Summary of Police Methods
Questionable methods of investigation
Questionable Measures
Questionable Argumentation
Questionable Methods of Investigation
Forgery of a witness statement
The reason for the remand in custody of one of the detainees
was given as a witness statement: During a confidential
conversation, a witness for the prosecution supposedly told
the police that he was convinced that one of the accused
was guilty of an act of arson. When the witness was asked
to verify the statement by a lawyer, it became clear that
he was neither witness to the offence nor privy to arson
attacks. He provided written confirmation to the lawyer
that the police had presented his statement in completely
false light. He never stated that he was convinced of the
accused guilt, but rather is completely unable to say anything
about the case, so he states. He can neither confirm nor
rule out the accused being guilty. Therefore, charges of
misuse of authority have been pressed against the investigating
police officer.
False accusations made to gain
access to people and items
The representation of the situation by the police and public
prosecutor's office contradicts itself. On the one hand
their files on this case characterise the Animal Liberation
Front (ALF) as “not a group with members, rather
an example of a non-hierarchical activity without leadership.”
On the other hand they utilize paragraph 278a of
the criminal code to blame the accused of being members
of a hierarchically structured criminal
organization which runs under the name ALF.
The police also write that “the ALF is made up of small,
anonymous cells without central leadership”.
However, they charge the accused with exactly the opposite,
namely that they are members of a criminal organization
called ALG and therefore belong to a large
centrally run, company-like organization.
From the years of surveillance they have performed, the
police know with 100% certainty that it
is impossible that these 10 people that they have taken
into custody belong, together, to a hierarchically organized
organization with a division of labour. It is also clear
from the case files that the police knows that in this case
there are two distinct groups that are politically involved
in animal protection. There was more or less no contact
between these groups. It is completely absurd to construe
a hierarchically structured, large, business-like organization
based on these facts.
A cogent explanation for the investigating authorities
having evidently deliberately put forward false accusations
is to leverage the heavier punishments foreseen by paragraph
278a, to secure permission for a drastic all-round attack
(wire tapping, comprehensive house searches, unbelievable
amounts of confiscations, martial demeanour and the breaking
in of doors etc.).
It is obvious that certain organizations and individuals
are to be intimidated and, at least momentarily, put out
of operation, the image of the accused and the groups involved
is to be damaged beyond repair.
Incorrect translation
At least one case of incorrect and biased translation by
the authorities has been proven: Sabotage of a “mink hunt”
was made into the sabotage of a “mink farm”.
The subtle difference between the two translations is that
it is completely legal to sabotage a mink hunt, yet the
sabotage of a mink farm would be an act of industrial sabotage,
which is illegal.
Reading-in on private emails
In the interim police report reference is made to private
emails and emails from internal mail-groups. This is surprising,
because the surveillance of email traffic by the authorities
is (still) prohibited. One therefore must ask, how did the
police gain access to these emails?
Wire tap operations
The public prosecutor's office itself admits that they
have already been investigating animal protectionists for
years. They have been listening in on the suspects' telephone
conversations for around a year; emails are quoted word
for word; observation was carried out at locations. However,
the public prosecutor is denying access to the court notices
that give reason for these massive surveillance operations.
Despite this comprehensive monitoring the authorities evidently
have found nothing more than private conversations in a
private internet forum, in which the sense and non-sense
of illegal action was discussed.
Location of persons via mobile
telephone signals
Mobile phones were located and the movements of people
under surveillance were followed with incredible precision
(as close as a few meters).
Use of intimate details to provoke
incriminating testimonies
During the questioning of one person, whose home was also
searched, officers attempted to provoke her into making
an incriminating statement by going through the details
of relationship disputes with her boyfriend, who is also
accused. These details were obviously known to the police
from listening in on telephone conversations, as some sentences
were recounted word for word. The police have evidently
processed and entered data on the accuseds' private and
intimate lives in the case files.
Questionable Methods
Confiscation of property impedes
the work of NPOs
The comprehensive confiscation of property has taken the
foundation for their work away not only from individuals
but also from organizations. Especially in the case of the
NPOs that are not accused, it must be critized that these
have been impeded in their activities in an extremely drastic
manner. The Association Against Animal Factories has lost
its computers, photos and film archives, bookkeeping, membership
database and practically all the documents that were in
binders. The normal work of the association cannot be recommenced
under these conditions.
Information passed to the media
before the accused and their lawyers are informed
At least the remand in custody of the detainees was announced
to the media immediately, whereas the detainees' lawyers
were not given this information. It also seems very worrying
that the public prosecutor speaks of the case as a closed
case, yet the Kurier (an Austrian daily newspaper) reports
that it has “judicial papers” from which they are able to
gleen details of the investigation and accusations brought
against individuals. Charges will be pressed with respect
to a suspected breach of official secrets.
Intimidation and humiliation
The war-like police operation – breaking in doors, sending
in masked special units dressed like robbers and holding
people at gunpoint, using handcuffs in making the arrests,
shouting and bellowing, etc. – was designed to thoroughly
intimidate and humiliate those involved. Many of those involved
are still traumatised, unable to sleep properly and wake
abruptly at the smallest noise in the night. People who
have dogs at home must even fear for their dogs' lives because
they know that a dog can be easily shot during such a raid,
without any repercussions for the officer who pulls the
trigger. One dog was in fact recently shot dead by the police
during a house search in Austria.
The authorities should know from their comprehensive surveillance
in the forefront of this operation that all those involved
are utterly harmless and unarmed persons. Nevertheless they
made their appearance as though they were storming the apartments
of heavily armed terrorists probably lying in bed armed
to the hilt.
The message was conveyed to those involved that they are
at the mercy of the state. The state can raid their private
sphere, hold them and take their property. The state is
omnipotent and can do whatever it likes.
This message is conveyed in an even more crass way in the
remand centres.
Seeing as paragraph 8 of the Austrian Code of Criminal
Procedure states that every person who is not convicted
by a court of law must be considered innocent, one could
believe that remand in custody is not a punishment but is
only there – in this case - to avoid collusion and the perpetration
of further acts. One would therefore also assume that every
effort would be made to interfere as little as possible
with the lives of the - as yet presumed innocent - accused.
It should therefore be possible to provide them books, television
and radio sets, or whatever food they require from the outside
as desired and without chicanery. Letters and cards should
reach them within reasonable time. It should be possible
for them to wash and to get fresh clothing. Athletic exercise
should be possible, as should daily visits. They are, after
all, innocent. This is what the Austrian Code of Criminal
Procedure states and it is also required in the Convention
of Human Rights.
However the reality of custodial remand in Austria looks
quite different.
Those remanded in custody completely lose their autonomy.
They are subject to unfathomable chicanery by the authorities.
Even the smallest needs – even if it is reading a book –
must be approved. There are forms for that – but they aren't
always available, deadlines that must be kept and endless
handling time. Each day there is only one hour of exercise
in the courtyard. Detainees may wash only twice a week.
It is not permitted to do any sports. Electric light is
turned off as and when he judicial centre sees fit. Clean
clothes are few and far between. It is not possible to bring
food from the outside to the detainees. Visits are extremely
limited – only two times a half hour per week and the visitors
must calculate horrendous amounts of time for each visit,
for example 6 hours for a half-hour visit. It can also happen
that a visitor makes the long journey to the detention centre
(Vienna, Wiener Neustadt or Eisenstadt) and waits for a
certain time only to be told to come back another time,
because no more visits are possible on that day. Absolutely
unacceptable conditions.
To put it briefly, the suspects are given the clear impression
that the state is omnipotent and able to monitor and dictate
even their smallest movements. In reality, custodial remand
has little to do with what it claims to be. It is about
measures to intimidate, humiliate, beat people down and
put them under psychological pressure.
Damage to image through
the publication of false accusations (by Minister of the
Interior, Guenther Platter)
As early as 2007, while the police were involved in intensive
investigations against animal protectionists in Austria,
there was a uncalled for defamation of the Association Against
Animal Factories. The Minister of the Interior, Guenther
Platter, made untrue claims in a reply to a parliamentary
question, depicting the Association Against Animal Factories
to be a violent group. It was not possible to sue the Minister
because he is immune to such court actions due to his office.
The Association Against Animal Factories retaliated with
advertisments in the 'Standard' and 'Press' daily newspapers,
in which the Minister was accused of having lied. Minister
Platter showed no reaction to this.
Further details about this incident on: http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2007/news20070530_en.php
Questionable Argumentation
Legal political activities counted
as criminal offences
The police is counting political activities by committed
individuals and NGOs as offences bolstering their charge
of membership in a criminal organization. Protocols of activist
meetings and conversations in which campaigns – but in no
way plans or the perpertration of punishable acts – are
spoken about are being used by the police as evidence for
a “joint” approach and “division of labour” by the activists.
Thus, legal political activities are being made part of
a crime. This has never been ventured before in this form
by the police in Austria and represents an alarming development
for civil society.
Rumours that the police filmed
the entire operation
Rumours are still circulating in the media that the measures
taken during the house searches were filmed by the police,
ensuring that everything was done in complete compliance
with the law. In fact, hardly any searches were filmed,
and if any films were made then they were not of the entire
operation.
Even in cases where the police filmed, this measure does
not serve to protect the victim but rather to protect the
perpetrator, i.e. the police, from false accusations. Films
such as these made by the police are useless for victim
protection – or does anyone believe the police would gladly
hand over incriminating evidence to a victim so that they
could press charges?
Interestingly, the accused themselves as well as uninvolved
third parties were strongly prohibited from filming the
police operation. A documentation from the viewpoint of
those being searched was therefore not possible. Now why
would that be??
Data encryption is counted
as a criminal offence
The police and the public prosecutor count encrypting emails,
documents or hard disks as part of a criminal act. They
consider this to be an elaborate measure to shield data,
a measure that must be pursued as a criminal act. One of
the detainees is accused of nothing other than having encrypted
data and informing others about possibilities to encrypt
documents and emails.
The fact is that the encryption of emails and data is
a common standard which is used by companies, political
parties and NGOs. Data encryption is completely legal and
endorsed by governmental authorities. Authorities like the
German “Federal Office for Security in Information Technology”
even offer free
encryption software on their web sites.
The Federal Office writes, “An average email is always
open, like a post card. The electronic 'postman' and others
can always read them. It is even worse than that: Computer
technology offers not only the opportunities to send and
distribute many millions of emails daily but also to control
them.” And further: “What we suggest to you here is an envelope
for your electronic letters. Whether you use it, when, for
whom and how often is your decision alone. Software like
Gpg4win just gives you your freedom of choice back. The
choice, whether you think a message is important and worth
protecting or not. This is the core of the right
to privacy of letter, post and telecommunications
in the fundamental law and you can make use of this right
with the help of the Gpg4win software. You don't have to
use it – you don't have to use an envelope either. But it
is your perfectly good right.”
Well, it seems that nobody told the police and public prosecutor
that the right to privacy of letter, post and telecommunications
also exists in Austria.
|
