_these rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law_. There is a law that covers it, just as there is a law that covers all the restrictions to free

_these rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law_. There is a law that covers it, just as there is a law that covers all the restrictions to freedom when you commit a crime. Killing in self defense is not a violation of the constitution. That's outlandish. Killing in a war is not in violation of the constitution. The GG itself establishes an army used for territorial defense. Article 24(2) covers the case of integrating that army into a defense and security pact (NATO, EU army, UN) and from that derives the right to deploy german soldiers in NATO and UN missions. And if they have to kill on those missions, they are _not in violation of the GG Article 2_ Edit: When reading the GG, you also need to take into account that there are many fundamental rights that are in contradiction to each other. These need to be balanced out, there's no single right that always trumps the others. Take the case of an armed robbery: My right to my property (which is codified in Art 14) is opposed to the right of the robbers physical integrity (or even life). It would be outlandish to resolve this as "the robbers right to not be hurt trumps my constitutional right" and indeed, there is the Notwehrparagraph (StGB § 32 Notwehr https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html) which codifies your right to self defense with whatever means necessary to stop the attack. (The boundaries of what's necessary are murky and difficult to generalize, but let's leave that aside here)