Image: (APA/GEORG HOCHMUTH)
This will take place coram publico, a motion by the defense to exclude the public was rejected. In addition to an accused BFA official who is said to have helped to obtain asylum for an alleged Syrian “torture general”, two ex-BAT chief inspectors had their say.
Involved in war crimes?
Said general is accused of war crimes by the NGO Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). As the head of a prison in Raqqa, he is said to have known about torture. The public prosecutor’s office in Vienna has been investigating the general for involvement in bodily harm and torture in this case for a long time. Regardless of this, the officer, who had first applied for asylum in France after fleeing Syria, was brought to Austria by the BVT in 2015 on the basis of a cooperation agreement with the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad. The implementation of this plan was the responsibility of two chief inspectors at the time.
“Executive Approved”
“The way I perceived it was that (the general, n.d.) was endangered there (in France, n.d.) and cannot stay there,” said one of the former BAT officials in his interview. Among several suggestions as to how this could be brought to Austria, the BVT considered obtaining asylum for him. Ultimately, the decision was made: “It was approved by the department head and by senior managers. I could assume that it wasn’t illegal. I could assume that my superiors would not give me any illegal orders.” The specific operation was approved by his department head – this, Martin W., was also accused in the Causa by the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA), but due to illness he is currently not able to stand trial. The case against the 60-year-old was dropped to avoid delays.
File note: “Package delivered”
The Syrian officer was brought to the Austrian border by the Mossad in mid-June 2015 – a secret memo says the “package” was “delivered”. The chief inspectors then took the man to Vienna, also with “blessings from above,” as they emphasized in court: “It was neither my job nor that of my colleague to do anything without the approval of the superiors.” When asked by the judge whether he knew anything about the general’s alleged war crimes, one of the two replied that neither the Israeli nor the French authorities had addressed this at a preliminary meeting in Paris: “And I’m not responsible for such research. ” Corresponding rumors first came to light in early 2016 at a meeting in the Ministry of Justice. “Pilnacek (the once powerful section head Christian Pilnacek, note) and God knows who” were present at this appointment.
No legal requirement for asylum
The presiding judge had previously questioned the man who was the only one of the four accused who was not part of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. As head of the OST initial reception center in Traiskirchen, he is said to have ensured at the instigation of one of the two BAT chief inspectors that the general of the Syrian state security received asylum despite the lack of the legal requirements.
Before the BVT chief inspector contacted him, he didn’t even know him, says the BFA official. To date, he has had nothing to do with the other two accused, another chief inspector and the former spy chief.
Two-month deadline passed
Specifically, at the instigation of the BVT official, the BFA official is said to have ensured that the general’s file “stays where it is”, i.e. the two-month period after his arrival in Austria expires and Austria thus becomes responsible for his asylum procedure. The BFA official himself pleaded “not guilty” to this and also stated that there was no “determination”, ie incitement by the BVT against him. It was clear to him that the general was a person in whom the BVT was interested, “but the case wasn’t really a big story for me”.
“A Double Edged Sword”
It is a “double-edged sword” whether you process a procedure quickly or just “leave something behind”. The latter also has advantages, for example when it comes to witness protection. In the general’s case, the BVT gave a “risk forecast” according to which he was exposed to a risk in France, explained the specialist in asylum and aliens’ law.
When assessing that the general was endangered in France, he “relyed entirely on the BVT and the police”. When asked by the judge whether he or one of his employees had not made their own investigations, he replied: “That would be excessive for me. We had 15-hour shifts for weeks at the time,” and therefore no capacity. Since the general “could have been endangered anywhere,” the interview in the initial reception center was held confidentially so that other asylum seekers could not see him.
The accused received the Federal Cross of Merit
The officer is still in charge of the initial reception center. “When I’m not in court, I continue to do my job, which by the way is not exactly fun,” he replied when asked if there had been any disciplinary measures against him. And further: “While I was listed as a suspect, I received the Federal Cross of Merit from the Federal President.”
The judge justified the decision to reject the application for exclusion of the public, neither would public safety be endangered by a process coram publico, nor would state secrets be published as a result. The judge emphasized that interstate relations are not endangered by a public discussion, since the content of the hearing has been reported in both national and international media in recent years. An important control and preventive function lies in the public nature of the negotiation. The outcome of the process would be devalued by excluding the public, she stressed. In certain cases, however, the accused could submit applications for the temporary exclusion of the public for certain parts of the hearing, according to the judge.
Source: Nachrichten
