It is said that IHH is supporting the Hamas and is therefore against the understanding among nations. Furthermore it is argued that under the guise of humanitarian aid foundation the IHH supports groups who are linked to the Hamas.

“Not the behavior of IHH is cynical, like the Minister of the Interior (BMI) stated, but the forbiddance of the BMI. The forbiddance is infamous and inhuman because it tries to keep the people from helping the Gaza-victims, who are suppressed by Israel’s government”, said Yoldas.

“In terms of the justification of the Minister of the Interior the UNO or the Red Cross have to be forbidden, too. The people of Gaza are punished by this action”, said Yoldas and continued “that the German government acts as the compliant enforcer of the Israeli government, whose terrorism pushed the Palestinians to the edge of existence.”

It is the Israeli occupation and the state terrorism which puts the Palestinians in a horrible situation”, said Yoldas furthermore and added: “Obviously it is planned to ban all humanitarian aid for the Palestinians. It is macabre that Minister of the Interior punishes those who care for the orphans instead of criticizing those who orphans them.”

He concluded by saying “that it is an unbelievable act of state arbitrariness to forbid a humanitarian aid foundation in Palestine and other 79 countries, which is working to aid the orphans, which is active in the development aid, emergency aid, and was active in Haiti and never questioned the Israel’s right to exist or support violence.”

“Instead of being honored for its voluntary humanitarian work, the IHH is forbidden on the ground of political calculation. Due to this forbiddance Germany’s reputation is damaged in the world.” “We strongly belief that this action will not withstand any court challenges” said Yoldas.

The public prosecutor appealed the verdict, due to the openly xenophobic character of the incident. W. also appealed and was granted a court-appointed defence counsel.

At the appeal hearing at the regional court in Dresden on 1 July 2009 W. attacked El-Sherbini after her witness with a 18 cm long kitchen knife. No security personnel were present in the court room.

During the trial W. said, that Muslims were monsters to him and asked the court why they were not deported after the 9-11-attacks. German people should not mingle with foreigners, stated W. and declared that he would vote for the far right National Democratic Party of Germany. After W’s defence presentation, El-Sherbini testified to the court and tried to leave the court room after W. went on in hurling insults at El-Sherbini. When she, her husband, and their three-year-old son were at the door, W. suddenly attacked El-Sherbini with the kitchen knife, which he apparently had taken into the courtroom in a backpack. El-Sherbini received more than 15 stab wounds to the upper body and arm. While trying to protect his wife, El-Sherbini’s husband Okaz was stabbed at least 16 times to the head, neck, upper body and arm. Ws defence counsel tried to help El-Sherbini by throwing chairs and a table on W. A police officer, who was in the court building testifying in an unrelated case, was called to the scene by the immediate security alarm of the judge. However he mistook Okaz for the attacker and shot him in the lower leg. Okaz, critically wounded in the stabbing attack, was in a coma for two days. El-Sherbini died in the court building at 11:07, succumbing to her injuries.

Memorial for El-Sherbini

A commemorative plaque, unveiled on Thursday in the Dresden regional court, will in future remember the crime. “The plaque is a memorial to Marwa El-Sherbini and also a warning against xenophobia and Islamophobia,” said Justice Minister Jürgen Martens (FDP) at the unveiling of the plaque. “At the same time it has to be a symbol of reconciliation between religions and cultures.”

At the memorial service Martens recalled the murder a year ago, wich “shocked us all in Dresden, Germany and all over the world. The act has thrown a dark shadow on the judiciary and on Germany. A year ago everyone had to recognize the deadly logic behind xenophobia,” said the Minister of Justice.

“The case is not forgotten,” said Dresden Mayor Helma Orosz (CDU). The city has to live with the murder of El-Sherbini. She called the inhabitants of Dresden to getting involved in society and for contributing to a democratic order. “It is not only necessary to provide further funding and initiate projects. The citizens must want to get along well,” said the Mayor.

The Secretary General of the Islamic Community Milli Görüs, Oğuz Üçüncü, criticized the lack of an intensive refurbishment of the anti-Islamic murder and its background: “A refurbishment of the murder in all its facets is still outstanding. What has driven the offender to his hatred, wherefrom comes this hatred; all this has not been sufficiently discussed.” “The necessary socio-political debate in the context of everyday racism against Muslims is even after this murder absent”, said Üçüncü.

“As tragic as this incident is, as important it is now to analyze the mechanisms of Islamophobia and a new forms of racism in society. This is the only honest way to commemorate the death of Mrs. El-Sherbini and her unborn child”, Üçüncü stated.

On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. In 2005 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity, and the symbol of the principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, as well as of the State’s secularism. By a judgment of 13 February 2006, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed an appeal by the applicant.

On 3 November 2009 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) taken together with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). The panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber, meeting on 1 and 2 March 2010, accepted the referral request submitted by the Italian Government on 28 January 2010.

In accordance with article 36 of the Convention, the President of the Court authorised the following third parties to present written observations:

· Governments of Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, the Russian Federation and San-Marino
· Jointly 33 members of the European Parliament
· Greek Helsinki Monitor
· Associazone nazionale de libero Pensiero
· European Centre for Law and Justice
· Eurojuris
· Jointly : International Commission of Jurists, Interights, Human Rights Watch
· Jointly: Zentralkomitee des deutschen Katholiken, Semaines sociales de France, Associazioni critiane lavoratori italiani

The case was heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (France), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greece),
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),
Josep Casadevall (Andorra),
Giovanni Bonello (Malta),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia)
Nina Vajić (Croatia),
Rait Maruste (Estonia),
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),
Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),
George Nicolaou (Cyprus),
Ann Power (Ireland),
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),
Guido Raimondi (Italy), judges,
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), substitute judges,

and also Erik Fribergh, Registrar.

Representatives of the parties

Government: Nicola Lettieri, co-Agent; Giuseppe Albenzio and Umberto De Augustinis, Advisers;

Applicants: Nicolo Paoletti, Counsel, Natalia Paoletti and Claudia Sartori, Advisers;

Third parties

Among the Third Parties, eight out of ten governments have been granted the right to intervene during the hearing. They was represented by :

Joseph Weiler, Counsel, Stepan Kartashyan, Andrey Tehov, Euripides Evriviades, Vasileia Pelekou, Darius Simaitis, Joseph Licari, Georgy Matyushkin and Guido Bellatti Ceccoli, Advisers.

After the hearing the Court began its deliberations, which are held in private. Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage.