initiativ periodika Archiv adressbuch kampagnen suche aktuell

Online seit:	Fri Sep  4 00:23:46 1998

[Lübeck - Mainpage | IIC - Mainpage | Press - only German | What's New | Index | Feedback ]

Declaration

1. In August 1996, the International Independent Commission inquiring into the fire which occurred at Hafenstrasse 52, Lübeck on 18 January 1996 published an interim report. The trial of Safwan Eid had not then commenced. It has now been in progress since 16 September 1996 and is nearing completion. Before the court reaches its verdict, we consider it appropriate to make certain further observations on the course of the trial. However, we must emphasise, as we have done throughout our involvement in this matter, that we claim no right to intervene in any way in the legal process. Nor do we express any view as to the verdict which the court should reach. We seek only to assist the achievement of a just outcome, though we also have in mind that the court on 23 April made certain rulings which indicate that the case against Safwan Eid has not been made out to its satisfaction. Our observations are merely the opinions of a group of experienced lawyers normally active in other European jurisdictions.

2. The concerns which we expressed in our first interim report related to the following issues:
   1. securing the availability of the victims to give evidence and and the preservation off evidence
   2. the unreliability of confession evidence both in general and in the circumstances of this case
   3. the tapping of conversations
   4. the failure to investigate adequately the evidence implicating other suspects

3. These concerns have all been increased as the trial has proceeded though we must express satisfaction that item c. - the tapping of conversations - is no longer relevant because evidence relating to it has been excluded by the court.

4. As to the availability of witnesses and evidence, we are pleased that the witnesses who were vulnerable to deportation before the trial were not in fact deported, though we regret that our recommendation that the deportee Victor A. should be granted re-entry could not be implemented because Nigerian Embassy was unable to trace his whereabouts. It has become apparent, however, as the trial has progressed, that there were serious shortcomings in the steps taken by the Criminal Investigation Department and the Criminal Investigation Office of Schleswig-Holstein (LKA) to safeguard the premises and objects present at the scene of the fire. These have been pointed out by defence lawyers in a number of submission during the trial. We consider front our own knowledge that the allegations merit serious investigation.

5. As to the question of confession evidence, we have been disturbed from the outset by the weight given by the prosecutinq authorities to the alleged confession made by Safwan Eid to Jens Leonhardt. Mr. Leonhardt appears to have given different versions of the alleged confession both in his statements to the police, and witnesses and in his evidence in court. The prosecution seems to have been launched on the basis of the alleged confession even though central details in it had already been contradicted in a statement taken the previous day from Gustave Soussou. Although no claim was made by Leonhardt in his statements that the confession mentioned the fire having started on the first floor, this was assumed by the judqe - probably on the basis of press reports - and the prosecution did not dispute this assumption. Although the prosecution has throughout maintained that the fire started on the first floor, expert evidence both for prosecution and defence has shown that the fire could equally have started on the ground floor.

6. The release of the original suspects and the rejection of evidence against them which on the face of it is much stronger than that against Safwan Sid is very disturbing. We are particularly concerned that medical evidence has been given at the trial that the damage to Safwan's ears is not compatible with his having started the fire whereas the evidence that the original suspects had burnt hair is exactly what would be expected of the true culprits. Furthermore evidence at the trial has cast considerable doubt on the validity of the explanation given for the release of the original suspects: that they could not have reached the place of their arrest in the time available.

7. Given the absence of any corroboration of the confession evidence, and the inconsistency of the alleged confession with much other compelling evidence, and the recent rulings by the court, we find it difficult to understand why the prosecution is still pursuing its case. Equally, we find it difficult to understand not only why the case against the original suspects from Grevesmühlen was dropped shortly after their arrest but also why the investigation of those suspects has not been re-instated as new facts reinforcing the case against them have emerged.

International Independent Commission
May 1997