Magnus Gäfgen

Case identification

Magnus Gäfgen (born April 11, 1975 in Frankfurt am Main) was a German child murderer.

Timeline

• 27 September 2002 — Magnus Gäfgen lured Jakob von Metzler, aged eleven, into his flat in Frankfurt am Main by pretending the child’s sister had left a jacket there, then suffocated him.
• 27 September 2002 — Gäfgen deposited a letter at Jakob von Metzler’s parents’ place of residence stating that Jakob von Metzler had been kidnapped by several persons and that only if the kidnappers received one million euros and managed to leave the country would the parents see their son again.
• 27 September 2002 — Gäfgen drove to a pond at a private property near Birstein and hid Jakob von Metzler’s corpse under a jetty at the pond.
• 30 September 2002 — Around 1 a.m., Gäfgen picked up the ransom at a tram station.
• 30 September 2002 — Gäfgen was secretly observed by the police from the time he picked up the ransom.
• 30 September 2002 — Gäfgen paid part of the ransom into his accounts and hid the remainder in his flat.
• 30 September 2002 — That afternoon, the police arrested Gäfgen at Frankfurt am Main airport.
• 1 October 2002 — In the early morning, detective officer E., acting on the orders of the deputy chief of the Frankfurt police, D., threatened Gäfgen with physical violence causing considerable pain if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts.
• 1 October 2002 — For fear of being exposed to the measures he was threatened with, Gäfgen disclosed the precise whereabouts of the child after approximately ten minutes of questioning.
• 1 October 2002 — Gäfgen was driven with detective officer M. and numerous other police officers to Birstein without detective officer E. present any longer; the police found the child’s corpse under the jetty at the pond near Birstein and recorded the discovery on videotape.
• 2 October 2002 — An autopsy was carried out on the child’s corpse; the child had died of suffocation.
• 4 October 2002 — Gäfgen maintained his confession when questioned by the police.
• 4 October 2002 — Gäfgen maintained his confession when questioned by a public prosecutor.
• 14 October 2002 — Gäfgen maintained his confession when questioned by a public prosecutor.
• 17 October 2002 — Gäfgen maintained his confession when questioned by a public prosecutor.
• 30 January 2003 — Gäfgen maintained his confession when questioned by a district court judge.
• 9 April 2003 — On the first day of the hearing, Gäfgen lodged an application for the proceedings to be discontinued.
• 9 April 2003 — The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court dismissed Gäfgen’s application for the criminal proceedings against him to be discontinued.
• 9 April 2003 — In a separate decision on 9 April 2003, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court decided that confessions and statements made before the police, a public prosecutor and a district court judge could not be used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him.
• 28 July 2003 — The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court convicted Gäfgen, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and declared that his guilt was of particular gravity.
• 29 July 2003 — Gäfgen lodged an appeal on points of law with the Federal Court of Justice.
• 1 December 2003 — Gäfgen lodged the grounds of appeal on points of law.
• 21 May 2004 — The Federal Court of Justice dismissed Gäfgen’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded.
• 23 June 2004 — Gäfgen lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
• 14 December 2004 — The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept Gäfgen’s constitutional complaint for examination as it was inadmissible.
• 20 December 2004 — The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court convicted detective officer E. of coercion committed by an official in the course of his duties; it cautioned E. and imposed a suspended fine amounting to 60 daily payments of 60 euros.
• 20 December 2004 — The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court convicted the deputy chief of the Frankfurt police, D., of having incited E. to commit coercion; it cautioned D. and imposed a suspended fine amounting to 90 daily payments of EUR 120.
• 22 December 2004 — The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court was served on Gäfgen’s lawyer.
• 28 December 2005 — Gäfgen applied for legal aid with a view to bringing official liability proceedings against the Land of Hesse for the payment of compensation.
• 27 March 2006 — The Frankfurt am Main Police Headquarters contested Gäfgen’s application for legal aid.
• 28 August 2006 — The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court dismissed Gäfgen’s application for legal aid.
• 28 February 2007 — The Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the refusal to grant legal aid.
• 19 January 2008 — The Federal Constitutional Court allowed a constitutional complaint by Gäfgen, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, and remitted the case to that court.
• 30 June 2008 — The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Gäfgen v. Germany (30 June 2008).

Background

Magnus Gäfgen was born in 1975 and studied law at the Goethe University in 1996. He was currently detained in Schwalmstadt.

The offence

Jakob von Metzler was the youngest son of a renowned banking family in Frankfurt am Main. He got to know Magnus Gäfgen, a law student, as an acquaintance of his sister.

On 27 September 2002, Magnus Gäfgen lured Jakob von Metzler, aged eleven, into his flat in Frankfurt am Main by pretending that Jakob von Metzler’s sister had left a jacket there. Gäfgen then suffocated Jakob von Metzler.

Afterwards, Gäfgen deposited a letter at Jakob von Metzler’s parents’ place of residence stating that Jakob von Metzler had been kidnapped by several persons. The letter stated that only if the kidnappers received one million euros and managed to leave the country would the child’s parents see their son again.

Gäfgen demanded one million euro in ransom from the Metzler family.

Magnus Gäfgen hid Jakob von Metzler’s corpse under a jetty at a pond at a private property near Birstein, one hour’s drive from Frankfurt.

On 28 July 2003, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court convicted Gäfgen, inter alia, of murder and kidnapping with extortion causing the death of the victim.

Investigation

The police observed that tyre tracks were left by Gäfgen’s car at the pond near Birstein.

Gäfgen was secretly observed by the police from the time he picked up the ransom.

The police secured J.’s school exercise books, a backpack, clothes worn by J. when he was kidnapped, and the typewriter used for the blackmail letter in containers indicated by the applicant on the way back to Frankfurt am Main. The police further found almost all the ransom money and a note concerning the planning of the crime in Gäfgen’s flat.

An autopsy carried out on Jakob von Metzler’s corpse on 2 October 2002 found that the boy died of suffocation.

Arrest

On 30 September 2002 around 1 a.m., Magnus Gäfgen picked up the ransom at a tram station.

That afternoon, the police arrested him at Frankfurt am Main airport.

After having seen a doctor at the airport’s hospital on account of circulation trouble and skin lesions, Gäfgen was taken to the Frankfurt am Main Police Headquarters.

Detective officer M. informed Gäfgen that he was suspected of having kidnapped Jakob von Metzler and instructed him about his rights as a defendant, notably the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.

Gäfgen suggested that the child was being held by another kidnapper.

Gäfgen was allowed to consult a lawyer, Z., for thirty minutes at his request.

Gäfgen subsequently stated that F.R. and M.R. had kidnapped the boy and had hidden him in a hut by a lake, and M. and Gäfgen agreed to resume questioning the following morning.

Interrogation and confession

Early in the morning of 1 October 2002, before detective officer M. came to work, detective officer E., acting on the orders of deputy chief D., told Gäfgen that he would suffer considerable pain at the hands of a person specially trained for such purposes if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts.

Gäfgen stated that the officer further threatened to lock him into a cell with two huge black people who would sexually abuse him, and that the officer hit him once on the chest with his hand and shook him so that his head hit the wall on one occasion. The Government disputed that Gäfgen had been threatened with sexual abuse.

For fear of being exposed to the measures he was threatened with, Gäfgen disclosed the precise whereabouts of the child after approximately ten minutes of questioning.

As Gäfgen declared that he would only agree to go to the place where he had hidden the child in the presence of detective officer M., he was driven with M. being present any longer. The police found the child’s corpse under the jetty at the pond as indicated by Gäfgen, and recorded the discovery of the corpse on videotape.

On the way back from Birstein to the police station, the police detected tyre tracks left by Gäfgen’s car at the pond near Birstein. When questioned by detective officer M., Gäfgen confessed to having kidnapped and killed Jakob von Metzler.

Gäfgen consulted his lawyer En., who had been instructed by his mother and had tried in vain to contact and advise Gäfgen in the morning at the police station.

In a note for the police file dated 1 October 2002, deputy chief D. stated that he ordered the questioning by detective officer E. under the threat of pain which would not cause any injuries in order to save the child’s life. D. also stated that he ordered another police officer to obtain a “truth serum” to be administered to Gäfgen, and that the applicant’s questioning was exclusively aimed at saving the child’s life rather than furthering the criminal proceedings concerning the kidnapping. D. stated that as Gäfgen had already made a confession after having been threatened with pain by detective officer E., no measures had been carried out.

