1 Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH), decision of 16 November 2006, published in Neue JuristischeWochenschrift, 384 (2007).Google Scholar

2 Where a judgment is quashed solely because of a violation of the law occurring on its application to the findings on which the judgment was based, the Appeals Court can itself adjust the conviction (Schuldspruchberichtigung), mutatis mutandis section 354 (1) German Criminal Procedure Code (Strafprozessordnung – hereinafter StPO). See Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung § 354 (49th ed., 2006), margin number 12.Google Scholar

3 Federal Constitutional Court, (Bundesverfassungsgericht - BverfG), decision of 10 January 2007, Reg. no. 2 BvR 2557/06, available at: www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de, last accessed: 13 March 2007.Google Scholar

4 For detailed information about the “facts”, in particular the presumable role of Binalshibh, see Loammi Blaauw-Wolf, The Hamburg Terror Trials – American Political Poker and German Legal Procedure: An Unlikely Combination to Fight International Terrorism, 5 German Law Journal 791 (2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.de/article.php?id=473, last accessed: 13 March 2007.Google Scholar

5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 November 2004, Nr. 275, 4.Google Scholar

6 BGH, decision of 4 March 2004, published in Neue juristische Wochenschrift, 1259 (2004).Google Scholar

7 For further information about the legal requirements for „non present witnesses,“ see Christoph J. M. Safferling, Terror and Law – Is the German Legal System able to deal with Terrorism? The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decision in the case against El Motassadeq, 5 German Law Journal 515 (2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.de/article.php?id=428, last accessed: 13 March 2007).Google Scholar

8 BGH, supra, note 6, 1262.Google Scholar

9 See further, Safferling, supra, note 7.Google Scholar

10 Sections 142a and 120 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Organisation of the Courts Act) require cases of national security to be prosecuted by the German Federal Prosecutor.Google Scholar

11 Mzoudi was the second accused charged before a German Court. Unlike Motassadeq, Mzoudi was found not guilty by the OLG Hamburg. The OLG found no evidence that Mzoudi was involved in the preparation of the 9/11 attacks. After the German Federal Prosecutor appealed to the BGH, this decision was confirmed by the BGH on 5 June 2005 (published in Neue juristische Wochenschrift, 2322 (2005)). For further information on this case, see Blaauw-Wolf, supra, note 4.Google Scholar

12 According to section 55 StPO any witness may refuse to answer any questions the reply to which would subject him to the risk of being prosecuted for a criminal offence or a regulatory offence.Google Scholar

13 BGH decision of 15 January 1957, published in BGHSt 10, 104, 105; Meyer-Goßner, supra, note 2, section 55 margin number 10.Google Scholar

14 BGH, supra, note 1, 386. This requirement was also challenged by the legal literature: Gollwitzer, in Löwe/Rosenberg, StPO, section 238 (25th ed.), margin number 43.Google Scholar

15 BGH, supra, note 1, 387.Google Scholar

16 BVerfG, 21 March 2001 – Reg. no. 2 BvR 403/01; BVerfG, decision of 14 May 1999, published in Strafverteidiger, 3 (2000); BGH decision of 8 October 1953, published in BGHSt 4, 364, 366; BGH, decision of 14 February 1985, published in Strafverteidiger, 355 (1985).Google Scholar

17 BVerfG decision of 24 March 1976, published in BVerfGE 42, 64, 74; BVerfG decision of 13 January 1987, published in BVerfGE 74, 102, 127.Google Scholar

18 The BVerfG reviews judgments not with respect to their application of statutory law, but only if this application violates Basic Rights (Verletzung spezifischen Verfassungsrechts), see BVerfG decision of 10 June 1964, published in BVerfGE 18, 85, 92.Google Scholar

19 New York Times, 29 August 2002, A 11; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 August 2005, 193, 1.Google Scholar

20 Blaauw-Wolf, supra, note 4, 795.Google Scholar

21 See, Bartwuchs und andere Schuldfragen, Die Zeit, 18 August 2005, 34, available at: http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/34/Motassadeq, last accessed: 13 March 2007.Google Scholar

22 BGH, supra, note 6, 1262.Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 The fair trial principle is guaranteed in Art. 6 European Charter of Human Rights (EMRK) and is part of the principle of due process under the judgment of the BVerfG, see BVerfG, decision of 26 May 1981, published in Neue juristische Wochenschrift 1719 (1981).Google Scholar

25 Safferling, supra, note 7.Google Scholar

26 We can focus on the first decision, since the decision in November 2006 applies merely the requirements made in the March 2004 decision for this question.Google Scholar

