[ad_1]
Berlin / Dusseldorf (dpa) – For years, the authorities discuss the deportation of an Islamist. Then suddenly everything goes very fast, and the man finds himself again in Tunisia. The most important questions about the case at a glance:
What did the Federal Government know?
Leaders including Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) already knew Wednesday deportation plans for Friday. However, it would not have been possible to predict with certainty if the robbery would occur because "the power of decision belongs to the country North Rhine-Westphalia," said a spokeswoman for the Federal Ministry of the Interior . More dates for the flight were in the room. The federal police had already informed NRW Monday of the deportation scheduled for Friday according to NRW. And not just the NRW government was in the picture: "The Foreign Office received on Monday, 09.07., A message on an eviction flight scheduled for 13.07 in Tunis," he told the Ministry of Business. Foreign.
Why was the plane not stopped with Sami A.?
Authorities did not initially respond. The court banned an eviction the day before (Thursday). At 8:10 Friday morning, the Bamf was informed by the court by fax. At that time, the plane was still in the air with Sami A., according to federal police. Only at 9:14 German time, it has been handed over to the Tunisian authorities. However, the Federal Police did not take notice of the decision of the Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen before 10 am "via the online media".
What is the danger of Sami A.?
The investigation of the Federal Prosecutor's Office against the alleged al-Qaida leader's alleged body guard, Osama bin Laden, was established in 2007. But Sami A. was since then a so-called threat to the security authorities. According to the NRW Ministry of the Interior, he was not allowed to leave his place of residence in Bochum and had to report daily to the police.
An endangered person is a person who, by definition, "justifies certain facts that she will commit politically motivated crimes of significant significance". However, this definition is not legally binding. This is only an badessment by the security authorities.
Was it necessary for the deportation
of Tunisia that Sami A. not be tortured when he was fired?
The judiciary and politics are fighting over this. According to the Ministry of Refugees of North Rhine-Westphalia, such diplomatic badurances do not constitute a legal obligation to expel. In principle, however, the federal government was responsible for obtaining diplomatic notes, if they were necessary. The Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen, meanwhile, insists on the binding badurance of the Tunisian government that Sami A. is not threatened with torture at his home. This is not present.
In this case, the authorities would have estimated that such insurance was not necessary, said Monday a spokeswoman for the Federal Ministry of the Interior – also because the Federal Constitutional Court recently in the case of Tunisians Haikel S. authorized the deportation. The judges in Karlsruhe had seen in the case of the terrorist suspect S. no danger that threatened him with the death penalty.
Source link