Trial

Proceedings in the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court

On 9 April 2003, on the first day of the hearing, Gäfgen, represented by counsel, lodged an application for the proceedings to be discontinued. He claimed that he had been threatened by detective officer E. on instructions from deputy chief D. with being subjected to severe pain and sexual abuse, and he argued that his treatment was in breach of Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 3 of the Convention and warranted discontinuation.

Gäfgen further lodged an application for a declaration that owing to the continuous effect (Fortwirkung) of the threat of violence on 1 October 2002, all further statements made to the investigation authorities until the beginning of the hearing could not be relied upon. He sought a declaration that because of the violation of Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the use in the criminal proceedings of all items of evidence, such as the child’s corpse, which became known as a result of the statements extracted from him—“fruit of the poisonous tree”—was prohibited (“Fernwirkung”).

On 9 April 2003, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court dismissed the application for the proceedings to be discontinued. It found that Gäfgen had been threatened with considerable pain if he refused to disclose the victim’s whereabouts, but it did not find it established that he had been threatened with sexual abuse or had been otherwise influenced. The court found that the mere threat to cause pain was illegal pursuant to Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and also pursuant to Article 1 and Article 104 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law and Article 3 of the Convention.

The court stated that the breach of constitutional rights did not bar criminal proceedings as such. Under Article 136a § 3 of the Code, statements obtained through use of prohibited interrogation methods could not be relied upon in the criminal proceedings. The court found that the rights of the defence were not restricted to such an extent that the criminal proceedings could no longer be conducted. The court stated that no exceptional and intolerable violation of the rule of law existed that would bar continuation, having regard to the seriousness of the charges and the severity of unlawful conduct in the investigation.

In a separate decision also delivered on 9 April 2003, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court granted Gäfgen’s application and decided that in accordance with Article 136a § 3, second sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all confessions and statements made by Gäfgen before the police, a public prosecutor and a district court judge could not be used as evidence in the criminal proceedings.

The court found that on 1 October 2002 detective officer E. had used prohibited methods of interrogation by threatening that Gäfgen would suffer pain if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts, and thus it was prohibited to use as evidence statements made as a consequence of the forbidden investigative measure. The exclusion did not only cover statements immediately after the threat on 1 October 2002; owing to the continuous effect (Fortwirkung) of the violation of Article 136a, all further statements Gäfgen made to investigation authorities since then could not be relied upon in criminal proceedings.

The court stated that the procedural irregularity could only have been remedied if Gäfgen had been informed before subsequent questioning that earlier statements, made as a consequence of prohibited investigation methods, could not be used as evidence. The court stated that Gäfgen had only been instructed about his right as an accused not to testify, without being informed about exclusion of evidence improperly obtained, and therefore had not been given the necessary “qualified instruction” (qualifizierte Belehrung) until then.

The Regional Court dismissed Gäfgen’s application for a declaration that, due to the violation of Article 136a, use in the proceedings of all items of evidence such as the corpse that had become known to the investigation authorities because of statements extracted from him (“Fernwirkung”) was prohibited. The court stated:

“On the contrary, there is no long-range effect of the breach of Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure meaning that the items of evidence which have become known as a result of the statement may likewise not be used [as evidence]. The Chamber agrees in this respect with the conciliatory view ( Mittelmeinung ) taken by scholars and in court rulings ... according to which a balancing [of interests] in the particular circumstances of the case had to be carried out, taking into account, in particular, whether there had been a flagrant violation of the legal order, notably of provisions on fundamental rights, and according to which the seriousness of the offence investigated also had to be considered. Balancing the severity of the interference with the defendant’s fundamental rights – in the present case the threat of physical violence – and the seriousness of the offence he was charged with and which had to be investigated – the completed murder of a child – makes the exclusion of evidence which has become known as a result of the defendant’s statement – in particular the discovery of the dead child and the results of the autopsy – appear disproportionate.”

Regional Court judgment

In his statement on the charges made on the second day of the trial, Gäfgen admitted having killed Jakob von Metzler but stated that he had not initially planned to do so. In his final statement at the close of the trial, after evidence had been taken between 9 April and 28 July 2003, he admitted he had planned from the outset to kill the child and had acted with that intent.

