These are the only lists dealing with reports of Divisions III and IV with which I had anything to do. Moreover, the list on Sheet 71; concerns me that is, however, a program for reports of Divisions I Personnel matter; II, examinations and inquiries, and VIII the Budget Division.
Q I should like to interrupt you, would you please give to the Tribunal the English page number of sheet 71 in the German Book?
A That is 81 in the English book. These lists of reports and the way how they belong together can be seen mostly from the fact that they bear the same date. The list about individual penal cases as well as the list about sentences. However, I have to point out some deviations from that. The witness Schaefer testified here that these lists were arranged according to the dates with the exception of the first list on sheets 2 and 3. That is in the English, text, sheet 2 only. That list had been taken before. That statement made by the witness Schaefer is not complete, however. Another error is to be found on sheets 6 and 7 of the German text, that is 5 to 8 of the English text. There, as can easily be seen from the documents, there is a schedule of reports to be made to the Under Secretary of the 17th of January 1945 was combined with the list of death sentences to be reported to the Ministry of the 17th of January 1945. That can be seen quite clearly from the documents. Later I shall discuss the fact that I only decided only so-called clear cases, never dubious cases. In this connection I want to refer to sheet 14, that is in the English text sheet 16. That is a list of reports to be made which contains only so-called clear cases. In spite of that it is at the same time a list of reports to be made to the Minister. That there were only so few cases and only clear cases which were reported has its reason in the fact that between Christmas and New Years in the Ministry there was only an emergency crew and very few cases were to be dealt with. On the other hand, the combination of pages 37 and 38 that is in the English book 156 and 157 could create an erroneous impression. These lists of death sentences to be sure both bear the date of the 27th of January 1944. The list of individual penal cases, however, is a list of reports to be made to me; whereas, the list of death sentences to be reported is a list for reports to the Minister. I remember very clearly that Division IV on that day reported to the Minister as well as to me, apart from the fact that on the list for the Minister there are also doubtful cases of death sentences listed.
To obtain a clear impression as to whether reports were to be made to me or to the Minister was not possible with the exception of death sentences where the directive existed that all death sentences should be submitted to the Minister that I could only deputize for the Minister in his absence and also only in clear cases, never in doubtful cases to like the reports were being made to the Minister I was usually present. I, myself, in order to save time, and particularly for reasons of lack of personnel, was very careful in ordering reports to be made, but one reason for that was also that the Minister reserved the right for very many orders for reports for himself. That took the matter somewhat out of my field. Thus we see, in order to quote one example, that of individual penal cases in these thirteen months covered by these lists, 543 individual penal cases were reported to the Minister; to me, however, only 83. In conclusion I want to say the following in general: These lists of January 1944 until and including January 1945, appear to me to be almost complete. Only very few lists may be missing and I recall in particular that in August and September I was several times not present during reports because I was out of town. That explains that for the time between the 17th of August and 22nd of September no lists are available.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal also that on account of two missing lists which apparently were not taken into this document because your name is not there, that figure 543 of individual cases for the Minister might still be increased in proportion to the 83 cases which were reported to you? That last figure, that is absolutely certain, isn't it?
A. The figure which I have mentioned about individual penal cases refers only to what can be seen from these lists and copies of these lists. As to those days during which I was not present because I was out of town or had conferences, if that deduction were not made and if these reports were added, of course that figure would increases.
Q. The prosecution has submitted that list, and the witness Schaefer has testified that it must be a schedule of reports to be made, which contains notations and remarks written in your handwriting. Would you please explain to the Tribunal what the nature of this list is from the purely external point of view?
A. It is true that these notations were probably made by me. These schedules were made up in the following manner. As soon as a Referent had come to a point where he could report a case to the Minister or to the under-secretary, the Referent reported that fact in the anteroom of the department chief, and the secretary then compiled that schedule. The compilation was made in triplicate, one copy for the Minister, one for the under-secretary, and one for the department chief. That compilation was signed by the department chief or by one of his deputies, and we received these lists either at the beginning of the report or on the day prior to the reports being made.
Reports were not made every week. If reports had to be made to the Minister, I sat next to the person who reported, that is, the Referent or department chief. As far as possible, I marked down on my copy of the lists every decision made by the Minister, with some word or letter; that is to say, I used abbreviations. I proceeded in the same manner when reports were made to me. The reason for that was the following.
It frequently occurred that I had to sign letters or documents which were necessary on the basis of decisions made by the Minister, or, if I had to make a decision on a report myself, and a few days later I received a letter which contained the result of the report and the decision. Then, in looking at my remarks on the lists of reports.
I had a possibility of checking it and could be certain whether that which was contained in the letter which was submitted to me for signature was in accordance with what the Minister had decided or with what I had decided myself when reports were made to me.
