The investigative committee of the Berlin House of Representatives into the terrorist attack on Breitscheidplatz sees serious failures by the security authorities. In addition to insufficient staffing, the committee also criticized the inadequate exchange of information, a wrong assessment of the later assassin Anis Amri and a careless handling of the ban proceedings against the Fussilet Mosque. This emerges from the 1235 thick final report of the committee of inquiry, which is available to the Tagesspiegel.
The report summarizes the findings from four years of research and was presented on Monday. The committee was constituted on July 14, 2017. 92 witnesses and experts heard the members in 64 meetings, several of them witnesses several times. They were long days, regularly on Fridays, on which the committee held its meetings at 10 a.m., often with an open end until late in the evening.
The investigative committee has to look retrospectively at the work of the investigative authorities before and after the attack on Breitscheidplatz on December 19, 2016, in which twelve people were murdered. In the report, however, he also described the improvements or changes that followed the attack. Example of the State Criminal Police Office in Berlin.
In 2015 and 2016, the LKA Berlin did not have sufficient staff. The LKA 5 – police state security – had more than 380 occupied positions, in 2017 there were 459 positions. Despite the excessive workload, the head of the department at the time, Axel B., was able to take on a part-time job on 36 days in 2016, the committee found. The LKA officer held lectures and seminars and also cut overtime. This fact appeared “remarkable” to the committee.
Insufficient staff – Amri observation canceled
LKA 6, the operational services, also had too few staff to observe Amri around the clock, as the public prosecutor had actually requested. But that alone is not enough to justify the government mishaps. Because the observation was simply canceled, Amri fell out of the sights of the Berlin security authorities. The committee found that the LKA Berlin was not set up “effectively enough” either. There was a lack of uniform standards for complete process documentation. In addition, there were errors when entering personal data.
[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Nachrichten live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
“It would have been the task of the management level to check whether the specifications regarding the documentation of the processing by the clerks are being observed,” the committee notes. This applies in particular to Axel B., Jutta Porzucek, the head of the police department at the time, and the head of the LKA, Christian Steiof. Porzucek, which was controversial within the authorities because of the breakdowns, today heads Directorate 1 in Pankow and Reinickendorf.
Counter-Terrorism Center: Comprehensive information not secured
The Committee criticizes the inadequate exchange of information within the security authorities and between security and judicial authorities. And even at meetings in the joint counter-terrorism center, in which Anis Amri played a role, it was not certain “whether the participants in the meetings were actually fully informed about all relevant findings,” the committee notes.
The committee recognizes a “serious mistake” in the “lack of pressure” in the ban proceedings against the Salafist mosque association “Fussilet 33 eV”, which was only banned in February 2017. Former Interior Senator Frank Henkel (CDU) was politically responsible for this. Andreas Geisel (SPD) was not appointed Senator for the Interior until December 8, 2016 after the election. Amri and other known threats went in and out of the mosque.
Central mistake: LKA misjudgment on Amri
The committee sees one of the central mistakes in the Amri case, however, in the LKA’s misjudgment with regard to Amri: someone who deals in drugs cannot at the same time radicalize himself in the Salafist milieu. In contrast to the clerks at LKA 5, the Islamic scholar working at the LKA was very well aware that this constellation was really not uncommon.
[Sicherheit vor der eigenen Haustür: In unseren Leute-Newslettern aus den zwölf Berliner Bezirken geht es auch oft um Kriminalität und Polizei.]
Order now for free
Only: There was no regular exchange between the authorities’ employees. And according to the committee, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution remained far too passive. Although he dealt with Amri repeatedly, the VS did not take any operational measures against Amri. It was “incomprehensible” that Amri was dismissed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a pure police case, according to the committee.
Chairman: “We have not found a single culprit”
“We have not found a single culprit,” said committee chairman Stephan Lenz (CDU) on Monday about the work of the security authorities. “But we found numerous errors. The sum of these mistakes made the attack possible and favored it. ”Therefore, Amri was not stopped. Lenz explained the central mistake: the misjudgment of the future bomber’s development. In addition, there were too few staff, no good exchange of information between the authorities, poor risk management in Berlin from 2014 to 2016. The protection of the constitution was also too passive. Amri could also have been transferred to the area of responsibility of the Federal Criminal Police Office.
