211,212 or 220a); 2. crimes against personal liberty in cases under Sections 239a or 239b; or 3. crimes under Section 305a or crimes dangerous to the public in cases under Sections 306 to 306c or 307 subsections (1) to (3), 308 subsections (1) to (4), 309 subsections (1) to (5), 313, 314 or 315 subsections (1),3 or 4, 316b subsections (1) or (3), or 316c subsections (1) to (3), or whoever participates in such an organization as a member, shall be punished with imprisonment from one year to ten years. (2) If the perpetrator is one of the ringleaders or supporters, then imprisonment for no less than three years shall be imposed. (3) Whoever supports an organization indicated in subsection (1) or recruits for it, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to five years. (4) The court in its discretion may mitigate the punishment (Section 49 subsection (2)) in cases under subsections (1) and (3) in the case of participants whose guilt is slight or whose participation is of minor significance. (5) Section 129 subsection (6), shall apply accordingly. (6) Collateral to imprisonment for at least six months, the court may deprive the person of the capacity to hold public office and the capacity to attain public electoral rights (Section 45 subsection (2)). (7) In cases under subsections (1) and (2) the court may order supervision of conduct (Section 68 subsection (1)). A translation of the entire German Criminal Code is available at: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm (visited 27 April 2004).
5. BGH Decision of 4 March 2004, Case No. 3 StR 218/2003, reprinted in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2004, 1259.
6. The re-trial will probably commence 16 June 2004
7. FAZ 8 April 2004, p. 1.
8. The Government can issue a so-called “Sperrerklärung” by virtue of Section 96 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure: “Submission or delivery of files or of other documents officially impounded by authorities or public officials shall not be requested if their superior authority declares that the publication of these files or documents would be detrimental to the welfare of the Federation or of a German Land. The first sentence shall apply mutatis mutandis to files and other documents held in the custody of a Member of the Federal Parliament or of a Land Parliament or of an employee of a Federal or Land parliamentary group where the agency responsible for authorizing testimony has made a corresponding declaration”.
9. For an English translation of the code, see http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StPO.htm#96 (visited 27 April 2004).
10. These are articles 101-104 Grundgesetz.
11. Compare ECourtHR Barberá v. Spain, Series A No. 211, para. 59.
12. This is the essential aim of the entire trial process, compare e.g. BVerfGE 63, 45, 61.
13. The BGH has stressed the connection between the “Schuldprinzip” and the fair trial principle in the decision at hand, NJW 2004, 1261.
14. Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure (2003), 306-309.
15. See ECourtHR van Mechelen v. The Netherlands, Rep. 1997-III, para. 55, 63; see also Renzikowski, 54 Juristenzeitung 1999, 605.
16. Compare BGHSt 42, 15, 25; BGH NJW 2001, 2245 and BVerfGE 57, 250, 292 - the difficulties of the German courts with the ECHR in this regard are explained by Esser, Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Strafverfahrensrecht (2002), 677-681; also Weigend, 21 Strafverteidiger 2001, 63, 64.
17. BGH NJW 2004, 1261.
18. BGH NJW 2004, 1261.
19. § 244 III 2 StPO.
20. BGH NJW 2004, 1261.
21. See Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung (46th ed. 2003), § 261 MN 2; Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure (2003), 259-60.
22. The presumption of innocence is integral part of the German criminal procedural order according to Article 6 § 2 ECHR; the ECourtHR is reluctant to explicitly stating what the standard of proof needs to be. Nevertheless it has repeatedly stated, that any doubt should benefit the accused; see ECourtHR Barberá v. Spain, Series A No. 146, para. 77; Ribitsch v. Austria, Serie A No. 336, para. 32; Avzar v. Turkey, Rep. 2001-VII, para. 283; compare Esser, Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Strafverfahrensrecht, 742-744.
23. “Particularly careful weighing of evidence”, BGH NJW 2004, 1261.
24. The BGH uses the German term “Zweifelssatz”, see BGH NJW 2004, 1261.
25. See BGH NJW 2004, 1262 with reference to dissenting views by several authors.
26. BGH NJW 2004, 1262.
27. BGH NJW 2004, 1262.
28. See also Meyer-Goßner, StPO, § 261 MN 26 and Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure, 260.
29. Compare Article 6 § 3 d ECHR and Article 14 § 3 e ICCPR.
30. See eg. Rzepka, Zur Fairneß im deutschen Strafverfahren, 2000, 347, 455.
31. See also Renzikowski, Festschrift für Lampe (2003), 791, 802.
32. See BGH NJW 2004, 1263.
33. See BGH NJW 2004, 1262.
34. One example: the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland was changed and the jury abolished in 1978 because it was felt, that it was inapt to cope with terrorism; see Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure (2003), 214.
35. This I say in analogy to Blackstones’ title for the English jury-courts, see Lidstone in Andrews (ed), Human Rights in Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study (1982), 5.