The Ulm 5: “They Belong in the Glass Cage, Not Us”

After over eight months in pre-trial detention, the defendants in Germany’s controversial Palestine Action trial finally spoke out. Their target wasn't just Elbit Systems, but German complicity.

Photo from the Courtroom on Day 1 of the Trial; Photo Credit: Hanno Hauenstein

“Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Elbit Systems executives are the ones that should be sitting in court in glass cages – not us.”

The remark came from Leandra Rollo, one of the five defendants in the ongoing “Ulm 5” trial in Stuttgart-Stammheim. On the fifth day of proceedings in late May, the activists were given their first opportunity to explain in their own words why they had sabotaged the Ulm-based German subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Their statements, ranging from roughly 15 to 45 minutes, were crafted as political manifestos.

Rollo described the action as an attempt to stop “the extermination of the Palestinian people.” Crow Tricks argued that “no [other] method that was in line with German law worked.” Zo Hailu posed a question to the court itself: “What will the judicial branch choose: complicity or ‘Never Again’?”

Taken together, the statements amounted to an indictment not only of Elbit Systems, but of Germany’s political and legal response to Israel’s destruction of Gaza. Daniel Tatlow-Devally (reading in German) struck a similar note. “Looking away while a genocide is taking place is reprehensible,” he said. “Providing the equipment to carry it out is even worse.”

As they spoke, the defendants remained seated behind a thick glass barrier inside Stuttgart-Stammheim’s high-security courtroom. Several police officers sat directly behind them. Nine months after their arrest, all five remain in pre-trial detention, much of it under extreme conditions. They face charges of aggravated property damage and membership in a criminal organization.

The courtroom conditions for the five activists have become a central point of contention at the trial. Since its beginning, defense lawyers argued that the extensive security measures effectively prejudge the activists as a threat to public safety. The dispute excalated on the third day of proceedings, when the defendants were carried into the courtroom after refusing to enter voluntarily.

Repeated motions by defense lawyers to change the seating order in the courtroom were consistently rejected. From the opening days onward, the trial was marked by disputes over due process. The defense argues that the setup violates Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, by making confidential communication effectively impossible.

The prosecution and the presiding judge, Kathrin Lauchstädt, reject this. They argue that confidential communication is ensured through microphones; and that the seating arrangement is dictated by the courtroom’s architecture. That raises the question of why the proceedings are being held in Stammheim in the first place. The courtroom was originally built for the trials of the far-left Red Army Faction in the 1970s. For the defendants’ supporters, the choice of venue reinforces the impression of a show trial.

Two Interpreters for Four Defendants

Anyone following the proceedings in person – as I did for most of the hearings – quickly notices that the courtroom's technical infrastructure is far from flawless. Equipment regularly fails, often requiring defendants and/or lawyers to draw attention to communication problems through hand signals. The defense has repeatedly called for an independent court recorder and for more interpreters. For now, two interpreters provide English and Spanish translation for four defendants.

As the trial progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that the case is about much more than just property damage. The defense repeatedly accused the court of bias and filed numerous motions seeking the recusal of the presiding judge. What is unfolding in Stammheim may ultimately become a landmark case for how Germany responds to radical forms of protest against the genocide in Gaza. The implications extend beyond Palestine solidarity. The verdict could shape how courts and authorities treat direct-action movements more broadly – including climate activists and others.

Daniel Tatlow-Devally, Leandra Rollo, Crow Tricks, Zo Hailu and Vi Kovarbasic have now spent more than nine months in pre-trial detention. Family and friends describe the conditions as extreme: monitored visits, restricted access to books and communal activities; and up to 23 hours a day locked in cells with little or no exposure to daylight. “Everything about this case is political,” Mimi Tatlow-Golden, Daniel Tatlow-Devally's mother, told me.

According to Tatlow-Golden, Daniel remains confined for up to 23 hours a day in a cell with frosted-glass windows and is permitted only two 30-minute visits per month. During those visits, discussing the case is prohibited. For the rest of the time, she says, meaningful human contact is largely impossible. In their statement to the court, Daniel also described witnessing two suicide attempts by other inmates during his detention, one of which they said was successful.

Josey, the partner of defendant Vi Kovarbasic, described the past nine months as “deeply destabilizing.” – “You spend hours on the phone just trying to secure a visiting slot,” they told me. They further alleged that prison authorities confiscated all letters not written exclusively in German. Josey described these conditions as a form of “psychological torture.”

The five activists are accused of breaking into Elbit Systems Germany in September 2025 and using axes and pyrotechnics to damage technical equipment, furniture and windows, allegedly causing more than €1 million in losses. During the action, they spray-painted slogans such as “Baby Killers” on the walls and chanted “Free Palestine” and “Germany finances, Israel bombs.” Much of what they are accused of is publicly documented. The activists filmed themselves during the action and published the footage online. No one was injured.

Crucially, prosecutors have accused the five of membership in a criminal organization under Section 129 of the German Criminal Code – a charge more commonly associated with organized crime and extremist networks. The allegation raises the stakes of the sentences to five years in prison and serves as the central legal basis for justifying the continuing pre-trial detention.

Amnesty International Germany expressed “serious rule-of-law concerns” about the use of Section 129 in the case. Paula Zimmermann, the group’s expert on freedom of expression and assembly, described the implications as “extraordinarily far-reaching.”

The prosecution, by contrast, argues that the defendants were part of Palestine Action Germany, an organization it characterizes as motivated by antisemitic goals. The roughly 100-page indictment devotes considerable attention to the defendants' political beliefs. It repeatedly invokes Israel's so-called right to exist, arguing that denying this principle constitutes a “clearly antisemitic” position.

The term genocide, by contrast, appears only as an “alleged genocide” and is consistently placed in quotation marks. Advocacy for a “free Palestine” is similarly treated as suspect. The indictment claims the defendants promote anti-Zionist views that “portray the aspirations of Jews (i.e. for their own state or its defense) as a colonialist project” and thus “equate” the Israel with Judaism. Exactly how such an equation is meant to occur is not further explained.

Daniel Tatlow-Devally, on day 1 of the Stammheim trial. Photo: Hanno Hauenstein

During the reading of the indictment on the third day of proceedings, state prosecutors devoted considerable attention to the activities of Palestine Action in the UK and elsewhere, placing the Stammheim trial within a broader international context. Slogans such as “Baby Killers” were explicitly interpreted as attempts to demonize Israel – and, by extension, Jews.

At the heart of the defense strategy lies an argument over necessity. The activists, their lawyers say, sought to disrupt weapons supplies in order to prevent a greater harm. “The wrong people are sitting in the dock,” defense attorney Benjamin Düsberg told me outside the courthouse. In his view, those on trial shouldn’t be the people who attempted to stop arms deliveries during a genocide, but those who enabled them.

A Political Indictment of Germany’s Role in Gaza

On the third day of the trial, Düsberg delivered an eight-page opening statement exacting the scale of destruction in Gaza, the civilian death toll, and Germany’s role. It resembled a cutting political indictment. Düsberg argued that, by the time of the action against Elbit Systems Germany, demonstrations, petitions and public appeals had failed to halt Germany’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“The Stuttgart Public Prosecutor's Office demands punishment—but for what exactly?” Düsberg asked in court. “For damaging an arms manufacturer. For destroying machines and facilities whose products serve only one purpose: to kill people.” He spoke of the “assembly-line extermination of entire families” in Gaza and described the enclave as the site of “one of the largest conventional bombing campaigns in history.” – “It is Germany's genocide as well,” Düsberg said. Against that backdrop, the action against Elbit Systems Germany had been both justified and morally necessary.

Proceedings Expected Until 2027

“This entire trial is a disgrace,” Mimi Tatlow-Golden told me. The defendants, including Daniel, were being treated “like dangerous creatures.” She also criticized the repeated interruptions and the recent – dramatic – expansion of the proceedings. Originally scheduled for 16 hearing days, the trial has since been extended to over 40 days. It is expected to continue until January 2027.

The role of Elbit Systems Germany is likely to become a central issue during the trial. Elbit is Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Its facility in Ulm, which traces its origins to the German electronics company Telefunken, produces communications technologies used by the Israeli military. Independent investigations and expert analyses have linked such systems to the central infrastructure underpinning AI-assisted targeting programs like Lavender and Gospel, which were deployed in Gaza.

At its core, the Ulm 5 trial is a test case for how the German state responds to those who seek to stop a genocide – and who are willing to break the law to do so. The verdict will not just determine the fate of five activists. It may also define the limits of political dissent in Germany for years to come.