Process against concentration camp guard Dey: public Prosecutor's office will insert a Revision

The Hamburg public Prosecutor's office will insert a Revision against the verdict against former concentration camp guard Bruno Dey. The spokesperson for the Prosecutor's office of the F. A. Z. said on Wednesday. However, the judgment against Dey is thus not yet final, since two co-plaintiffs-lawyers have filed an appeal, as a spokesman of the court, the F. A. announced, for example. The lawyer of Dey, Stefan Waterkamp, which had previously indicated that it is willing to dispense with a Revision, should do all the others, then said, under these circumstances, he would load for his client appeal.

Matthias Wyssuwa

Political correspondent for the North of Germany and Scandinavia with headquarters in Hamburg.

Waterkamp this is regretted and said that his client would be able to live with the judgment. He would have liked to see a conclusion. If, in any event, the Revision will be filed, if you wanted to create the possibility that the Federal court review the judgment in a comprehensive manner. This Thursday is the deadline for the appeal expires. The revisions, however, can be pulled back again.

last Thursday, Dey sentenced to a youth sentence of two years on probation was. The process took place according to the juvenile law, because Dey was at the beginning of the time of the crime in 1944, only 17 years old. He must only bear the costs of his defense, the rest of the costs of the proceedings are charged to the state Treasury. The prosecution had demanded a three-year youth sentence for Dey, the defense of an acquittal.

The court had found the now-93-year-old man in the aid of murder in 5232 cases, and of attempted murder in a case for guilty. Dey came with 17 years in the German concentration camp Stutthof near Danzig, and was there as an SS guard guarded until April 1945, the inmates. In Stutthof, a total of about 65000 people were killed. The judgment is likely to be one of the last because of the Nazi crime.

editors ' note: an earlier Version of this article, it was said that the judgment was appealable. This is not right. We have this corrected now.