18 November 2020Leonhard Lenz · CC0 1.0
STATE & CITIZENSHow much coercion
18 November 2020Leonhard Lenz · CC0 1.0
16 May 2020Mitch Altman · CC BY-SA 2.0
18 December 2020Tim Reckmann · CC BY 2.0
27 November 2021Opernkomponist · CC BY-SA 4.0
Examining the COVID eraTruth
Truth
needs a
shared space.
Not another dividing line.
A process that listens to people, examines evidence and makes responsibility visible.
A proposal for an independent
Truth and Forgiveness Commission.
FOUR PERSPECTIVES ON ONE ERAChoose an image
No prejudgment.No blanket amnesty.No drawing a line under the past.
01 / The starting point
What goes unheard
remains unresolved.
Some associate the COVID era with protection and solidarity. Others with loneliness, pressure, loss or exclusion. Some with both.
The idea behind this commission is not to pit experiences against one another, but to create a shared framework where difficult questions have a place too – and every claim can be examined.
When many institutions contributed to the same decisions, a particular credibility problem arises: examining the past must not be left solely to those whose actions are to be investigated.
The question is not only: “Was it lawful?” It is also: What was known? What alternatives were available? Who bore which burdens? Was new evidence acted upon? And what follows from this?
Explore the areas of investigation ↓Those being investigated
must not control the investigation.
must not control the investigation.
Clarify individual cases. Identify structures.
Still assess responsibility individually.
02 / Images of an eraWe remember.
We remember.
But not all in the same way.
A water cannon. A mask. A syringe. A sign on a door. Images raise questions – they do not replace an investigation.
18 November 2020Leonhard Lenz · CC0 1.0
27 November 2021Opernkomponist · CC BY-SA 4.0
PARTICIPATION & BOUNDARIESWhat did it mean
What did it mean
to be left outside?
18 December 2020Tim Reckmann · CC BY 2.0
HEALTH & TRUSTWhat did we know?
What did we know?
What was promised?
People pictured are not presented as responsible parties, victims of a legal violation or supporters of this initiative. The choice of images is not a legal or medical assessment.
03 / The proposed mandate
Three tasks.
One shared goal.
Truth
made visible.
Document experiences. Bring records and data together. Distinguish established facts, assessments and open questions. Publish exonerating findings too.
Responsibility
clearly distinguished.
Mistakes made under uncertainty, poor judgment, organisational failure and personal misconduct are not the same. Every review must consider role, knowledge, discretion and timing.
Consequences
made possible.
Recommend recognition, support and reparation. Identify responsible bodies. Propose reforms against which society can measure itself next time.
RECONCILIATION IS A GOAL.
NOT AN IMPOSED FEELING.
NOT AN IMPOSED FEELING.
No one has to forgive. No one has to waive their rights.
And no one receives a free pass simply for giving evidence.
04 / What should be investigatedNo question too difficult.
No question too difficult.
No verdict in advance.
Eight proposed areas of investigation. Each involves specific questions, potential evidence and rules for a fair review.
Protest & police violence
Which interventions were necessary? Where were limits crossed?
Children, school & daily life
What protected children? What burdened them? What could have been done differently?
Vaccination & health
What was known? What was said? How were people who suffered harm treated?
2G, 3G & exclusion
Who was allowed to participate? Who was left out? On what grounds?
Care, isolation & saying goodbye
How can infection control and human closeness be considered together?
Science & public debate
Could doubts be voiced? Was uncertainty made clear?
Livelihoods, work & public money
Who bore the costs? Who received support? What interests played a role?
Law, oversight & responsibility
Who decided? Who provided oversight? Where were corrections missing?
The benchmark
What could be known at the time? Which alternative was available? What do we know today? What remains open?
05 / The South African precedentTruth can
Truth can
open
a way out of
division.
1995LEGAL FOUNDATION
OF SOUTH AFRICA’S TRC
OF SOUTH AFRICA’S TRC
A procedural precedent. Not an equivalence.
After apartheid, South Africa created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: a public space for victims’ testimony, investigation and questions of responsibility. [1]
The 1995 Act linked the investigation of gross human rights violations with rehabilitation, recommendations for reparation and a special amnesty process. [2]
Not: “Everyone was a perpetrator.”
Rather: a deeply rooted system of injustice required society to examine its past alongside individual responsibility. Participation in institutions did not replace examination of specific conduct.
Not: immunity in exchange for a confession.
Amnesty required an individual assessment of statutory conditions – including full disclosure of relevant facts and a political connection to the act. It was not a blanket acquittal. [2]
What the precedent also reveals about limitations +
A commission does not automatically make a review complete. As recently as 2025, South Africa established an inquiry into alleged interference and delays in prosecuting apartheid-era crimes. Recommendations need implementation; truth must not replace continuing legal accountability. [9]
The COVID era and apartheid are not being equated. What is adopted here is the idea of a fair, public process for examining the past – not the historical judgment or South African amnesty law.
Everyone at one table.
Not everyone on the
judges’ bench.
Participation, yes.
Self-oversight, no.
All relevant groups in society should be able to contribute. But this does not mean that every institution involved has a say in the assessment of its own conduct.
The proposal therefore separates two levels: a broad public forum and an independent investigative body. They work together but have different tasks.
Experiences brought in.
Perspectives opened up.
Affected people and social groups raise questions, are heard, propose topics and take part in public debate.
Participation. No control over findings concerning oneself.↔
Evidence brought in.
Reasons brought out.
An independent body examines sources, hears opposing views and takes responsibility for transparent findings – supported by specialists and safeguards for those affected.
Independent. Conflict-of-interest rules. Minority opinions.WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED?Society
Society
is more than
its institutions.
Not a definitive membership list. A proposal for perspectives that should not be missing.
01Affected people & relatives+
People with the effects of infection, alleged harm from measures or possible vaccine injuries; bereaved families and representative groups.
02Children, families & older people+
Children and young people in age-appropriate ways; parents, people needing care, people with disabilities and their representatives.
03Medicine, care & science+
Clinicians and researchers from different disciplines; diverse, reasoned perspectives and methodological expertise.
04Law, civil rights & civil society+
Legal expertise, independent human and civil rights organisations, philosophical and religious groups.
05Work, business & social affairs+
Employees, trade unions, self-employed people, businesses and social organisations with different experiences of the crisis.
06Politics, administration & public debate+
Parliaments, administrations, police, the judiciary and media as information providers and participants in public dialogue; no decisions on their own affairs.
Independence must be more than a letterhead.
Open selection. Public criteria, nominations and hearings before appointment.
Open interests. Disclose roles, funding, relationships and one’s own previous decisions.
Clear boundaries. Rule out bias. No instructions from government, parties, donors – or initiators.
Verifiable work. Make sources, methods, uncertainties, dissenting views and corrections visible.
16 May 2020Mitch Altman · CC BY-SA 2.0
DAILY LIFE / BERLIN / MAY 2020One image.
One image.
Many perspectives.
Document experiences.
Listen to people. Examine evidence.
07 / From experience to consequencesListening is the beginning.
Listening is the beginning.
Examining is the way forward.
A proposed six-step process. Not the loudest voice, but the most carefully reasoned argument should prevail.
01
Before the first case
Clarify the mandate
Publicly define the period, topics, selection rules, budget, data protection and legal limits of the investigation. Involve affected people in this preparation.
02
Evidence, not slogans
Secure the material
Collect lawfully available records and data. Document provenance, completeness and changes. Keep gaps visible.
03
Protected and public
Hear people
Offer voluntary hearings with advice and support. Never impose publicity against protective interests or without a sound basis.
04
Actively seek counterevidence
Examine statements
Bring testimony, documents and data together. Hear people facing allegations and consider their counterevidence. Distinguish knowledge at the time from knowledge today.
05
Publish doubts too
Give reasons for findings
Present established facts, assessments and open questions separately. Record dissenting views and allow corrections.
06
Not a report to gather dust
Follow through on consequences
Recommend recognition, support, reparation and reforms. Request reasoned responses from the responsible bodies and publicly track implementation.
FOR EVERY FINDING
Source → Context → Counterevidence → Hearing → Reasoning → Opportunity for correction
Personal accounts and statistical statements serve different purposes. Neither should replace the other without examination.08 / What already exists. What could be added.Not in place
Not in place
of the rule of law.
For another
form of investigation.
Already in placeThe Bundestag’s
The Bundestag’s
COVID inquiry commission.
The existing commission brings together 14 members of parliament and 14 external experts. Its report is due by the end of June 2027. Regional public dialogues have been announced for autumn 2026. [4]
It would be wrong to claim that no review is taking place. The question here is whether an additional truth process is needed that is institutionally independent and consistently focused on affected people.
See the existing commission ↗Bring experiences, records and societal responsibility together.
Strength: Give affected people space, investigate institutional patterns, and publish reasoned findings and recommendations.
