For similar reasons, an interpretation of § 2.6 of the Criminal Code is also out of the question if it finds that Article 5 und Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights satisfy the requirement of “otherwise provided by law” within the meaning of this provision (see Federal Court of Justice, Order of 12 May 2010 – 4 StR 577/09 –, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, NStZ 2010, p. 567; Order of 18 January 2011 – 4 ARs 27/10 –, juris; Order of 17 February 2011 – 3 ARs 35/10 –; Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court, Order of 24 June 2010 – 3 Ws 485/10 –, NStZ 2010, p. 573; Hamm Higher Regional Court, Order of 6 July 2010 – 4 Ws 157/10 –, juris; Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court , Order of 15 July 2010 – 1 OJs 3/10 and other nos. –, juris; Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, Order of 15 July 2010 – 2 Ws 458/09 –, juris; Hamm Higher Regional Court, Order of 22 July 2010 – 4 Ws 180/10 –, juris; a different view is advanced in Federal Court of Justice, Order of 9 November 2010 – 5 StR 394/10, 440/10, 474/10 –, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 240). It would be fundamentally contrary to the legislative concept to give priority, when interpreting § 2.6 of the Criminal Code, to the general provisions of Article 5 and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights over the narrower provisions of the Criminal Code on preventive detention, which are unambiguous with regard to the question of retrospective effect. It was precisely these narrower provisions that the legislature had in mind when passing the legislation. The parliamentary background material to § 2.6 of the Criminal Code shows that the legislature from the outset saw no violation of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights in § 2.6 of the Criminal Code (Bundestag printed paper IV/650, p. 108; a similar conclusion is reached by Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, Order of 1 June 2010 – 1 Ws 57/10 –, Recht und Politik , RuP 2010, p. 157). The legislature intended to “put into immediate force with unlimited retrospective effect” the revisions of § 67d of the Criminal Code introduced by the Act to Combat Sexual Offences and Other Dangerous Criminal Offences of 26 January 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 160); this is shown by Article 1a.3 of the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code (see also Bundestag printed paper 13/9062, p. 12). In addition, the fiction that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in an individual case is a national (parliamentary) statute violates the manner in which the European Convention on Human Rights takes effect nationally, which is laid down by the Basic Law, and also the principle of the separation of powers. The European Convention on Human Rights is not a statute, but an agreement under international law, which as such cannot directly intervene in the state legal system (see BVerfGE 111, 307 <322>). Even after the Act of assent is passed, it is still by its legal nature an agreement under international law whose national validity is effected only by the order of execution (see BVerfGE 90, 286 <364> and BVerfGE 104, 151 <209>; see also Federal Constitutional Court, Order of the Second Chamber of the Second Senate of 8 June 2010 – 2 BvR 432/07, 2 BvR 507/08 –, juris, marginal no. 27). The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in turn do not have the status of statute either; on the contrary, Article 46.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights only provides that the Contracting Party involved is bound by the final judgment with regard to a particular subject matter in dispute (“res judicata“, see BVerfGE 111, 307 <320>).