Dear Madam/Sir

It is a scandal that Germany has not ratified the UNCAC and the government must propose its own proposal and not longer wait for other proposals.

Access to information is a human right according to Art. 19 ICCPR Germany has reservations here.

Does the German delegation recognize, that Germany can not continue to violate the human right of access to information in 5 federal states with half of the population? (see 124.28 og 124.42)


123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC);

123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to which Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

123.42: Align its national legislation with international human rights standards

Response to recommendations:

124.22: "Accepted. Before ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption, an adaptation of the legislation regarding the criminal offence of bribery of members of parliament is needed. A corresponding draft legislative bill should be submitted by members of the German Bundestag."

124.28: (Withdraw all reservations e. g. ICCPR") "Accepted. Legal regulations and their implementation already comply with international standards and norms."

124.42: "Accepted."

Walter Keim, 19. September 2013

Subject: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Troika report Germany (Jugendamt)
From: "walter.keim Gmail" <>
Date: 29/04/2013 10:28

Copy: Dr. Fabio Roia, Tribunale di Milano-Sezione IX penale


I have seen the webcast of the Germany Review - 16th Session of Universal Periodic Review. I noticed many states complaining about the Youth Office (Jugendamt). I would like to comment on the standard German answer, that decisions can be brought to courts.

I am German citizen having lived 30 years in Norway and studied Norwegian and  international law in Norway. I have practical experience with German administration and courts, because my mother gave me the authority to act on her behalf when she became 90 years old.

I run a website showing problems with and the lack of:
in Germany and get many emails of foreigners shocked by German administration and courts. Germans typically ask me to shut up.
Family Rights and Jugendamt

5 German states are the last states in the civilized world to deny its citizens freedom of information i. e. the "Right to Know" or access to public information. While Germans have been subject to these denials for ages (Appendix D, E), foreigner are used to these civil rights and do not accept human right violations. 

Family Rights and Jugendamt

The lack of the human right of access to public documents (according to Art. 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, OSCE and Art. 10 European Convention of Human Rights) is international considered a precondition for democracy is the top of the iceberg:

However both national authorities (government, parliaments, courts) and NGOs, regional (EU, CoE, OSCE ) and global UN mechanisms (Human Rights Committee, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) did not support access to information and anticorruption in Germany.

However UNESCO has recommended Freedom of Information laws to all states reviewed during the 16. UPR session. Austria recommended to Bahrain (A/HRC/WG.6/13/L.4): "Enact a progressive, substantive Freedom of Information law". Djibouti, Ghana got same suggestion.

Germany invited civil society to discuss the report. Since I am in Norway, I applied for access of the draft report, which was discussed. However after waiting 3 month I did not yet get the report. I see that the contribution of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum has been ignored, but due to the 3 month time to decide on the application I can not see the influence of other civil society contributions.

German judiciary lacks independence (Art. 6 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) to protect citizens rights and human rights against the "Jugendamt" and other authorities. Judges in federal states are hired, promoted and supervised by the governments. Independence of the justice system is considered basic for a democracy and regulated with international law (Appendix C, D).

In direct contact with administration the right to good administration according to Recommendation 1615 (2003) of the Parliamentarian Assembly of the Council of Europe and CoE Recommendation Rec(2007)7 on good administration and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in EU is missing in Germany, i. e.

According to CoE RECOMMENDATION No. R (85) 13 an independent Ombudsman for public administration should be empowered "to investigate and give opinions when human rights are involved". Germany is the only country in Europe which "reserved the right to comply with it or not" (Appendix E). The Parliamentary Assembly confirms in in Recommendation 1615 (2003) the importance of the institution of ombudsman within national systems for the protection of human rights and the promotion of the rule of law, and of its role in ensuring the proper behaviour of public administration (Appendix F).

Administration and Jugendamt are not subject to investigations and control of an independent ombudsman. German authorities claim that courts guarantee the rights of citizens. However most victims do not risk to go to court, because of costs. 

But German judiciary lacks independence according to Art. 6 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF)) to protect citizens rights and human rights against the "Jugendamt" and other authorities. Judges in federal states are hired, promoted and supervised by the governments.

When administrative courts were founded, there was no supervision of judges, because it would have been a disadvantage for citizens who complain against the administration lead by the government. However the dictator Hitler added supervision of courts. Before the Prussian administrative courts (Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgericht) have been without supervision since 1875, as well as e. g. administrative courts in Saxony. But § 7 sentence 1 of the first regulation ("Durchführungsverordnung) of 29. April 1941 of the decree of the fuehrer ("Führer-Erlass") on the establishment of the administrative court of the Reich (Imperial Law Gazette RGBl I S. 201: Erste DV = RGBl I S. 224) gave the minister of justice of the Reich supervision rights.

Today a majority of both law scientists, lawyers and politicians defend this invention of supervision of judges of the dictator Hitler.

1939 the organisation of the Jugendamt was changed. The mayor became the head of the Jugendamt, which was not changed after the war. Administrative complains ("Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde") against the Jugendamt do not give the right to a that an answer within reasonable time giving reason.

Unfortunately the German press does not inform the public about human right violations and lack of independence of judges, but gives the impression that Germany has the best justice system in the world. Therefore politicians preferring "Third Reich" over international law still get elected.

Three dozen petitions to German parliaments to abandon rules from the Third Reich in favour of international law did not help and were a waste of time.

Therefore I hope that the Human Rights Council will understand that meaningless administrative complaints and dependent courts will not solve the Jugendamt problems.

CEED (Conseil Européen des Enfants de Divorce) and Olivier Karrer has a more action orientated approach, which has to be seen in the context of this documentation and proof that constructive suggestions through conventional channels are useless.

I can answer questions and give further information with Scype user wkeim1.

Obviously one minute and 14 seconds were not enough for delegations to document and prove that the Jugendamt violates international law. I hope the US Mission understands the relevance of citizen rights like Freedom of Information and the troika report can support and explain the many complaints about the Jugendamt.

Walter Keim
UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR):
Will CoE Support the Human Right of Access to Information
in Germany?
Will OSCE Support the Human Right of Access to Information
in Germany by Commenting ATI Laws?:
Is it possible to enforce access to information in Bavaria?


Report of the Working Group on the UPR: A/HRC/WG.6/16/L.7 [in relation to Baltic Sea NGO Forum suggestion No. in brackets]:
B. Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review
II. Conclusions and/or recommendations
123. Responses to the following recommendations will be provided by Germany in due time, but no later than the 24th session of the Human Rights Council in September 2013:
Answer of the German Government 11. September 2013: Germany is accepting: but what will be done? Conclusion: Germany accepts, but will do nothing, basically because of the pretension that "standards are high enough".

Family Rights and Jugendamt


  1. Petition to EU Parliament (9. February 2012): Jugendamt, Human Right of Access to Documents of Public Administration and Good Administration.

  2. CoE Press Release 499(2007). Report CommDH(2007)14 by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Germany, 9 – 11 and 15 – 20 October 2006: German Human Rights Institute should monitor, development of national action plan on human rights.


  4. Separation of powers in Germany and Europe:  


  6. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 2003: Recommendation 1615 (2003) The institution of ombudsman

  7. Freedom of Information in Germany and the rest of the world:

  8. 11 July 2007, CommDH(2007)14: REPORT BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MR THOMAS HAMMARBERG ON HIS VISIT TO GERMANY 9. – 11. and 15. – 20. October 2006  Strengthen the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights with regard to structural and factual monitoring, develop the national action plan on human rights.
  9. Rejection of Suggestions of Commissioner for Human Rights by German Parliaments, Freedom of Information and Separation of Powers: