The district court has the Görlitz total war objector Andreas Reuter (Zittau) to a fine of 60 daily (each 20, - EUR) convicted. Thus, it has initially rejected the content against total objectors on appeal the prosecution and the verdict of the AG Zittau (2 months' imprisonment) was amended slightly in favor of the accused. However, it has not rejected the appeal by the prosecution inadmissible as - what was the real target of the defense.
was to be seen, negotiations took place in a much calmer atmosphere than at the District Court of Zittau. Under the pressure of over 80 spectators - and without a martial police presence in Zittau - this time Andrew was read out his entering, in which he explained how the community service is integrated as a conscript in compliance with the plans for so-called "total defense".
said prosecutor Ebert that he could not understand what serve for the "concrete community service" that Andreas was supposed to stay was, finally, that "not recognizable" that "would have endorsed in 2005 the armed forces" Andreas . The prosecution had been to maintain their lock appeal - which they prevented the revision of the accused against the incredible events at the AG Zittau - officially targeted a higher penalty, Ebert now requested an amendment the appeal from two months suspended sentence on all 60 daily rates. This was followed by the prosecution of a revision of the defense argument, namely that a short prison sentence is inadmissible in cases such as this.
The defense then stated that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible the prosecution. In this clear case is not only a so-called "reverse appeals" in the know, the defense only or suspect that what was in the prosecution only to the prevention of the audit, but the prosecution has presented itself relevant evidence (such as the express refusal the appeal withdrawal by the Chief Public Prosecutor evil, though acknowledging that neither the prosecutor nor the appeal of his arguments revision argument of the defense even knowing). Following the request of the prosecutor in the trial following this no longer officially the goal of a higher punishment, so that they could be so far connected the revision of the accused - they do that but still not to the further revision argument of the defendant (the numerous procedural objections due supply of the behavior of judges Ronsdorf in Zittau) no judicial review.
also explained to the defense that regardless of this procedural Question, there is a conviction prohibits the context of the Basic Law postulated freedom of conscience. The question of the prosecutor to go after the "concrete action" failed in the civil service because it was not about the "concrete seals in the mud," to be brought against the grounds of conscience would need to be recognized as so-called conscientious objectors.
The court eventually followed the request of the prosecutor, and changed from the ruling of the district court in 60 day rates. Böcker judge was unable to appeal the prosecutor rejected as inadmissible, and the "Guidelines for the criminal and administrative penalties" for prosecutors were not bound, therefore the Court can not verify the "correctness" of the Berufungseinlegung, which is about as true as false - in principle the RiStBV are absolutely binding, be departed from (justified) individual cases of this but. The present case is, however, and it just had the defense been advised to appeal a legally improper, because the goal was solely to prevent the execution audit. The defense had also according to these principles, evidence presented in the case - only one case in which the appeal was rejected as inadmissible the prosecution, did not exist in this exact constellation. And so was
then probably the most honest statement in this method for the real reason here not to be engaging work: "I would not enter a new legal territory." , the presiding judge of the district court, Böcker. The times but is an argument ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment