It can no longer be assumed that the world will ever find out who the "unknown female person 1" is, who has had to answer before the Gießen Regional Court in the second instance since January for dangerous bodily harm and resistance against law enforcement officers.

In her own community, consisting of environmental activists and left-wing autonomists, "Ella", as she is called, is considered a star.

One that doesn't let the state "make it small" and sees itself as a police victim.

And which symbolizes the entire protest movement against the expansion of Autobahn 49 in central Hesse.

For everyone else, however, there is a completely different motivation in this attitude: the refusal to stand up for something with your name.

In this case for possible crimes.

Catherine Iskandar

Responsible editor for the "Rhein-Main" department of the Sunday newspaper.

  • Follow I follow

It is not yet possible to foresee how the proceedings in the “Ella” case will end in the second instance.

Rather, it became clear before the district court that what happened at a height of 15 meters may not have happened as determined in the first judgment by the Alsfeld District Court.

Suddenly there are different accounts of the behavior of the two SEK officers, whom “Ella” is said to have kicked in the head when trying to get her from one of the tree houses.

Quite apart from this criminal accusation, however, the question of how the state deals with "nameless" accused remains.

It really needs to be clarified where in future the line will be drawn between what a constitutional state is willing to accept and the question of where the state's tolerance needs to be defined more narrowly.

"Just" a minor violation

So far, the refusal to reveal one's identity, i.e. to name one's personal details, has only been considered an administrative offence.

If you think about it, it's a farce.

At least when someone clearly wants to remain anonymous by etching their fingertips, scratching them, covering them with glue, so that the only tool that the police can initially use in an arrest, namely "identification treatment", as the police say, comes to nothing.

It can be assumed that the only purpose of such concealment is to commit crimes in the hope of not being prosecuted later.

The misunderstanding that such behavior should "only" be considered a minor violation becomes all the greater. Attempts to no longer punish the refusal of identity as an administrative offense but to make it a criminal offense in the future, as the Giessen senior public prosecutor Thomas Hauburger demonstrated in the example of the "Ella ' demanded are therefore understandable.

Not only to achieve a possible deterrent, but also to make it clear that the state must send a signal.

If someone commits crimes in the public eye and actively prevents their identification, that is no small matter.

In principle, it is nothing more than a showdown with the state.

Starting from the autonomous scene, which defines itself to a certain extent by not adhering to social rules.