Mzoudi lived with terrorists, he was friends with terrorists and he even lent money to terrorists. But does this make him a terrorist? Judges at the German Federal Appeals Court have decided not. Or at least not enough concrete evidence has been found to convict him for links to 9/11. Although the general opinion in Germany is that a conviction without proper evidence is far from desirable, some commentators do have doubts about the working methods of the trial.

Under the almost patriotic headline "how and why the German federal court yesterday became a role model for other governments" the Sueddeutsche Zeitung is practically euphoric in its praise for the judges' decision. "The acquittal of suspected terrorist Abdelghani Mzoudi demonstrates steadfastness in sticking to the letter of the law -- a steadfastness which appears all the more remarkable when you consider how unstable the political climate is at the moment."

The paper also says that the judges have not allowed themselves to be influenced by American security officials or general public opinion. "They have insisted on judging a person on the facts rather than his reputation, and that, even in the fight against terror, the state must remain true to its constitution." The paper applauds the fact that the court has judged the defendant innocent, because it lacked the necessary evidence to prove him guilty, even though he was suspected of being a terrorist and stood accused of causing 3,000 deaths. "The verdict represents a rejection of the Guantanamization of the criminal and justice system. It is a defense of the basic principles of enlightened legal proceedings."

The commentator goes on to write that one should be especially thankful for the court's integrity in light of the current state of German political institutions: the country's foreign policy bows down to American interests simply because it wants a seat on the United Nations Security Council; the German president is suspected of partisanship; the national government finds itself in a situation which is close to a state of emergency. "The federal court has shown the politicians in Berlin that there is still such a thing as the dignity of office."

The Financial Times Deutschland on the other hand is far less complimentary about what the verdict says about the German legal system. While the paper is impressed that the court, lacking concrete evidence, gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, it says that in every other respect the Mzoudi trial was anything but a "glorious chapter" in the history of the legal institutions on either side of the Atlantic. "On the one hand, in the US for instance, (the legal process) has been stagnating so that no result has so far been achieved. On the other hand, trials such as yesterday's end up as miserable failures."

The commentator is scathing in his criticisms of how the trial was carried out. "The prosecution's case became confused because evidence was missing. It was also hampered by pieces of evidence, suspicions and claims which were for the most part wishful thinking." The paper also believes that a series of mistakes and procedural break-downs were responsible for the trial's result. "The prosecution's arguments completely fell apart and witnesses were presented who were then discounted as worthless by the prosecuting lawyers themselves. In addition to all of this, the USA's tactics managed to either hamper Germany's efforts or block them completely."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung is much more sanguine about the verdict, saying that the trial was carried out in a laudably unspectacular manner. "Four years after Sept. 11, 2001 the mood here is still relatively unemotional -- alert, but without the furor which characterized the struggle with the RAF (Baader-Meinhof terrorist group) in the 1970s."

The commentator goes on to say that it would be excessive to talk about a victory of judicial independence, since this was never in danger in the first place. "There was no notable pressure of opinion from the media or from politicians. And there was certainly no pressure at all from the USA, where most people seem hardly interested in what happens to people on the periphery such as Mzoudi and his fellow Moroccan (Mounir El) Motassadeq." The writer ends by saying that "if only everything in Germany was carried in such an unexcitable manner."

The Berliner Zeitung, while welcoming the decision, bemoans the fact that Mzoudi is being treated as if he were guilty anyway. "Experts point out that Mzoudi was released 'only' because of a lack of evidence. Interior Minister Otto Schily says (and you can almost hear him grinding his teeth in frustration) that in Germany only those who are proven guilty can be sentenced." It doesn't occur to anyone that he might actually be innocent, continues the commentator. "Mzoudi is viewed as guilty, even though he has been judged innocent. It's no surprise then that the Moroccan has chosen to turn his back on Germany of his own free will."