Police Repression against Animal Protection in Austria:
A Summary
House searches, arrests, seizure
confiscation
House searches, arrests, confiscations - May, 21st 2008,
at six o’ clock in the morning: 23 flats and houses were
stormed by special units of the Austrian police opening
doors violently, waking sleeping people and threatening
them with firearms. A man had to wait handcuffed in his
underwear in front of his flat and his neighbours for two
hours. But more than ‘just’ that: the Klagenfurt court has
explained in decision 7B18/08g that a house search requires
concrete suspicion of illegal behaviour. The search must
also be restricted to objects which are important for immediate
clarification of that accusation. The search warrant also
needs to name the wanted object, so that occupants of the
house have the chance to give them up wanted objects voluntarily.
In this case (on May 21st) there was no connection between
the criminal offence and the accused persons. The accused
were not told what objects were wanted, and none of the
affected persons were given the opportunity to give the
wanted objects up to the police. Most people did not even
get the opportunity to phone a legal adviser. First, mobile
phones were conficsated so that nobody could make calls.
These illegal search methods were used at the office of
the Verein Gegen Tierfabriken (VGT) and the storehouse in
which information about animal abuse was kept. The office
of the VGT, which was not accused of anything in the official
accusation, was thoroughly searched. Many computers, photos
and video materials were seized, bringing the entire VGT
to a standstill while collected material from ten years
of work were taken away. The same search methods were used
at three other animal protection locations, organisations
which have been hugely successful over the years in prohibiting
hen-laying batteries, fur-bearing animal keeping, wild animals
in circuses, and keeping rabbits in cages, etc. The organisations
worked democraticly and without any violence, but were awkward
for politicians.
Suspicious people
Ten people are imprisoned, although there’s no concrete
accusation against them. These people are from different
Animal Protection Organisations. In the examinations they
were told it would help them if they said things against
the other prisoners and against animal protectionists. The
prisoners received imprisonment on remand, nine in Wr. Neustadt.
Immediately there were solidarity demonstrations in front
of the prison. Detainees were not allowed to wash, one was
neither allowed to shower for a whole week nor change his
clothes. A non-smoker was confined to the same cell as a
chain smoker. Prisoners were moved to separate prisons without
informing defence lawyers (suspicion of complicity). Two
prisoners were moved to Eisenstadt, four to Wien-Josefstadt
and one person came from Tirol to Wr. Neustadt.
Accusation according to § 278a StGB
Because there are no concrete accusations § 278a StGB has
been used in order to hold people on remand, wherein detainees
are assumed to be members of a criminal organisation. To
quote from Green MP Brigid Weinzinger’s May 26th, 2008 media
broadcast; “This passage of criminal law is geared to Mafia
and similar organisations.” The Office of Public Prosecutor
however, does not have any documents which prove the existence
of a criminal organisation. This so-called ‘criminal organisation’
is suspected of damage to property, such as the burning
down of an empty hen-hall in 2000 and throwing of a stink
bomb, exaggerated as a gas attack by the authorities. There’s
no proof of planned criminal offences, or anything similar.
There’s no proof any prisoner committed the named criminal
offense. It was only after 17 days imprisonment that three
of the prisoners received any type of concrete accusation,
specifically that they had threatened a fashion store press
officer by hindering her from driving away. Fingerprints
were found on the car, as written in the act.
In response, the police felt compelled to threaten people
as part of the May 21st: house-search and violently battering
down doors to wake sleeping people with armed hooded men.
Bugging Operation
The Office of Public Prosecutor declares there have been
police investigations against animal protectionists for
years. For about a year, telephone calls from ‘suspicious
persons’ have been bugged, e-mails cited, and location observations
carried out, but until today the Office of Public Prosecutors
has provided no justification for these actions. They’ve
found nothing beyond theoretical discussions in closed internet
forums. The response is to accuse people giving time and
energy to the weakest members of our society with criminal
offences they’ve never committed. Paragraph 278a can only
be used if at least ten people have built an organisation
– and exactly ten people were arrested even though these
people barely stay in contact or do not even know each other.
This is a fact the police are aware of because of intensive
observation. Why then do police act in this way? Because
they can discredit animal protection organisations by labelling
them ‘criminal organisations’?
Hunger strike
Seven prisoners went on hunger strike because there are
no concrete accusations against them. As of today (June
17th, 2008) DDr. Martin Balluch still refuses food. Since
June 16th he has been force-fed against his will. He demands
to be charged or immediately released. The threat that his
body will suffer permanent damage is rising every day, especially
his brain, his kidneys and his lever are at risk.
DNS sample taken by force
Although the taking of a DNS sample by force is, as written
in StOP in connection with § 278a, not allowed, the DNS
of two inprisoners was taken against their will using force.
One detainee was held brutally by police officers in order
to obtain the sample.
Abuse of power
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.
Other reports of human rights abuse will follow. The period
of remand is being justified because of the danger of collusion.
However, at the remand hearing the custodial judge offered
to free one prisoner if he gave her the password for the
encrypted computer.
Holding back of confiscated
objects
Flats of people not accused of anything were also searched.
They took all mobile phones, computers etc. and did not
give them back, even after they were asked many times. The
leading public prosecutor from Wr. Neustadt emphasizes always
that the Verein Gegen Tierfabriken (VGT) is not accused
in any way and that he does not want to impede their work.
But even after saying this the VGT did not get back the
confiscated material (Date June, 9th 2008)
Statement from Amnesty
International
The human rights organisation Amnesty International is
also trying to help the imprisoned animal protectionists.
In a two page statement the organisation describes a string
of abuses of the Austrian criminal law. Amnesty International
emphasizes, once again, that political and social activism
as a freedom of expression is a protected human right. The
statement criticises the use of sec 278a of the criminal
code being used against political activists noting “It seems
inadequate to postulate a group involved in organised crime
from a situation where a number of demonstrators arrange
to resist state authority”.
Amnesty International pointed out that well known environmental
organisations such as Greenpeace, for example, that might
engage in actions such as occupying an atomic power plant
could be said to have committed an offence under this law
in doing so, and that as a consequence those who donate
to their organisation could be charged with financing terrorism
under criminal law. It is also pointed out that the term
‘organised crime’ is characterised by the intent to enrich
oneself and refers to the gravest crimes. The intention
to maximize profits is characteristic in these cases, such
as trafficking and smuggling drugs, weapons and stolen art
works, procuring prostitutes and trafficking in human beings.
The appropriateness of the house searches also came under
criticism, in particular the reports that those held in
custody were refused their right to contact a lawyer or
next of kin. Amnesty International is concerned about, and
has strongly criticised, the claim from Public Prosecutor
that no allegations are aimed at organisations, whilst searches
of offices rendered many organisations unable to function
due to seized technology, equipment and data.
|
 |
