ICCPR Complaint Freedom of Information

Walter Keim, Email: walter.keim@gmail.com
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, 20. November 2005

Human Rights Committee c/o OHCHR-UNOG,
Petition Team
United Nations Office
8-14 avenue de la Paix
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax. No. (41-22) 917 9022

Complaint Freedom of Information 19. Oct. 2005

Sir,

I refer to my complaint 19. Oct. 2005 asking the Centre for Human Rights of the United Nations to process this individual complaint according to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) with documentation that I was the victim of several refusals of access to documents¹ :

For documents of petition 13/824 of 20. October 2001 to Landtag Baden-Württemberg both the parliament and ministry of internal affair refused to give access to documents (Appendix 1: Constitutional Complaint No. 1 BvR 1057/02 and appendix 17: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/petition3_p2.pdf)
Documents of petition Freedom of Information 21. Dec. 2001 to Bundestag (Appendix 13: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_ifg.htm#einsicht).
Documents of petition Freedom of Information 20. Dec. 2001 to Landtag Baden-Württemberg (Appendix 14: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_bw.htm#einsicht).
Documents of petition Patients Rights 25. Oct. 2001 to Bundestag (Appendix 15: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4.htm#einsicht).

I am the victim of an additional refusal of access to documents:

Access to documents of Doctors court Baden-Württemberg (Landesberufsgericht für Ärzte) asked for 30. October 2005, denied 2. November 2005. Constitutional Complaint 3. November 2005 ⁵ and second demand for access in additional letter 11. November 2005 ²
Complaint to Administrative court: Case VG 2 A 85.04: Walter Keim vs. Federal Republic of Germany on Freedom of information and Constitutional Complaint Freedom of Information 1 BvR 1981/05
[Added 2007 Constitutional Complaint 2 BvR 1033/07 on Rejection of publication of income from sideline jobs of members of federal parliament and interim injunction to publish.]
[Added 2007 Keim (II) v. Germany ECHR Appl. No. 31583/07 access to income of MPs sideline jobbs [Appendix 16: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/egmr-klage-en.htm]
[Added 2008: The parliament of Bavaria wrote 03. July 2008 that the suggestions of the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe will not be implementes. Acces to the reason of this decision was denied 3 times].
[Added 2009 Keim (III) v. Germany ECHR Appl. No. 46953/09 access to income of MPs sideline jobbs [Appendix 18: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/egmr-0908.htm]

At Sant’ Anna die Stazzema, 560 women, children and men, unable to flee, were murdered in a bestial manner by SS troops ¹⁰. In Italy 10 SS murderers where sentenced to jail for lifetime for war crimes committed 12. August 1944 in Sant´Anna more than 60 years ago. But Germany does not extradite them to Italy. Public prosecutor Gernot Blessing in Stuttgart/Germany is not prosecuting them up to now. Therefore a sentence in Germany is hindered . The families of the victims are denied access to documents.

The Doctors Chamber in Nordwürttemberg has hired Gernot Blessing ⁹ to prosecute doctors who do not do their duties to respect patients rights. A complaint was filed because access to documents was denied, violating Section 406e (5) StPO (Strafprozeßordnung: Code of Criminal Procedure) on Inspection of files and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). My complaint was not ⁵ dealt with for 2 years¹¹. The doctors chamber has chosen him. I asked: Is he is the right person to do the job?⁹. He is no good choice from a patients' rights view.

In addition I have now got the bill of the administrative court in Berlin ⁷, which is € 770.- for a case on access to documents (and 15 copies) and a fair answer to petitions ! This is normally free in the European "area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights".

Domestic juridical/administrative remedies have been tried and it is shown that remedies are ineffective:

I contacted the "Robin Hood" of German justice system 19. October 2003 ³. He estimated an amount of controversy of € 4000.- and costs of approx. € 2180.- for both lower and higher administrative court, because a defeat was sure.

Already the first judgement of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) Berlin 25. April 2005 shows that juridical remedies are ineffective. The sentence says that there is no legal basis even to ask for access of documents, i. e. the ICCPR is totally ignored.

During the proceedings at the administrative court documents of the Petition on Human Rights Violations in Germany: Invitation of the Human Rights Commissioner ⁸ where available, showing that German authorities are human rights phobic. The term "human rights" is never used in their files. Access to these documents cost approx. € 770.- (see account of the court 27. October 2005 on the basis of amount of controversy € 12,000.-) because the case was lost totally. That corresponds to approx. 38 days in jail asking for access to documents (which is a UN human right) and a fair answer within reasonable time (which is a fundamental right in the EU Charter of basic rights). That shows how German courts defend the old-fashioned authoritarian state by high costs. The costs of the this lower administrative court are € 770.- see account of the court 27. October 2005.

The second lawyer I contacted⁴ after having lost the first round could only promise me a defeat. The higher administrative court the costs to pay him and the court would have been more than € 2.607,65 in addition plus costs for travelling (i. e. corresponding approx. 130 days in jail, see http://www.prozesskostenrechner.de/) on the basis of an amount of controversy of € 12,000.- At the higher administrative court a complainant must have a lawyer.

High costs unreasonably high barrier to justice restricting direct participation according to ICCPR Article 25: "Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly". The higher administrative court did not remove this barrier and the Constitutional Court did not find it unconstitutional.

Summary

I refer to the website of the UN: http://www.runiceurope.org/german/menschen/udhr_template.htm. It says (translated from German):

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) gives in clear and simple language the basic rights which everybody is entitled to.

You can claim these basic rights. These rights are your rights.

Make yourself familiar with them. Help to promote and defend these basic rights for yourself and your fellows"

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, (...)"

Article 2 paragraph 2 and 3 of the ICCPR binds states and gives citizens rights for remedies:

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

Germany violates its obligation to adopt laws and gives no remedies.

To sum up one must say that Germany abuses it's sovereignty to deny me and other Germans the human right of freedom of information. Therefore I am as German a second class citizens in the EU and Europe. Even worth: EU citizens, who move to Germany loose the human right of freedom of information, which they had in the country they come from. The mothers and fathers of the wrote they were "animated by the purpose to serve world peace as an equal part in a unified Europe," (Preamble Basic Law), not the continuation of authoritan pieces (as the only country in Europe): The "Amtsgeheimnis" (official secrecy) as relict of Prussian authorial state, which puts secrecy higher than democratic participation and human rights of citizens.

This complaint is published here: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/un-051120.htm.

Yours sincerely,

Walter Keim
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim
E-Mail: walter.keim@gmail.com
Human Right violations in Germany: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/de_human_rights.htm
Support Freedom of Information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/foil.htm#e-mail
Support Patients' Rights: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm#e-mail