Lenz emphasized that this was not a plea for centralizing everything. The process of banning the Fussilet Mosque was carried out too slowly. And the interaction between the General Prosecutor’s Office and the investigative authorities could also have been better. The care of the victims after the attack was also unsatisfactory.
Lenz emphasized that the protection of victims has been much better regulated since the attack. What is still necessary: The Islamic studies expertise of the authorities must be improved, and the security authorities must be more closely involved.
1500 files plus several terabytes of digital files
The committee chairman said the report was adopted “unanimously” by the political groups. “We were aware that we have a great responsibility towards the victims and the public.” The attack was an “attack on our society”. “The task was to work out individual errors and identify structural weak points,” said Lenz about the work of the committee.
The CDU politician said that 1500 files plus several terabytes of digital files were available to the committee in a data room. However, there was a “problem area of confidential documents”, he said, alluding to conflicts with the authorities, who did not want to release all information.
The BKA, for example, had “big problems” making documents available to the committee. For example, the former special investigator Bruno Jost viewed the documents for the committee. The committee had also successfully sued the Federal Ministry of the Interior not to blacken large parts of files, but to make text passages legible in context.
Left criticism: sticking to the “single perpetrator thesis”
In addition to the Greens, who had already presented their special vote, the Left, FDP and AfD gave special votes. Die Linke criticizes the fact that the authorities stuck to the “single perpetrator thesis” and that they “showed little interest from the authorities in the network that made the crime possible”. There was also an unclear distribution of tasks between the state and the federal government.
The FDP also focused on a possible deportation of Amri: There was “a lot of room for maneuver” that Amri could have been deported quickly. Too little pressure had also been exerted on Tunisia as the country of origin. The FDP also calls for “uncomplicated bureaucratic structures” in Berlin to help victims and those affected. And a clear result whether Amri carried out the act alone could not be determined. However, Federal Prosecutor Salzmannn testified that there was no evidence of direct accomplices.
The AfD criticizes the administrative assistance requested from the Federal Armed Forces by the State Office for Health and Social Affairs in 2015/2016 in order to cope with the wave of refugees. There was no legal basis for this.
Left: Authorities have insufficiently exhausted their powers
The SPD domestic politician Frank Zimmermann (SPD) said at the presentation of the report that the structural problems in the federal and state governments had “essentially” been improved after the attack. Since 2017 there has been faster data transmission between the authorities. The state criminal police offices have a new analysis tool to integrate scientific findings into investigations. In the meantime, several proceedings that concern the same threat are brought together. And the staff in the Berlin LKA has been increased significantly. There is also a higher level of commitment in the GTAZ. “If the federal government had taken responsibility for Amri, it would have been better,” said Zimmermann.
Left-wing politician Niklas Schrader emphasized that the report was “not a discharge report from the authorities”. Nevertheless, a special opinion was drawn up with a central statement: “The security authorities have insufficiently exhausted a whole range of powers.” Telegram chats were also not evaluated. And the prosecution did not ask why the observation of Amri was stopped. Likewise, no or insufficient investigation was carried out against Amri’s contact persons.
The “early warning system” of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which the left is already critical of, did not work, explained Schrader. The witnesses for the protection of the constitution “did not look good” because they withheld a lot in their statements with reference to the protection of sources. Schrader emphasized that there were still many unanswered questions, such as the “single perpetrator thesis”, which could not be upheld without further ado.
Greens: Breakdowns cannot be ruled out in the future either
Green politician Benedikt Lux emphasized that 300 amendments by the Greens had been included in the report. Despite considerable improvements in the security authorities, however, it cannot be ruled out that such mishaps will happen again.
He called for an authority culture that is sensitive to pointing out mistakes. The cooperation with security authorities, as organized by the committee, is “wrong”. Parliament had to be more self-confident in such a committee of inquiry. One waited far too long for the requested documents. Lux demanded a corresponding state treaty, according to which the requested documents must be handed over to the parliaments within a specified period.
The FDP MP Stefan Förster also called for the rights of the investigative committee to be strengthened. “Sometimes you had the feeling that the authorities were controlling the committee and not the other way around,” said Förster. The victims would also have to be better cared for in the future.
The victim’s representative, Astrid Passin, said there was a “will to clarify”. But the immigration authorities did not use their instruments at the time to deport Amri and others. She is not sure whether there wasn’t a second person in the truck cab besides Amri. In terms of victim support, a lot has already been initiated. Nevertheless, there is still some catching up to do.