Limitation: A private initiative has no special coercive powers. Access to records, binding participation and protective rules would need legal clarification. No judgments or automatic compensation.
Methodological precedent: OHCHR guide. The specific design here is an independent proposal. [3]
Prepare political decisions through a comprehensive report.
Strength: Members of parliament and external experts work across disciplines on policy recommendations. Hearings and dialogues can bring in different perspectives.
Limitation: An inquiry commission is neither a court nor an investigative committee with its special powers to take evidence. Its mandate and institutional setting are parliamentary.
Basis: section 56 of the Bundestag Rules of Procedure; see the Bundestag for the specific COVID commission. [5] [4]
Investigate defined events using special evidence-gathering powers.
Strength: Parliamentary oversight with evidence gathering under Article 44 of the Basic Law. Suitable for investigating specifically defined actions of the state.
Limitation: No criminal convictions by the committee. Courts remain independent in their assessment of the matters investigated.
Basis: Article 44 of the Basic Law. [6]
Decide legal questions and claims in specific proceedings.
Strength: Independent, legally binding decisions under the applicable procedural law.
Limitation: A specific legal dispute is not automatically a comprehensive societal review. A commission, in turn, cannot overturn a judgment or replace a court.
Judicial independence: Article 97 of the Basic Law. [7]
This website grants no powers.
It cannot compel disclosure of records, issue binding summonses, promise immunity or determine claims. Your own appeal and limitation periods continue to run. Anyone whose testimony could expose them to legal liability needs independent advice before speaking. [8]
09 / What reconciliation must not meanNo one can
Guiding principle of this proposal · not a quotation from a historical figure
No one can
impose
forgiveness.
But we can create conditions in which people can speak to one another again.
Truth without whitewashing.Responsibility without collective guilt.Recognition without enforced silence.A future without repetition.
10 / The obvious questionsAsked openly.
Asked openly.
Answered clearly.
12 questions
Has this commission already been established?
No. This is an explanatory concept website. It describes a possible model, encourages discussion and has no government mandate. There are no appointed commission members and no case intake here.
Should guilt be determined before the investigation begins?
No. The investigation is open-ended. It must reveal misconduct as well as well-founded decisions, exonerating circumstances and continuing uncertainty. A profession, vaccination or political position does not establish guilt.
Why not simply let the courts decide?
Isn’t there already a COVID inquiry commission?
Yes. The German Bundestag has an inquiry commission with members of parliament and external experts. Public dialogues have also been announced. This model proposes an additional review that is institutionally independent and focused on hearing those affected. Whether it needs its own organisation or whether elements can be incorporated into the existing process must be openly debated. [4]
Is this equating the COVID era with apartheid?
No. The historical, legal and social circumstances are fundamentally different. What can be adapted is a procedural idea: publicly acknowledge experiences, substantiate decisions, distinguish responsibility and prevent new injustice. A historical equivalence is not being adopted.
Would giving evidence automatically bring immunity?
No. South African amnesty was a special statutory arrangement with individual conditions. A German initiative can promise neither amnesty nor protection against the use of evidence or prosecution. Any rules on testimony and protection would require their own basis under the rule of law. Independent legal advice is important before making potentially incriminating statements. [2] [8]
Does an affected person have to forgive?
No. Forgiveness is a personal possibility, not an obligation or a condition for recognition, being heard, care or compensation. Refusing to forgive must also be respected. No one should have to waive a claim to be heard.
Who should assess vaccination and health?
A diverse specialist team working methodically, with disclosed conflicts of interest. It must distinguish effects of infection, benefits, risks, age and risk groups, and the knowledge available at each stage. A suspected adverse-event report alone does not prove vaccine injury; a lack of recognition does not disprove it either. This website makes no individual medical assessments.
How should people from politics, media or medicine contribute?
They should be able to provide information and material, answer questions and present their views. However, anyone involved in an event under investigation must not decide the findings about their own actions. Public participation and independent investigation are therefore organisationally separate.
What happens to names, files and sensitive accounts?
The proposal includes separate confidential intake, independent advice, documented access rights and transparent deletion and archiving rules. Publication only on a sound basis and after considering protective interests. This prototype website does not accept file uploads or personal cases.
Can I register or report a case here?
For questions and suggestions about the concept, you can contact us at info@restart-democracy.org. This does not constitute registration, membership or formal case intake.
There is no registration form or protected reporting channel. Please do not email sensitive documents. Your own procedural deadlines continue regardless of any contact.
Who funds and oversees the commission?