Q. Now, only one technical question, for the purpose of complete clarification. I ask you to look at some page of the lists - let us say English pages 5 to 8. There is usually a letter before any individual case, and that letter or figure was crossed out later. Did you cross them out? If so, what was the meaning of it?
A. That meant only a sign. That is to say, if the letter or figure were crossed out, it meant that that case had been reported. I almost always put the result of the report after it, in one word or symbol.
Q. These lists, therefore, give a complete picture of your activities as under-secretary as far as reports by department chiefs, Referents, and other assistants are concerned?
A. As far as the dates and the schedules of reports are concerned, yes. However, the picture is not quite complete as far as the Minister is concerned, as I explained before.
Q. In order to provide a clear comparison of your activities as under-secretary with those of Thierack as Minister - and apparently you have studied the document very carefully - would you please tell us briefly on how many days reports were made to you and on how many days reports were made to Thierack?
A. From these lists I found out that reports were made to Thierack on 35 days, concerning individual penal cases and death sentences, and, furthermore, on three days only concerning death sentences. Reports were made to me on two days on individual penal cases, and on one day about death sentences only, and on two other days, death sentences and individual penal cases.
Q. Could you also tell us, from the document, how many cases occurred - that is, death sentence cases, where a death sentence was reported, in order to obtain a decision on the clemency plea - how many of these cases are there altogether?
A. As can be seen from the lists, 2,620 death sentences were brought to a decision, that is, a decision as to whether the right for pardon would be applied.
Q. And can you also tell us in how many cases that right for pardon was applied in a positive sense?
A. Pardon - that is to say, commutation - was the case in 230 cases. That is almost ten percent.
Q. Of these 2,390 cases - I combine the two figures by deducting the figure of 230, which leaves 2,390 executions - how many of these cases did you decide?
A. I decided 85 cases; that is 3.5 percent.
Q. In order to render a complete picture of the executions which you ordered, will you please mention the types of offenses? You know, of course, that the prosecution charges you with having applied rather severe standards in handling clemency matters.
A. The executions, as far as they can be seen from the lists, I put into types according to the individual offenses, and it can be seen from the lists that refusal for issued pardon occurred as follows:
Cases of high treason, 385 individual cases. Of these, I decided 4.
Treason, 134 cases. Of these, I made the decision in three cases.
Undermining of military strength, 341 cases. Of these, I made the decision in 3 cases.
NN cases, 131. Of these, 8 were decided by me.
Non-political penal matters, 1,391. Of these, I made the decision in 67 cases.
Juveniles, 8 cases. Of these, not one was decided by me.
The non-political penal cases amount to 58.2 percent of all death sentences where the clemency plea had been rejected.
Q. Will you give us an example, briefly, of what you meant at that time by "non-political penal cases"?
A. Non-political penal cases comprise murder, plunder, habitual criminals, violent criminals -- all those which would not fit under the other headings such as high treason, treason, undermining of military strength, NN, and juveniles.
Q. This affords, therefore, an opportunity to examine your practice in handling clemency matters in each individual case?
A. Yes.
Q. I should like to ask you now: Were there any directives according to which death sentences were reported to Thierack or to you by the Referents?
A. I mentioned that briefly already. There was, as can be seen from Exhibit 45, a directive that death sentences had to be reported to the Minister. I could deputize for him if he was absent, but even in his absence I could not deputize any so-called doubtful cases; in his absence I could only make a decision about so-called clear cases. In order to make that clear, that does not exclude the following. It is absolutely possible that a refusal on a clemency plea in a doubtful case may have been signed by me. There were the following reasons for that:
On the days of reporting to the Minister, the Referents and chiefs of departments, in clear cases, submitted the text of the decision already prepared. It was quite an extensive document, because it consisted of the original, a carbon copy, and another copy which was subsequently sent to the execution agency, and the covering letter, which had to be signed by the department chief.
In. doubtful cases all these documents were not prepared, because just for the reason that these were doubtful cases one could not tell whether the clemency plea would be rejected or whether it would be confirmed. And that is why it frequently happened that these documents were only prepared on the next day. That is to say, the day after the Minister had made a decision. And then frequently the matter was submitted to me for signature because it had been decided and one did not want to bother the Minister again.
Q. The difference between clear and doubtful cases, I think, has been clarified. I should only like to ask you what difference it made in the case of the report.
A. When a death sentence was reported to the Minister, in general there were at least seven opinions available concerning the death sentence. In order to make a decision on the clemency plea it had to be an opinion by the court that pronounced the sentence, the presiding judge of that court, the prosecution, and probably also the general prosecutor. In addition, in the Ministry the assistant referent, the referent, and the chief of the department. The decision on the part of the Minister, therefore was only stipulated after seven opinions had been recorded. In some cases, however, there were even more opinions available. A case was considered a clear case if, firstly, from the legal point of view, that is, from the point of view of substantive law and procedure it was all right. As to the extent of the crime, it had to be punishable by death. That was particularly important in such cases where the law provided only the death sentence for such crimes and the judge could not avoid that sentence, if the reasons in the clemency plea were not convincing, if the personality and the character of the culprit did not present sufficient reasons for any commutation of the sentence, and above all it was necessary that all the different authorities that had to render an opinion were not in favor of a commutation of sentence. These so-called clear cases were confronted by the so-called doubtful cases on the other side.
