 |
March, 22, 2001:First Day of TrialTodays first day of the trail ended after two hours already. The indictment was not read at court. After the obligatory clearing of the identity of the accused, the defence councillors Becker and Eisenberg - representing all defense lawyers - filed an application to interrupt the main court hearing. In order to proof that the responsible supplementary judges could indeed exercise the function of associate judges, defence councils were missing essential documents. (A supplementary judge is supposed to replace an associate judge in case of a sickness.) Only last Friday before the beginning of the trial, and only on request - according to Becker and Eisenberg - they were notified by the the president of the Superior Court of Justice, that the the associate judge Alban, had already criticised in a written statement during the preparation of the trial, the composition of the supplementary judges. Though this did not lead to a review. This letter, that the president of the Superior Court of Justice did not know, was presented to her by the defense council. The problem is, that an unlawfully composed court offends Article 19 of the German Constitution as well as essential parts of the Criminal Code and the court procedures. (According to Article 19 of the German Constitution each accused has the right to a lawful judge.) This means, that unlawfully called supplementary judges could lead to an appeal of the courts decisions. After almost two hours of court proceedings the presiding judge decided to interupt the court session until March 29, 2001.Until then, the defense councils should be supplied with the necessary document, that would enable them to formulate a rebuke against the composition of the court. Before the president Henning announced the interruption of the court proceedings, the state of health of Ms. Eckle was discussed. Ms. Eckle explained, that she is suffering from migrane attacks since years, that normally used to last between two and three days. Her state of health has deteriorated significantly since the beginning of her detention. She further explained, that severe attacks now last beten eighty to ten days being accompanied with unbearable headaches and vomiting. In the meantime she weights only 43 kilogramss. These statements were confirmed by the detention physician Dr Friedmann. As an expert witness she made it clear, that a sufficient treatment is not guarnted under the ordered detention conditions. The physician, who is responsible for several detention centres, confirmed that Ms. Eckle had to wait three hours for her medication during her last attack. Additionally, she stated, that Ms. Eckle is suffering from concentration breakdowns, resulting from her necessary medication. No application of exemption of detention was filed today, however, this is expected for the upcoming court day. The explanations about Ms. Eckle's state of health were followed by the "counter-presentation" of defence council Edith Lunnebach regarding the "security measures" implemented by the court. She focussed on two issues: fotocopying of the ID's of the public visiting the trial and secondly that personal guards of the German Federal Police Agency protecting the crown witness Mousli will be allowed to carry weapons in the courtroom. Refering to the first point Ms. Lunnebach stated, that the fotocopying of the ID's of all trial visitors is neither necessary nor proportional. The defense doesn't see any necessity for the armed production of Tarek Mousli in court. The one and only time - Ms Lunnebach stated - that she saw armed officers in a court room was in front of a military court in Turkey. Defence council Becker called upon the court to re-think the security procedures. He accused the Federal Crown Prosecutors, that they are insisting on the armed appearance of the German Federal Police men as part of a staging. For the public the atmosphere of the seventies terrorist trials should be produced. At the same time, Becker reminded that the crown witness Tarek Mousli was the only one to wear a bullet proof west at his previous court appearances in Berlin and Frankfurt. There would be no indication of an alleged threat against the crown witness Tarek Mousli. "The main threat comes through himself", according to Becker. The Federal Crown Attorney Bruns rejected the explanations of the defense.. The Office of the Federal Crown Prosecutor would have not interest in a classic terrrorist trial, according to Bruns. His agency would also be interested in normal crimal procedure. He cannot help himself to accuse the defense of an interest in staging the case. "At least hidden threats" had been raised against the crown witness Mousli in publications and during public meetings. Defense council Wuerdinger asked, if a situation in the court room would be even imaginable, where the use of firearms by the German Federal Police would be appropriate. Questions about the security procedures were not further discussed due to the interruption of the court hearing until March 29. Shortly before the end of the court session defence council Kalek complained, that several visitors were refused entry to room 500 even though there would have been sufficient seats available. Additionally, a delegation of international observers to the trial were not allowed to bring pen and paper into the court room. By the way, this was the case for everybody else. When the Principle Judge Henning asked, who would be part of this delegation, the attendees coming from foreign countries raised from their seats, in order to present themselves and to protest against such a method of treatment. This issue was not discussed further, due to the early end of the day in court. The participants of the court case:Judges of the first Senate of the CourtMs. Henning, Principal Judge
Federal Crown ProsecutorsUpper Federal Prosecutor Bruns
Defence councillorsSabine Eckle
Matthias Borgmann
Harald Gloede
Axel Haug
|