ccc) Even if in the area of police power, insecurities concerning forecasts often cannot be completely avoided, it is absolutely inconceivable under the applicability of Article 1.1 of the Basic Law to intentionally kill persons such as the crew and the passengers of a hijacked plane, who are in a situation that is hopeless for them, on the basis of a statutory authorisation which even accepts such imponderabilities if necessary. It need not be decided here how a shooting down that is performed all the same, and an order relating to it, would have to be assessed under criminal law (on this, and on cases with comparable combinations of circumstances see, for instance, Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice for the British Zone in Criminal Matters (Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofs für die Britische Zone in Strafsachen – OGHSt) 1, 321 (331 et seq., 335 et seq.); 2, 117 (120 et seq.); Roxin, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil , vol. I, 3rd ed. 1997, pp. 888-889; Erb, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch , vol. 1, 2003, § 34 , marginal nos. 117 et seq.; Rudolphi, in: Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch , vol. I, Allgemeiner Teil, Vor § 19 , marginal no. 8 (as at April 2003); Kühl, Strafgesetzbuch , 25th ed. 2004, Vor § 32 , marginal no. 31; Tröndle/Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch , 52nd ed. 2004, Vor § 32 , marginal no. 15, § 34 , marginal no. 23; Hilgendorf, in: Blaschke/Förster/Lumpp/Schmidt, Sicherheit statt Freiheit? , 2005, p. 107 (130)). What is solely decisive for the constitutional appraisal is that the legislature may not, by establishing a statutory authorisation for intervention, give authority to perform operations of the nature regulated in § 14.3 of the Aviation Security Act vis-à-vis people who are not participants in the crime and may not in this manner qualify such operations as legal and thus permit them. As missions of the armed forces of a non-warlike nature, they are incompatible with the right to life and the obligation of the state to respect and protect human dignity.