Our Work

The International Independent Commission on the Death of Oury Jalloh is a civilian-led commission tasked with ascertaining and analysing the circumstances in which Oury Jalloh died. 

The Commission carries out its work in four languages and across various disciplines. Considering this, and considering that legal processes are still ongoing, the work of the Commission is relatively slow. This also gives the commission to reflect, with some distance, on the case, its legal and political treatment, and its social impact.

The work of the Commission is underway and will be updated in this section of the website in due course.  We have begun to examine the legal and scientific aspects fof the legal case, as well as wider social, political and historical aspects of the case. We have met with the legal representatives of Jalloh’s family, activists and campaigners, scientific experts, and government representatives.

Please check back periodically for updates.

Statement of the International Independent Commission on the Death of Oury Jalloh – on the October 2021 Fire Experiment
Berlin, 3 November 2021 | Download as PDF

The Commission thanks to Oury Jalloh’s family members, the Initiative in Remembrance of Oury Jalloh, filmmakers, fire experts and technicians for providing us with a deeply insightful perspective on the events that transpired on the 7th of January 2005 in the Police Station in Dessau.  The video installation we have seen have made us witnesses to the events in a way that has until now not been possible. Today’s conference is a testament to the tireless and enduring efforts by bereaved family, friends and supporters from across Germany who have remained unconvinced that Mr Jalloh could have burned himself in the way suggested during the legal proceedings to this point. 

This new fire experiment has reproduced the physical dimensions and characteristics of Cell Nr. 5 to a high degree of accuracy.  The evaluation of the experiment by fire expert Ian Peck suggests that the images of 2005 fire damage, including the damage to Mr Jalloh’s body, the mattress and walls of Cell Nr. 5, strongly resemble the images produced in this new fire experiment completed last month.  Mr. Peck analysed smoke staining on the walls and carefully considered the materials used to recreate the physical space, the mattress and Mr Jalloh’s body.  A crucial point is that the fire damage in the experiment was created by pouring 2.5 litres of petrol on the body and the mattress. In Mr Peck’s opinion, it is “most likely that a quantity of a volatile ignitable liquid, such as petrol, was poured over Mr Jalloh and deliberately ignited on the 7th of January 2005.”  This is startling and should be cause for deep concern, a great deal of reflection, and potentially renewed legal action and rigorous investigation.

The Commission views the demands of Oury Jalloh’s family to reopen investigations into Mr. Jalloh’s death as vital to the protection of civil and human rights in Germany. This evidence should give the government every encouragement to release any undisclosed documentation or evidence related to this case and to follow every lead to investigate his actual cause of death.

In our view, this experiment, along with the last independent reports we have reviewed, have not only shown that Oury Jalloh was severely injured by external force, but that the fire was created by external sources and with a volatile ignitable liquid.  The Commission will be reviewing the materials presented at today’s press conference in the coming weeks and months, in the context of our overall assessment of the case of Jalloh’s death. 

Statement of the International Independent Commission on the Death of Oury Jalloh – on the new radiological report analysis
Berlin, 28 October 2019

The radiological report, prepared by the University Clinic at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, provides an analysis of medical reports and computer tomographic scans from 2005, and lends crucial scientific observations that will have a profound impact on how we view the Oury Jalloh case.  The report, presented to members of the International Independent Commission on the Death of Oury Jalloh by Prof. Dr. Bodelle from the University Clinic at Goethe University, reveals that Jalloh sustained his bone fractures while he was still alive. This raises three types of questions—scientific questions, factual questions related to the timeline of events leading to Jalloh’s death, and questions around the investigation into the case.

First, the report raises scientific questions. Earlier reports mention only a fracture in Jalloh's nose bone. The new scientific report shows that Jalloh also suffered a fracture of the nasal septum with "continuation of the fracture into the posterior wall of the left frontal sinus", which indicates a fracture system that possibly affected the right sphenoid sinus up to the anterior skull base. In addition, the soft tissue swelling to the left of the nasal root suggests that the deep injury must not have occurred over a large area, as per the alleged table impact, but at specific points. Furthermore, a 3cm long fracture was found on the right 11th rib, and signs of a fissural fracture were found on the left 6th rib. Here, too, it was found that the soft tissue was swollen around the severe bone injuries that Jalloh sustained, suggesting that the fractures of Jalloh's nose, septum and rib occurred while he was still alive and that these fractures were caused by external factors. This contradicts the assumption that the fractures are due to Jalloh's body being damaged during transport after his death.

Second, the report’s findings raise related questions about the timeline of events leading to Jalloh’s death. The report notes that the injuries Jalloh sustained, if he sustained them while alive, would have meant that he was likely bleeding from the nose and in the upper respiratory tract, was in substantial pain, and potentially finding it difficult to breathe, possibly suffering from impaired motor ability, and possibly unconscious.  It is clear from these assertions that at least one or more of these injuries should have signalled the need to get Jalloh medical attention.  Instead, despite being in substantial pain, he was affixed to a mattress at his ankles and wrists, and laid on his back, which is a prone position for choking (aspirating) on his own blood, if he was indeed bleeding from his nose. 

Lastly, the implications for this analysis on the previous medical analysis are vital.   The recent report was conducted using the medical examiner’s report, computer tomographic images, and photographs from 2005. This means that the basic material from which its conclusions were drawn were available since the beginning of the trial. Once it became known that Jalloh had sustained broken bones, it seems a reasonable expectation for the investigation to determine to what degree of probability the injuries occurred while Jalloh was alive, whether they seemed to be self-inflicted injuries, and whether these questions have a bearing on the types of charges brought in his particular case.  There were two different opportunities to do this during the trial, first the report of Prof. Dr. Kleiber from Jan. 2005 and second the report of Prof. Dr. Bratzke from April 2005, but these opportunities were not utilized. This was in part because the presumption was that they could not rule out that the bone-break injuries, which they only described a simple fracture of the nasal bone, happened after Jalloh’s death.  However, this seems to be a scientific mistake, since as Prof. Dr. Bodelle’s analysis asserts, the CT scans reveal that changes in the soft tissue around his injuries lead to the conclusion that he was indeed alive.  It seems to the Commission that all one needed to do, effectively, was examine the CT scans properly. During the investigation and trials, these issues seem to have been either misunderstood or willfully ignored.  

This report by Prof. Dr. Bodelle is currently the best and only comprehensive scientific analysis of Jalloh’s broken-bone injuries, and it concludes that he was injured already before his death, that the injuries were caused by external force, and that Jalloh’s physical state should have signaled the need for medical attention and prevented him from being bound in four point restraints. In addition, the independent medical reports submitted to the commission from independent forensics experts in the UK as well as the expert from the Würzburg commission by the prosecution of Dessau-Roßlau in February 2017, suggest he was not breathing when he burned, given the normal stress hormone level in his urine and the lack of carbon monoxide in his lifeblood. Considering all these 3 reports together, we get an overall picture of the circumstances of his death that leave a clear case to be answered.

If no other evidence in this case should be a persuasive reason to interrogate the circumstances of Jalloh’s death, the scientific evidence should.

This is also the reason why we observe the recent decision by the Upper Regional Court of Naumburg, which declined to re-open the special prosecutorial investigation into the Jalloh case, with great concern. The decision does not consider Prof. Dr. Bodelle’s medical report because he did not collect the data but rather interprets pre-existing data. However, this is immaterial to the validity of Prof. Dr. Bodelle’s scientific input and the conclusions of his report. Furthermore, the basis for the judgment relies on a series of scientific conclusions and factual suggestions that seem impossible or implausible. 

First, it relies only on the heat shock theory, established in medical testimony during the trial, to explain the lack of soot in Jalloh’s lungs and low stress hormone levels.  This theory suggests that Jalloh lit a fire that burned quickly until it reached his nose, and then he moved around very quickly and created bursts of air that fed the flames, which he then essentially snorted, dying instantly. Even if this were plausible, his rapid movement would have ostensibly been triggered by fear or pain, which would have raised his stress hormone levels. Given that the heat shock theory is internally inconsistent, the special investigation should investigate evidence of the possibility that Jalloh was burned while unconscious or dead.  Together with the new CT scan analysis this leaves open important scientific questions which should be taken up by investigation. 

Second, the OLG Naumburg decision claims that a second lighter could have existed in the cell but could have been lost after the event. This presupposition has several implications.  On one hand, as there is absolutely no physical or testimonial evidence of a second lighter, the suggestion creates unnecessary confusion and is not based on the facts established in the case. On the other hand, if the OLG Naumburg has reason to believe that such a vital component of the evidence was lost and has no way of knowing whether this has happened, it casts serious doubt on the integrity of the forensic investigation, including the chain of custody. Therefore, if this supposition is to hold any weight, then the indictment goes beyond mere investigatory quality, it goes to the heart of the matter:  if a second lighter could be removed without being noticed, then logically the first lighter could be added without being noticed. 

Given the conclusions of the recent radiological report and the inconsistent reasoning of the decision by the Upper Regional Court of Naumburg, theInternational Independent Commission on the Death of Oury Jalloh is left with even more questions that require a more thorough-going investigation than has thus far been afforded.

Press Conference | Berlin, 23 October 2018

Founding Conference | Berlin, 27 - 28 January 2018

Read the founding statement of the commission here.