27 BGH, supra, note 6, 1263.Google Scholar

28 Id., 1261.Google Scholar

29 BGH, decision of 20 December 2000, published in Neue juristische Wochenschrift, 2245 (2001).Google Scholar

30 Also critical Karsten Gaede, Schranken des fairen Verfahrens gemäß Art. 6 EMRK bei der Sperrung verteidigungsrelevanter Informationen und Zeugen, Strafverteidiger 599 (2006). Gaede inquires the BGH's 2004 decision (supra, note 6) against the background of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Art. 6 EMRK and concludes that the “Beweiswürdigungslösung” (the decision to adress the problem of a Sperrerklärung within weighing of evidence) is not in accordance with this judgment.Google Scholar

31 Niklas Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft 165 (2^nd edition 1997).Google Scholar

32 See, Luhmann, id., 83.Google Scholar

33 Gunther Teubner, Recht als autopoietisches System 96, 120 (1989).Google Scholar

34 BGH, decision of 24 June 1998, published in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 3577 (1998).Google Scholar

35 Similar argument: Gaede, supra, note 30, 607.Google Scholar

36 Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order 1 (2004).Google Scholar

37 Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer, was detained by US authorities during a stopover in New York on September 26, 2002, and deported to Syria via Jordan, see Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar, 27, available at: www.ararcommission.ca, last accessed: 13 March 2007. On the way to Jordan, the airplane transporting Arar landed in Rome, see working document No. 3, PE 374339, of the European Parliaments Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/working_docs/pe374339_en.pdf, last accessed: 13 March 2007.Google Scholar

38 El-Masri was allegedly detained in Skopje by the CIA and removed to Afghanistan on January 2004. There, el-Masri claimed, he has been interrogated by a German, see European Parliament, supra, note 37.Google Scholar

39 Kurnatz allegedly was to be released from Guantanamo in 2002, which, however, was allegedly refused by German authorities, see Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 January 2007, available at: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/226/99127/, last accessed: 13 March 2007.Google Scholar

40 BGH, supra, note 6, 1260.Google Scholar

41 Id.; see also Gaede, supra, note 30, 607.Google Scholar

42 See also Gaede, supra, note 30, 607.Google Scholar

43 See also Henning Ernst Müller, Anmerkung zu BGH vom 4 March 2004, Juristenzeitung 926, 928 (2004).Google Scholar

44 Arguing explicitly against partial attempts to define the contents of legal terms Andres Fischer-Lescano, Monismus, Dualismus? – Pluralismus. Selbstbestimmung des Weltrechts bei Hans Kelsen und Niklas Luhmann, in: Hauke Brunkhorst (Ed.), Völkerrechtspolitik. Hans Kelsens Staatsverständnis, 2007; against imperialism of “ideas” Philip Allott, The Emerging International Aristocracy, 35 N.Y.U. Journal of International Law & Politics 309 (2003).Google Scholar

45 See Habermas, Jürgen, Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität, in: Faktizität und Geltung 647 (1992).Google Scholar

46 Luhmann, , supra, note 31, 582.Google Scholar

47 Habermas, Jürgen, Hat die Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts noch eine Chance? in Der gespaltene Westen 176 (2004).Google Scholar

48 See Teubner, Gunther, Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassungstheorie, 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1 (2003). For the english version see Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-centred Constitutional theory? in: Christian Joerges, Inger-Johanne Sand and Gunther Teubner (Eds.), Constitutionalism and transnational Governance 3 (2004); Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Globalverfassung, Die Geltungsbegründung der Menschenrechte (2005); Fischer-Lescano, Andreas/Teubner, Gunther, Regime Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 999-1045 (2004). See further the increasing debate on comparative constitutionalism: Teitel, Ruti, Comparative Constitutional Law in a Global Age, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2570 (2004); Schor, Miguel, Constitutionalism through the looking class of Latin America, 41 Texas International Law Journal 1 (2006); Norman Dorsen, Michel Rosenfeld, András Sajó & Susanne Baer (eds.), Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials (2003); Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harvard International Law Journal 191 (2003); Harold Hongju Koh, International: Law as part of our Law, 98 American Journal of International Law 43 (2004); Frankenberg, Günther, Comparing Constitutions: Ideas, Ideals, and Ideology–toward a layered narrative, 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 439 (2006); Tushnet, Mark, Interpreting Constitutions Comparatively: Some cautionary notes, with reference to affirmative action, 36 Connecticut Law Review 649 (2004).Google Scholar

49 Seminal: Gunther Teubner, Reflexives Recht. Entwicklungsmodelle des Rechts in vergleichender Perspektive, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 13 (1982).Google Scholar