The man remains true to his principle with this attitude. At the beginning of the trial, he announced that he would not comment on the allegations against him. He does not want to provide any information about the motive, trigger, or course of the crime. He sits almost expressionless on the bench as his statement is read. However, the relief is clearly palpable among the trial participants, especially the representatives of the victim’s family. Tears flow.
In the remaining trial days at the end of August, it is now the court’s task to find an appropriate sentence for the conviction. As reported, it is not ruled out that the husband accused of manslaughter could be convicted of murder. This would mean a life sentence. The presiding judge has already made it clear during the trial that the required low motives for the crime could be identified.
The expert witness, who also presented his report yesterday, does not see any signs that the defendant could be fully responsible. The forensic psychiatrist, who had conversations with the defendant, does not recognize any signs of mental illness. The defendant denied the crime to him. The expert witness does not believe that the strangulation could have happened in the heat of the moment. This is mainly due to the division into two phases of the crime – the killing and the later disposal of the body – as well as the numerous death threats in the past. According to the expert, the defendant’s strong religious and cultural background from his home country and his adherence to their roles determined his behavior. He told the expert that he comes from a village in central Afghanistan and is the son of a mullah. His attitude towards his wife’s aspirations for self-determination, her contact with other men, and her desire for separation is explained by his extremely conservative upbringing.
A volunteer refugee helper, who had a good relationship with the family, testified that the mother of three children would have liked to separate from her husband after he had repeatedly become violent towards her and had contacted a lawyer. However, she would always back down because of the children. She also did not want her husband to suffer and therefore allowed him to return repeatedly when the authorities had imposed sometimes months-long house bans on him after the assaults.
