Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Prehistory  





2 Use of emetics against Achidi John  





3 Judical responses  





4 References  














Death of Achidi John






Deutsch
 

Edit links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sloyment (talk | contribs)at02:37, 14 December 2021 (Sloyment moved page User:Sloyment/Achidi John death casetoAchidi John death case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff)  Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision  (diff)

Inofficial street sign of the Achidi John Square near Rote Flora

Achidi John died while being in police custody on December 12, 2001 in Hamburg, Germany, due to a combination of a serious heart defect, cocaine use and the stress caused by emetics. Four days earlier, Achidi John had been forcibly administered an emetic to secure evidence of suspected drug trafficking against him. At the political level, the case led to a stop of emetics in Berlin and Lower Saxony. [1] In Bremen, the Greens applied to end the practice of using emetics. The application was rejected. [2] Bremen stopped the use of emetics in 2005 after the similar Laya-Alama Condé deatg case. In commemoration of the case, the place in front of the Rote Flora has inofficially been named Achidi John Square by left-wing groups. [3]

Prehistory

In July 2000, in the town of Jena, the Nigerian Michael Paul Nwabuisi [4] applied for asylum in the Federal Republic of Germany. He pretended to be a Cameroonian citizen with the name "Achidi John", born on January 6, 1982. The authorities assigned Achidi John to shared accommodation in Ellrich in September 2000. In the asylum procedure, Achidi John stated, among other things, that he had been threatened with death as a human sacrifice in Cameroon and that he had come directly to Hamburg on a ship when he escaped. In January 2001, the asylum application was rejected as unfounded because the alleged information from Achidi John could not be confirmed. [5]

In the following months, Achidi John was arrested five times by the Hamburg police for suspected drug trafficking; but since the trafficking could not be proven, he was released each time. [5]

Use of emetics against Achidi John

On the morning of December 8, 2001, the 19-year-old was picked up by civil investigators in the St. Georg district on suspicion of drug trafficking and immediately taken to the forensic medicine department at Eppendorf University Hospital (UKE) [6] . He fiercely opposed the insertion of a nasogastric tube to introduce the emetic ipecacuanha, upon which he was restrained. A doctor then forcibly injected John with the emetic through a tube into his nose. [7] [8] An anesthesiologist was not present to help John in case of an emergency. [6] Then he fell to the ground. [6] The color of his face had changed, breathing and pulse had stopped. [6] After three minutes, two teams of emergency doctors tried unsuccessful in resuscitating John. [1] John died on December 12, 2001. [9]

In the intensive care unit, Achidi John had 41 pellets of crack and cocaine removed from the gastrointestinal tract. During the autopsy, four more drug pellets were found in his intestines. [5]

Achidi John's autopsy was carried out on December 13, 2001 by the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Free University of Berlin. According to the autopsy report, a combination of a serious heart defect, the use of cocaine and the stress of administering emetics led to the death of Achidi John. [5]

Judical responses

The public prosecutor closed a preliminary investigation against those involved in the use of emetics in June 2002. A subsequent enforcement procedure by Achidi John's father was rejected by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in July 2003. [9] [10] [11]

The Federal Constitutional Court issued a press release the day after Achidi John's death. It pointed out that up to this point in time there had been no decision on whether the administration of so-called emetics was compatible with the constitution. The issue was only brought up once, in 1999, in a constitutional complaint which however was not accepted for decision because of the principle of subsidiarity. The court stated that with regard to human dignity and freedom from self-incriminations the use of emetics did not meet any fundamental constitutional concerns. However, an assessment with regard to the protection of physical integrity and the proportionality of the intervenience was not made. [12] The compulsory use of emetics to secure evidence in case of ingested drugs was introduced in 2001 by the then red-green senate in Hamburg. [13] A few days before John's death, the coalition of the CDU, FDP and the Party for a Rule of Law Offensive significantly lowered the requirements for the use of emetics. [14] In 2006, Germany was sentenced by the European Court of Human Rights to compensation of 10,000 euros for the use of emetics for violating the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment. [15] [16] [17]

References

  1. ^ a b Marco Carini (2002-02-14). "Verschlusssache Brechmitteltod". taz. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
  • ^ Jean-Philipp Baeck (2013-09-16). "Keine Entschuldigung für die Folter". taz. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
  • ^ Philip Volkmann-Schluck (2011-04-30). "Von Flora-Kreisläufen und Monarchie-Spektakeln". Hamburger Abendblatt. Retrieved 2016-05-25.
  • ^ Ove Sutter (2005-01-19). "Scheitern als Schanze". Jungle World. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
  • ^ a b c d Johannes Schweikle (2012-08). "Dealen. Tod eines Drogenhändlers". Greenpeace Magazin. Archived from the original on 2017-08-27. Retrieved 2017-08-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • ^ a b c d Kai von Appen (2010-04-30). "Der Tod des Achidi John". taz. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  • ^ Gernot Knödler (2015-10-27). "Der Monopolist des Todes". taz. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  • ^ Fredrik Roggan (2002-01). "Tödlicher Brechmitteleinsatz in Hamburg". Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP. Retrieved 2016-06-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • ^ a b Elke Spanner (2002-12-07). "Zwischenfall ohne Folgen". taz. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
  • ^ ""Tod des 19jährigen Achidi J. nach Brechmitteleinsatz ", AZ: 2 Ws 31/03". Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht. 2003-07-31.
  • ^ Kai von Appen (2006-07-13). "Zu spät für die Toten". taz.
  • ^ ""Zum Brechmittel-Einsatz", Pressemitteilung Nr. 116/2001". Bundesverfassungsgericht. 2001-12-13.
  • ^ Alexandra Hilpert (2021-09-15), "Hamburger Folteropfer Achidi John: Verdrängt und vergessen", Die Tageszeitung: taz (in German), ISSN 0931-9085, retrieved 2021-09-19
  • ^ "Todesstrafe durch die Hintertür". Der Freitag. 2001-12-21.
  • ^ "Deutschland hat gegen das Folterverbot verstoßen". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2006-07-11.
  • ^ Christian Rath (2006-07-12). "Kotzen ist Menschenrecht". taz.
  • ^ "Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54810/00)". bmjv.de. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. 2006-07-11.
  • Category:Law enforcement Category:21st_century_in_Hamburg


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Achidi_John&oldid=1060210681"

    Hidden categories: 
    CS1 errors: dates
    CS1 German-language sources (de)
     



    This page was last edited on 14 December 2021, at 02:37 (UTC).

    This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki