[ad_1]
Could the terrorist attack in Vienna have been prevented? Or do we need new legal options to prevent another attack? This debate is fueled by a new misconduct investigation in the run-up to the attack, which emerged on Friday.
In July, the latest attacker in Vienna, F., encountered two Islamists who were under surveillance by the German intelligence service and who were in Austria. The Vienna State Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the Fight Against Terrorism (LVT), which supervised these people on behalf of the German authorities in Austria, did not draw any conclusions from this.
Interior Minister Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) spoke of “obvious mistakes and from our point of view intolerable”. According to the Viennese police chief Gerhard Pürstl, the subsequent murderer’s encounter with these people and the subsequent failed arms purchase in Slovakia “could have led to a different result in the perpetrator’s risk assessment”.
The first personal consequences already exist: according to Pürstl, the director of the Vienna LVT was removed at his request. The interim leadership of the Viennese authority is now led by the director of the Styrian LVT.
Debate on detention
The mishaps give a boost to those voices that consider the legal instruments sufficient in the fight against terrorism and see the problems in the police investigative work. The question arises as to whether F. had not already been criminalized before the attack and, therefore, the imposition of preventive detention would have been possible.
Friedrich Forsthuber, President of the Vienna Criminal Court, does not want to answer this question to the “Wiener Zeitung”: “That would be speculative.” But he sees several points that need to be examined more closely.
In addition to the summer encounter with the men under observation, it is also known: the convicted and later Vienna murderer terrorist F. and another man wanted to buy ammunition at a gun shop in Bratislava on July 21. Slovak authorities warned their colleagues in Vienna on July 23. It is not clear to what extent mistakes were made here by the Austrians or Slovaks.
Focus on the warning
Austrian authorities blamed their Slovak colleagues. They had provided unclear information, even after some inquiries, it was not clear that one of the weapons buyers was F. The Slovak authorities describe it otherwise. They believe the identity of the gun buyers was finally clarified on September 10. A commission of inquiry is supposed to clarify the exact circumstances and processes.
The truth is that the police authorities did not notify the Judiciary of the events. It is up to the police to see if they see enough evidence of a criminal offense and to involve the prosecutor, Forsthuber says. If he did not do it correctly in the present case it is difficult to judge in hindsight: “The key point is: What exactly did the police know at the time?”
If the prosecutor had been notified, he would have had to check whether the events could be attributed to a crime, Forsthuber said. Membership of a terrorist organization and the preparation of terrorist crimes are questioned. “The purchase of ammunition could be described as a preparatory act for a terrorist act,” says Forsthuber. There may also be a violation of the War Material Law: “To do this, you would have to know exactly what type of ammunition it was.” The encounter between F. and the other suspects could also have criminal relevance, says Forsthuber: “Of course, that depends on what was discussed there.”
ÖVP asks for preventive detention
The Popular Party considers the legal instruments to be inadequate in the fight against terrorism. Upper Austrian Governor Thomas Stelzer (ÖVP) wants to introduce security detention for “convicted threats, murderers or terrorists” who “oppose deportation using personal security grounds”.
“In Austria, detention can only be imposed to ensure deportation,” says constitutional lawyer Karl Stöger. This is the case, for example, of an Afghan who has a fixed deportation date and who is to be feared hiding. However, the situation is different for a person who is not clear from which country they come from and, therefore, cannot be deported. “As long as this person cannot be detained, the person with us cannot be arrested.”
However, from the point of view of the European Court of Justice, the European Convention on Human Rights goes beyond the requirements in Austria, Stöger said. In the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, a “dangerous” person is known to reside illegally in the state for a limited period of time, but the possibility of deportation is not entirely clear: “The counter-question is: What do I do? with the person long term? Those rules are valid in other European countries. Reason limited to six months. “
If the Vienna attacker had already had this possibility of imprisonment, one would have encountered an obstacle: the man was an Austrian and a North Macedonian citizen. Therefore, he should have been deprived of his Austrian citizenship before being arrested for deportation. The authorities also tried, but failed.
Radicalized in mosques
It was also announced on Friday that the killer was active in two mosques in Vienna and is likely radicalized there. One of them was subordinate to the Islamic Faith Community in Austria (IGGÖ), according to Education Minister Susanne Raab (ÖVP). It was closed on the basis of Islamic Law. Another institution, independent from the IGGÖ, is dissolved on the basis of the Association Law.
Eight of the 15 men arrested after the attack were jailed on Friday. It is strongly suspected that you contributed to the crime by supporting the murderer in the run-up to the attack.
According to the Viennese police, it is certain that the killer acted in the attack on Monday night in Vienna within a radius of 75 meters in the Bermuda Triangle at Schwedenplatz. They shot him at Ruprechtsplatz.
