29.03.2001:

Councilor Studzinski started with an affidavit regarding the previous day in court and the question, how it can be assured that the public has sufficient access to the court case, as several visitors were only allowed in the court room even after the case had started. After that, Councilor Eisenberg filed the rebuke regarding the composition of supplementary judges, that had been announced previously.

Through the way of proceedings concerning the nomination of the supplementary judges, the constitutional right to be tried by the "right" judge, was violated, according to Eisenberg. The rebuke focusses on the fact, that the composition of the judges was manipulated, as the decision of the panel, who would become a suppplementary judge, was not according to the rules of the courts list.

After interrupting the court case for 30 minutes, the Presiding Judge announced that she would read the charges now. After questions of the defence councilors, regarding the further procedure of the rebuke, crown prosecutor Homann announced a written statement of the Federal Crowns Office which should be in the mail system early next week. After the defence will have received it, the defence will have the chance to explain their position on the next court day.

Councilor Studzinski followed with an affidavit in the name of her client Harald Gloede. Background for this was a statement of the Presiding Judge to the defence conuncilors of Harald Gloede , that the accused could help his councilors to speed up the court case. This leaves two ways of interpretation: either you could understand it in the way, that the Presiding Judge thinks he could simply be helping his councilors with their workload, or he would know (more) about the alleged crimes and could therefore help his councilors. As a conclusion she raised the question, if the Presiding Judge is still unprejudiced about the charged persons.

The Federal Prosecutor stated, that this statement is way too early, as they have to await the taking of evidence.

Councilor Kalek filed a motion to stay the court case, as a non removable obstace in the procedure exists. He stated that the right to a fair trial was violated, , as the fundamental balance between the parties and the arrangement of the court case as a contradictory case no longer exists. Consequently the defence was stripped of the chance to clarify contradictions in the statements of Tarek Mousli - the main piece of evidence . In his statement, he accused the Federal Crowns Office, to have done everything, that this piece of evidence became unusable. After months of interviews by officers of the Federal Police Office and the Federal Crowns Office, we can expect, that Mousli will just state an unresolvable mix of concrete memories, added and forgotten fantasies, newly learned, as well as some corrected after queries by the investigators, in the court case. Consequently, you can't say any more that this could be a fair trial. Councilor Wuerdinger and councilor Geimicke supported the motion.

The Federal Prosecutors couldn't see any severe reasons in Kalek's motion that would lead to an interruption of the main court case. They vehemently denied that the witness Mousli was set under pressue by the interviewers.

Councilor Becker, who formally didn't support the motion, agreed with the contents of the statement of his colleague. According to Becker, it casts a shadow on the approach of the prosecutors, so the description of his client, that when she was presented to the Federal Court in Karlsruhe in December 1999, Federal Prosecutor Griesbaum and his colleagues of the Federal Police Agency celebrated each confirmed arrest warrant with loud "Bingo" calls.

Councilor Geimicke reminded in his statement, that the defence was allowed to see the files only very late and at that point they were not even complete. Additional interviews were conducted, and the defence had knowledge about them, but there were no written notes in the files.

After a break of 15 minutes, the Presiding Judge announced, the main court hearing would continue next Thursday and interrupted the court case.

On the 3 day of the court case they would decide about the rebuke and the motion for the stay of the main court case.