He described his confession as “the only way to accept his deep guilt” and as the “greatest possible apology for the murder of the child”.

It sentenced him to life imprisonment and declared his guilt was of particular gravity (besondere Schwere der Schuld).

The court found that at the hearing the applicant had been instructed anew about his right as a defendant to remain silent and about the fact that all earlier statements could not be used as evidence against him, and that he had thereby been given the necessary qualified instruction. It stated that Gäfgen had nevertheless confessed again that he had kidnapped and killed Jakob von Metzler.

The court found that Gäfgen’s statements at trial concerning the planning of his offence formed the essential, if not the only, basis for its findings of fact. It stated that these statements were supported by the testimony of Jakob von Metzler’s sister, the blackmail letter, and the note concerning the planning of the crime found in Gäfgen’s flat.

The court stated that the findings concerning the execution of the crime were exclusively based on Gäfgen’s confession at trial. It stated that further items of evidence showed he had also told the truth about the execution, including the findings of the autopsy on the cause of the child’s death, tyre tracks left by Gäfgen’s car near the pond where the corpse was found, and the discovery of money from the ransom found in his flat or paid into his accounts.

In assessing the gravity of Gäfgen’s guilt, the court observed that he had killed his eleven-year-old victim in order to live in luxury with his wealthy friends and his girlfriend and to preserve his self-created image of a rich and successful young lawyer.

The court stated that, contrary to views expressed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private accessory prosecutors, Gäfgen’s volunteering a full confession at trial was a mitigating factor, but it stated that even without his confession he would have been found guilty. It stated that Gäfgen had been under police surveillance after collecting the ransom, which later was found in his flat or paid into his accounts. It also stated that the autopsy proved the boy had been suffocated and that tyre tracks left by Gäfgen’s car had been detected at the place where the body was found.

The court observed that prohibited interrogation methods under Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been employed, inasmuch as Gäfgen had been threatened with pain to make him disclose the child’s whereabouts. It stated that whether and to what extent detective officer E. and deputy chief D. were guilty of an offence because of the threats had to be determined in pending criminal investigations. It stated that their possibly illegal acts did not mitigate Gäfgen’s own guilt and that misconduct of police officers belonging to the executive power could not prevent the judiciary from assessing findings of fact according to law.

Federal Court of Justice

On 29 July 2003, Gäfgen lodged an appeal on points of law with the Federal Court of Justice. On 1 December 2003 he submitted grounds of appeal.

He complained that the Regional Court had refused to discontinue the criminal proceedings. He argued that on 9 April 2003 he had lodged an application for proceedings to be discontinued and also for a declaration that because of continuous effect (Fortwirkung) of the threat on 1 October 2002, further statements could not be relied upon. He also sought a declaration that because the confession had been obtained by threats, the use of all evidence, such as the child’s corpse, became prohibited under “Fernwirkung”.

He submitted full copies of his 9 April 2003 applications, including grounds, in his submissions giving reasons for the appeal. He further argued that the police’s threats had “leapt beyond” exclusion of evidence and led to an impediment to proceedings (“dass ein derartiges Verhalten das Verwertungsverbot ‘überspringt’ und ein Verfahrenshindernis begründet”).

On 9 March 2004, the Federal Public Prosecutor argued that the appeal on points of law should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. On 21 May 2004, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law as ill-founded without giving further reasons.

Federal Constitutional Court

On 23 June 2004, Gäfgen lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He complained under Article 1 § 1 and Article 104 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law about how police questioned him on the morning of 1 October 2002. He argued that the treatment amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention and infringed Article 104 § 1 of the Basic Law. He also argued it violated an absolute right to human dignity under Article 1 of the Basic Law.

He argued that because of unjustifiable human-rights violations, there was a bar to criminal proceedings and a prohibition on using evidence obtained as a consequence of the confession extracted from him.

On 14 December 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the complaint for examination as it was inadmissible.

For the complaint regarding failure to discontinue proceedings, the court found that Gäfgen had not sufficiently substantiated his complaint. It observed that the Regional Court had already stated that police threats to inflict pain had violated Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 3 of the Convention and thereby disregarded Gäfgen’s rights under Article 1 § 1 and Article 104 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law in investigation proceedings.

The Federal Constitutional Court stated that violation of fundamental rights outside the trial did not necessarily warrant the conclusion that the criminal court judgment breached constitutional law. It stated that the criminal courts differed as to legal conclusions drawn from the finding and that they took the view that use as evidence was prohibited but that there was no bar to proceedings.

It stated that there would not have been a fundamental-rights violation if the procedural flaw could be considered remedied because the criminal courts prohibited use as evidence of statements obtained. It stated that circumstances in which substantial procedural irregularities might entail a bar to proceedings were not laid down in law, and that Gäfgen had failed to explain why methods of investigation would have entailed not only a prohibition on use of statements but also a bar.

For the complaint about exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the confession extorted by threats (“Fernwirkung”), the Federal Constitutional Court found it inadmissible because Gäfgen had failed to raise the issue in proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice.

The decision was served on Gäfgen’s lawyer on 22 December 2004.

Sentencing

On 28 July 2003, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court sentenced Magnus Gäfgen to life imprisonment for murder and kidnapping with extortion causing the death of the victim. The court declared his guilt was of particular gravity (besondere Schwere der Schuld).

The court’s declaration of grave level of guilt (besondere Schwere der Schuld) meant that Gäfgen was not eligible for early release after 15 years, as is otherwise usual for life prisoners.

Appeals

Gäfgen’s appeal to the Federal Court of Justice was rejected on 21 May 2004.

Gäfgen’s constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court was refused for examination as inadmissible on 14 December 2004.

Outcome

European Court of Human Rights proceedings

The European Court of Human Rights considered an application lodged by Magnus Gäfgen against Germany under Article 34 of the Convention.

The application was lodged on 15 June 2005 and was granted legal aid. The applicant alleged torture prohibited by Article 3 during questioning by the police on 1 October 2002 and also alleged a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 because evidence secured only as a result of a confession extracted from him was used at his criminal trial.

By a decision of 10 April 2007, the Court declared the application partly admissible.

On 30 June 2008, the Court delivered its judgment at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.

The Court decided:

• that it was not necessary to rule on the Government’s preliminary objections;
• that the applicant may no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
• that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

Done in English and French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 30 June 2008.

Article 3 finding

The Government conceded that Article 3 had been violated during questioning by detective officer E. on 1 October 2002, and the Court held that in the course of that questioning the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3.

However, the Court held that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim because domestic authorities acknowledged the breach and afforded sufficient redress.

Article 6 finding

The Court found no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3.

The Court reasoned that the first confession made when questioned by E. on 1 October 2002 was extracted by inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3. It also noted that domestic courts excluded statements made before trial from use at trial under Article 136a § 3.

The Court distinguished between confessions excluded at trial and items of real evidence recovered as the “fruit of” statements, and it found that in the particular circumstances the impugned items were only accessory in securing conviction and that defence rights were not compromised as a result of their admission.

Dissenting opinion

A dissenting opinion by Judge Kalaydjieva was annexed.

The dissenting opinion said:

“To my regret, I am unable to join the majority’s conclusions concerning the applicant’s status as a victim of coercion and the fairness of the criminal proceedings.”

It also said:

“Where evidence obtained by coercion has been used, a finding that the applicant has lost his victim status merely as a result of the prosecution of the officers responsible may be interpreted as legitimising coercion as a method of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings.”

And further stated:

“Given the insufficient protection of his right not to incriminate himself, in my view he continued to be a victim of coercion, which affected the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.”

Other proceedings after the criminal trial

Criminal proceedings against the police officers

On 20 December 2004, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court convicted detective officer E. of coercion committed by an official in the course of his duties.

The court cautioned E. and imposed a suspended fine amounting to 60 daily payments of 60 euros, payable if he committed another offence during the probation period.

On 20 December 2004, the Regional Court also convicted the deputy chief of the Frankfurt police, D., of having incited E., a subordinate, to commit coercion.

The court cautioned D. and imposed on him a suspended fine amounting to 90 daily payments of EUR 120.

The court found that on the morning of 1 October 2002 D. ordered that Gäfgen be questioned while being subjected to pain in the manner set out in D.’s subsequent note for the police file, against the advice of subordinate heads of department entrusted with investigating the kidnapping of Jakob von Metzler.

The court found that the heads of department disapproved the measure and proposed an approach involving further questioning and confrontation of the applicant with third persons.

It found that D. personally ordered E. to threaten Gäfgen with physical violence to be carried out by another specially trained police officer, with the measure aimed at finding out immediately where Gäfgen had hidden the child, whose life D. considered to be at great risk.

The court found that E. threatened Gäfgen in the manner ordered by D.

The Regional Court observed that the method had not been justified as an act of necessity because it violated human dignity under Article 1 of the Basic Law. It stated that respect for human dignity lay at the heart of Article 104 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law and Article 3 of the Convention, and it stated that protection of human dignity was absolute.

In determining sentences, the court took into consideration that defendants’ sole concern had been to save the child’s life, that they had been under extreme pressure due to their responsibilities vis-à-vis superior authority and public, and that they had been exhausted and acted in a tense and hectic situation. It stated that D. had taken responsibility by admitting and explaining the acts in a note for the police file on the same day.

It also considered that proceedings lasted a long time and attracted immense media attention, and that both defendants suffered prejudice in their professional careers: D. had been transferred to the Hessian Ministry of the Interior, and E. had been prohibited from carrying out measures relevant to prosecution of criminal offences.

The court stated it was the first time that a conflict situation like the defendants’ case had been assessed by a German criminal court.

The judgment became final on 20 December 2004.

D. was subsequently transferred to the Police Headquarters for Technology, Logistics and Administration and appointed its chief.

Gäfgen gave evidence as a witness in these proceedings.

Official liability proceedings for compensation

On 28 December 2005, Gäfgen applied to the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court for legal aid to bring official liability proceedings against the Land of Hesse for payment of compensation.

He claimed that he had been traumatised by police investigation methods applied against him, including the threat of being subjected to pain if he did not disclose Jakob von Metzler’s whereabouts, further threats of sexual abuse and slaps, and that he was in need of psychological treatment.

On 27 March 2006, the Frankfurt am Main Police Headquarters contested that E.’s conduct when questioning him in the morning of 1 October 2002 was legally qualified as coercion and amounted to a breach of official duties.

On 28 August 2006, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court dismissed the legal aid application.

On 28 February 2007, the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the refusal to grant legal aid.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the Regional Court’s reasons, confirming that police officers D. and E. infringed inviolable human dignity when threatening Gäfgen and thereby breached their official duties. It found that Gäfgen could not prove that threats of torture caused mental damage necessitating psychological treatment. It stated it was obvious that a short-period threat was negligible compared to traumatisation caused by his killing of a child.

It further stated that even assuming Gäfgen would prove that E. shook him causing his head to hit a wall on one occasion and hit him on the chest causing a haematoma near his collarbone, the physical damage would be too minor to necessitate compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The Court of Appeal also found that violation of human dignity by the threat of torture did not warrant compensation because Gäfgen obtained sufficient satisfaction through exclusion of statements as evidence and through criminal conviction of the officers.

On 19 January 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court allowed a constitutional complaint by Gäfgen, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, and remitted the case.

It held that in refusing legal aid the Court of Appeal violated the principle of equal access to court. It stated the Court of Appeal had speculated that Gäfgen would not be able to prove that the threat to torture led to mental damage and therefore refused to take necessary evidence. It also stated it was not obvious that injuries claimed by Gäfgen should be considered of secondary importance in view of threats, and that the question whether the violation of human dignity necessitated payment of damages was a difficult legal question without precedent of a court of final instance and should not be determined in legal aid proceedings.

The proceedings were pending before the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal.

Aftermath

Gäfgen delivered his law degree while in prison and published “Allein mit Gott – Der Weg zurück” in 2005.

He planned to establish a “Gäfgen Foundation” to help children who had been victims of crime. The plans sparked controversy. After authorities stated they would never allow such a foundation to be registered, he dropped the plans.

Gäfgen was serving his life sentence in Schwalmstadt Prison in the state of Hesse.

In 2005, Gäfgen delivered a complaint against Germany at the European Court of Human Rights, partially won in 2010.

Gäfgen sued the state of Hesse for compensation for allegedly suffering trauma after being threatened with torture; he lost the case.