Fundamentals of Criminal Proceedings in the GDR
The criminal proceedings in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) were legally regulated procedures for prosecuting and penalizing criminal offences. The main basis was the GDR Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO-DDR) as well as other relevant laws and regulations. The objectives of criminal proceedings were to investigate criminal offences, protect and strengthen the socialist legal order, and to educate the population towards law-abiding behavior.
Legal Sources and Framework
The central legal basis for criminal proceedings was the Code of Criminal Procedure of the GDR (in force from January 1, 1968, and amended several times), supplemented by the Criminal Code (StGB-DDR) and special laws such as the Law on Combating Enemies of the State or specific directives from the Ministry for State Security (MfS).
In addition, there were guidelines for the work of law enforcement agencies, further implementing regulations, as well as internal service instructions, for example for the People’s Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Structure and Course of Criminal Proceedings
Participants in the Procedure
The main participants in criminal proceedings of the GDR were:
- Public Prosecutor’s Office: Leading authority in the investigation phase and prosecution in the main trial.
- Courts: Decision over guilt and sentence, subdivided into district courts, regional courts, and the Supreme Court of the GDR.
- Defense: The right to legal counsel was guaranteed but was subject to restrictions in practice.
- Defendant/Accused: The person against whom the proceedings are directed.
- Victim/Witnesses: Participants whose rights and obligations were regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Stages of Proceedings
Criminal proceedings in the GDR were divided into several stages:
Preliminary Investigation
The preliminary investigation served to clarify the facts and was usually conducted by the organs of the People’s Police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or, in the case of political offences, the Ministry for State Security. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had a supervisory and guiding function and decided on whether to bring charges.
Interim Proceedings
An independent interim proceeding was not explicitly recognized in the GDR’s legal order. The review of the indictment for sufficient evidence and admissibility was carried out jointly by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the court.
Main Proceedings
The main proceedings began with the court’s admission of the indictment and included a public or non-public court hearing, including the taking of evidence, hearing the accused, and closing statements from the prosecution and defense. The verdict was delivered immediately after deliberation.
Appeal Proceedings
Legal remedies such as appeal or review were available to varying degrees. The review of judgments took place at the next higher court instance. Especially in proceedings with a political background, the Supreme Court could also act as the court of first instance.
Special Features of Criminal Proceedings in the GDR
Role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office
The GDR Public Prosecutor’s Office had far-reaching powers, particularly regarding investigations, bringing charges, and supervising the legality of proceedings. It acted as the “guardian of socialist legality” and was subject to political control.
The Influence of State Security and Politics
The political control of criminal proceedings, especially in cases of offences against the state, was frequently exercised by the Ministry for State Security. In such proceedings, principles such as the right to defense, presumption of innocence, and the principle of publicity were often not fully observed. Many trials were held behind closed doors or as show trials.
Defense Rights and Social Control
In principle, the accused had the right to defense, both by a self-chosen or court-appointed counsel. In practice, opportunities for defense were often restricted in politically motivated or security-related cases. Socialist criminal law also emphasized the educational function of the process and deliberately employed mechanisms of social control.
Special Features in Juvenile Criminal Procedure
Juvenile criminal law in the GDR pursued specific educational objectives. Juvenile courts consisted of one professional judge and two lay judges (people’s judges). Educational measures, such as warnings, community service obligations, or referral to youth residential homes, took precedence over traditional penalties.
Principles of Proceedings
Principle of Accusation and Principle of Publicity
The separation of prosecution and court was to be ensured by the so-called principle of accusation (Akkusationsprinzip). The principle of publicity was stipulated in procedural law but was, in particular in political cases, partly suspended.
Evaluation of Evidence and Reaching a Verdict
Courts were obliged to freely evaluate evidence. The gathering of evidence was often not only based on rule-of-law criteria but also political considerations.
Presumption of Innocence and Protection of the Rights of the Accused
The presumption of innocence was formally recognized, but in practice, especially in political offences, not always consistently granted. The significance of criminal procedure as a tool for social education and for safeguarding state interests led to a shift of emphasis in favor of the state.
Sanctions and Legal Consequences
The legal consequences available under GDR criminal procedure included prison sentences, fines, secondary penalties, as well as measures of rehabilitation and secure detention. In particular, politically motivated proceedings often resulted in significant infringements on personal liberty, such as long-term imprisonment or coercive measures.
Summary and Assessment
Criminal proceedings in the GDR were characterized by a close interconnection of law, state, and politics. Despite formal procedural rules, proceedings, especially in political cases, did not meet the rule-of-law minimum requirements of independent justice. Decisive, besides the wording of the laws, was always their political and socialist interpretation and implementation in accordance with the leading party and state.
Literature and Further Sources
- Code of Criminal Procedure of the GDR dated January 12, 1968, GBl. DDR I p. 101
- Criminal Code of the GDR dated January 12, 1968, GBl. DDR I p. 93
- Stiftung Aufarbeitung: Materials on the Judicial History of the GDR
- German Institute for Human Rights: Studies on Legal Practice in the GDR
This article provides a comprehensive overview of the structure, legal foundations, and particular features of criminal proceedings in the GDR.
Frequently Asked Questions
How was the preliminary investigation conducted in GDR criminal proceedings?
In criminal proceedings of the GDR, the preliminary investigation was conducted prior to a court hearing by the organs of the Ministry for State Security (MfS), the People’s Police, or the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The investigative authorities were required to clarify both incriminating and exonerating circumstances (§ 92 StPO DDR). In practice, however, there was close cooperation among these institutions, with State Security taking the lead in political cases. The investigation phase included collecting evidence, interrogations, and securing evidence, but the rights of the accused, such as the right to remain silent, access to a lawyer, or the right to view the files, were often restricted. Once the investigation was completed, the Public Prosecutor’s Office prepared an indictment if there was sufficient suspicion.
What role did the court-appointed defense counsel play in GDR criminal proceedings?
In GDR criminal proceedings, the appointment of a court-appointed defense counsel was required in certain cases, such as in serious crimes or if the accused did not name a defense counsel. The selection of the court-appointed counsel was subject to state authorities and was often determined by political loyalty. The role of defense counsel was restricted compared to Western legal systems: they received access to the files only at a relatively late stage and could often exercise their client’s rights only to a limited extent. Furthermore, the opportunities to actively shape the proceedings – for example, by submitting requests for evidence – were limited compared to the prosecution or court. In politically motivated proceedings, the defense was often factually ineffective.
How was the main hearing structured in GDR criminal proceedings?
The main hearing in GDR criminal proceedings took place before the local courts (district court) or regional courts, depending on the severity and nature of the act. It was generally public but could be excluded for important reasons, especially in matters of state security. The court was composed of professional and lay judges, the latter representing laypersons from the population. The main hearing was based on the principles of orality and immediacy, but judicial decision-making was often influenced by political considerations. There was no revision procedure, only the possibility of appeal or an application for cassation by the General Prosecutor’s Office.
How was evidence gathered in criminal proceedings of the GDR?
The presentation of evidence was directed by the court and was subject to the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In principle, all types of evidence could be used: witness statements, expert opinions, documents, and visual objects. In political criminal trials, evidence gathering was typically reduced to a minimum, and explanations from MfS members often replaced formal presentation of evidence. Defense had only limited influence on the selection and summoning of witnesses. Often, confessions obtained in the course of investigation were accepted without further scrutiny, even if they were obtained under pressure or through prohibited methods.
Were there possibilities for legal complaints or appeals in GDR criminal proceedings?
In the GDR judicial system, in principle, appeal against court judgments was possible, i.e., a full rehearing of the case before a higher court (appellate court). Further legal remedies, such as revision, did not exist in this form. A special legal remedy was the cassation application, which could only be filed by the General Prosecutor’s Office or the Supreme Court and was directed against serious violations of the law. In practice, however, especially in political proceedings, these opportunities were rarely used or granted, so that legal protection for the accused remained limited.
What significance did the confession have in GDR criminal proceedings?
The confession was considered the most important means of evidence in GDR criminal proceedings. It dominated judicial practice significantly over other types of evidence, mainly because many proceedings were formally organized and confessions were already obtained in the investigation phase, often under considerable pressure. Whether these confessions were given voluntarily or were correct was usually not verified. Especially in politically motivated trials, coerced confessions were often the basis for conviction. The role of the judge in such cases was often limited to accepting the result of the investigation.
How did criminal proceedings in political cases differ from regular criminal trials?
In political criminal trials, the actual procedural reality often differed from the statutory requirements. The process was shaped by interventions of the MfS and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The selection of judges, conduct of evidence gathering, and the shaping of the course of proceedings often occurred in close coordination with state and party organs. Opportunities for defense were severely restricted; state secrecy and the threat of repression significantly impaired the process. Abbreviated and non-public trials as well as pre-determined “politically desired” verdicts were not uncommon. Political criminal proceedings in the GDR primarily served as deterrence and enforcement of SED policy, rather than the pursuit of justice in individual cases.