This must be settled in binding terms before establishment. The model requires a public budget, disclosed donors, a fixed term, independent scrutiny and no instructions on substance. No government, party, organisation, donor group or initiator should be able to control the outcome.
No matching question found. Try a shorter search term.
11 / The next stepAn idea improves
An idea improves
when more people
examine it.
No body established yet. No case intake yet.
A basis for a serious discussion.
Discuss the idea.
Do you have questions about the concept, suggestions to share or an interest in contributing? Write to us directly.
info@restart-democracy.orgContact about the concept, not formal case intake. Please do not initially send health data, confidential files or information about third parties. Privacy information
CONCEPT / VERSION 1.0The principles
No personal information is transmitted.
The principles
to take with you.
A concise concept text covering the mandate, participation model, procedural rules and unresolved founding questions. For sharing and discussion.
Download directly in your browser. No registration.No personal information is transmitted.
To clarify before establishment:
Operator and mandate · independent appointments · funding · participation and protection of affected people · data protection and archives · relationship with existing bodies · enforceability of implementation
12 / Read & verifyOne idea.
One idea.
Open sources.
The historical precedent and existing institutions are documented. The structure, working methods and principles of the proposed German commission are a concept – not a description of current law.
Sources & legal foundations 09
- 01South Africa: official TRC archive
South African Department of Justice. Mandate, establishment and three committees of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
- 02Legal basis of the TRC
Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. In particular sections 3 (objectives) and 20 (individual conditions for amnesty).
- 03Truth commissions: design and limitations
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Rule-of-law tools for post-conflict states: Truth commissions. A methodological precedent, not a classification of Germany as a post-conflict state.
- 04The Bundestag’s existing COVID inquiry commission
German Bundestag. Mandate, 14 members of parliament and 14 external experts, report by the end of June 2027; announced regional dialogue forums.
- 05Inquiry commissions in parliamentary law
Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag, section 56. Preparation of decisions on extensive and significant subject areas.
- 06Parliamentary committee of investigation
Basic Law, Article 44. Parliamentary evidence gathering; courts remain independent in their assessment.
- 07Judicial independence
Basic Law, Article 97. Judges are independent and subject only to the law.
- 08Protection against self-incrimination
Code of Criminal Procedure, section 55. Right to refuse to provide information in criminal proceedings. No automatic transfer of criminal-procedure powers to a private initiative.
- 09The South African model also remained unfinished
Government of South Africa, statement of 29 May 2025. Establishment of an inquiry into alleged interference and delays in investigating and prosecuting apartheid-era crimes.
Image credits & presentation principles 04
- Water cannon and demonstrators in Berlin, 18 November 2020. Leonhard Lenz / CC0 1.0. Original size: 8,368 × 5,584 pixels. File page ↗ / Licence ↗. Responsive cropping, scaling and a transparent dark gradient for legibility; no substantive photomontage.
- Masks in everyday life on a Berlin ferry, 16 May 2020. Mitch Altman / CC BY-SA 2.0. Original size: 4,032 × 3,024 pixels. File page ↗ / Licence ↗. Responsive cropping, scaling and a transparent dark gradient for legibility; no substantive photomontage.
- Upper-arm injection – illustrative photograph, 18 December 2020. Tim Reckmann / CC BY 2.0. Original size: 5,168 × 3,448 pixels. File page ↗ / Licence ↗. Responsive cropping, scaling and a transparent dark gradient for legibility; no substantive photomontage. The injection is an illustrative photograph, not evidence of a particular COVID-19 vaccination.
- 3G access rules on the Wuppertal suspension railway, 27 November 2021. Opernkomponist / CC BY-SA 4.0. Original size: 1,728 × 1,190 pixels. File page ↗ / Licence ↗. Responsive cropping, scaling and a transparent dark gradient for legibility; no substantive photomontage.
The photographs are individually documented. Their selection does not attribute responsibility, health damage or support for this initiative to anyone pictured. The images do not replace an investigation.
The adapted versions of the mask photograph and the 3G photograph are each covered by the ShareAlike licence specified for the original. This does not automatically extend to the entire website code. Personality rights and the specific use must be checked separately before publication.
Local image files: Four photographs are served as responsive WebP files from the same server as this website. No automatic image changes.
Work status: The photographs could not be downloaded into the working environment and therefore could not be embedded locally. Layout and operation can be checked separately; online image delivery in this file was not tested in the working environment. A notice appears if loading fails. For live use, the images can be hosted on your own server with correct licence information.
Status, privacy & publication !
Web version 4.0; image concept 2.0; concept 1.0, as of 19 September 2026. This website describes a proposal. It is not a service offered by an established commission, a public authority or a submissions office. The social groups and institutions mentioned are not named as supporters, members or partners of this initiative.
The website code creates no accounts, trackers, analytics scripts, cookies or persistent browser storage. Images are served locally. Connections to external providers occur when you open their source links. Hosting processing must be documented before publication.
Before publication: The foundation details and privacy information are included under Legal notice and Privacy as working drafts. The original text, exact legal name, contact domain, registration details and hosting remain to be confirmed. Check image rights and embedding. The draft remains set to noindex,nofollow.
This website provides general information, not medical or individual legal advice. It does not suspend any deadlines.
13 / Organisation & contactResponsibility.
Responsibility.
For this website too.
Legal and privacy information is directly accessible here. Operator details and technical processing must be definitively confirmed before publication.
The foundation behind itMore about the foundation
Legal notice
Working draft – approval required before publication.The foundation’s website is Restart Democracy. Name, address, representation, telephone number and email were cross-checked against its legal notice. The legal name given there is Rudulin Stichting; the visible operator identification on this website is Stichting Rudulin. Registration details, any additional mandatory information and the identity of the operator must be definitively confirmed before going live.
Intended operator
Rudulin StichtingRudulin Foundation
Pietersbergweg 291
1105 BM Amsterdam
Netherlands
Represented by: Markus Bönig
Contact
Email: info@restart-democracy.org
Telephone: +49 40 53798 15 64
Foundation website:
restart-democracy.org ↗
Project: Wahrheitskommission.org
Source for name, address, representation, telephone number and email: Restart Democracy legal notice ↗, accessed again on 19 September 2026. No delivery test was performed. The operator must approve these details before publication.
Project status
This website explains a proposal for a Truth and Forgiveness Commission. It is not a public authority, an established commission or a formal submissions office. General information does not replace individual legal or medical advice.
To add before publication
Binding legal name and operator identity, register and registration number, any other mandatory details and editorial responsibility. The operator must approve the basic details and contact channels.
The image credits and licence information are listed separately on this page.
Privacy
Working draft for the website’s actual technology.The seven topics follow the structure of Restart Democracy’s privacy policy; its references to voting and newsletters are not presented as features of this website. Hosting, email providers, image requests, legal bases and retention periods must be finalised before going live.
1. Controller
The intended controller is Rudulin Stichting, named in the Legal notice (operator identification: Stichting Rudulin), represented by Markus Bönig. Contact: info@restart-democracy.org.
2. What data is generated
The website code contains no user accounts, registration, voting, newsletter subscriptions or uploads. It sets no cookies itself and uses no analytics scripts or persistent browser storage. Search, topic views and concept downloads run in the browser.
Local photographs: Images load from the same server as this website. There are no automatic Wikimedia image requests. “Hide photographs” only changes their display.
Email: An email link opens your configured email application. Only when you send from there are your sender address, message and technical delivery details processed by your and the recipient’s email services. Clicking “Copy address” only writes the contact address to your clipboard.
Hosting: A future web server may generate connection and log data. The provider, data types and logging have not yet been specified.
3. Purposes and legal bases
The intended purposes are providing information and handling enquiries voluntarily sent about the concept. Contact should not create a newsletter subscription or membership. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR may apply to general enquiries; other processing requires an appropriate basis in each case. The final allocation remains open. GDPR ↗
4. Recipients
The draft does not automatically transmit form data. In live operation, hosting and, for messages you send yourself, email providers may process technical data. These providers must be specified before publication.
When opening external sources, the visited providers’ privacy notices apply. This website’s image files are served locally.
5. Processing outside the EEA
Processing outside the European Economic Area is not categorically ruled out for external services. Providers, locations and any required transfer bases must be documented before publication.
6. Retention periods
The interactive functions of this draft do not persistently store case or user data. Specific deletion periods or transparent criteria must be set for web server logs and received emails. No blanket twelve-month period is copied from another service.
7. Data subjects’ rights
Subject to the applicable statutory conditions, you have rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability and objection. Consent can be withdrawn for the future. You also have the right to complain to a data protection supervisory authority. Basis: in particular Articles 15–21 and 77 GDPR.
Please do not send health data, confidential files or personal information about third parties to the general contact address. No protected case intake has been established.
Structural model, not a verbatim reproduction: Restart Democracy privacy policy ↗. Statutory text: GDPR ↗. Working draft as of 19 September 2026.