Among these are all cases where only one of the requirements which I have just mentioned for so-called clear cases was not met. But there were also clear cases where all prerequisites as I have described them were met, but a specific circumstance was added which was in favor of not executing the sentence. If I may cite an example, it was the witness Havemann who appeared here. Havemann was an inventor and a scientist of importance to the war effort, and was supposed to continue his work. That meant, in effect, in all cases a commutation of the death sentence. Another example, the Foreign Office intervened in the case of a foreigner because his native state had intervened with the Foreign Office. Or, for example, in NN cases, women were not executed on Hitler's orders. Legal deficiencies of a sentence were, of course, always a reason to designate a sentence as doubtful and to report it in that column.
Q. You have now explained to the Tribunal that the decision on pardons and clemency pleas, must have been a very complicated procedure. However, during the course of this trial and from documents we have seen that there were so-called lightning executions, "Blitz" executions. Will you tell the Tribunal what, during the time of your activities as Undersecretary, these "Blitz" executions meant?
A. There were circumstances which made it imperative that a death sentence to be effective as a deterrent should be executed as quickly as possible. For instance, if in a city after an air attack the looting assumed a large extent, in such cases, that large and extensive machinery as I have described it now, was eliminated to the extent that these opinions, particularly on the part of the Court and the prosecution, were rendered only orally and instead of being made in an exhaustive report and by mail, they were made by telephone from the place in question to the Ministry. And on the basis of these oral reports or telephone reports, the decision was made whether the death sentence should be commuted or executed.
Q. In the case of these "Blitz" executions was the referent in the Ministry who had to work on the opinion included in the procedure or was he eliminated from it?
A. I do not know of any single case where a referent was not included in the procedure. In the few cases of Blitz executions of which I know, the referent was always included in the procedure. I personally, for instance, never received a telephone report in the matter of a "Blitz" from any court. Frequently a telephone report of that nature was received by the referent of Department 4, but also by the so-called emergency service. I do not recall any case where the Minister himself received any such report from the outside, personally. It could only have been a referent of Department 4 who would come, and who reported about such matters. I, on my part, had to decide, I believe, about three times about Blitz executions. From the referents I received reports quite frequently. I may refer to the affidavit of the Witness Franke who said that I would make telephone calls to the Minister's apartment and that I would either call the Minister to the telephone in such cases of Blitz executions or that I had promised him, Franke, to report the case to the Minister. In that case I was only passing it on from Franke, who was the referent. The statements made by Altmeyer in the affidavit, which is Exhibit 44, is not correct as far as that is concerned. I even refused a Blitz execution to the witness Altmeyer. It can be seen from Exhibit 252, the lists of reports on death sentences on Page 92 in the German text, that is 104 and 105 in the English text. There under No. 24 a man by the name of Mattei is lifted. This is a matter of a death sentence, a clear case, and I made the notation to it, report first, no Blitz execution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 July 1947) HERBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Klemm, the problem of the so-called lightening executions, I think, is now being concluded. Now I will ask you to tell me in general what your personal attitude was to the death cases as such. What was the attitude you took when you had to make a decision about such matters?
A I take the view, for State, legal, and religious reasons, that the State has the right and the duty to be permitted to pronounce a death sentence and to execute such sentence. But it is a condition that the offender and the wrongfulness of his offenses must be determined. I am also of the opinion that the standards can vary as concerns the wrongfulness of an offense: War or peace; deterrent, or combating such a state of affairs. Increased protection of the general public or the maintenance of public order and peace can constitute circumstances which at extraordinary times justify the pronouncement of a death sentence or not. Thus I, for myself, affirmed severe jurisdiction in time of war against public enemies and violent criminals, against robbers, plunderers, against criminals who exploited the black-out, against persons who committed high treason or treason. A State which has to order a black-out also has the duty to protect the population against the increased insecurity which arises. The State which cannot defend itself one hundred per cent against an air raid and cannot immediately remove its consequences has the duty to protect the victims of such air raids to the furthest extent against persons who have a wish to exploit such a state of emergency.
I want to brief, but I would like to give expression to one idea in this connection and that concerns the undermining of the morale of the Armed Forces. I would never have allowed myself the inner justifi cation to confirm a death sentence for defeatism or undermining of defense morale so that it could be executed, had I not believed up to the last that the outcome of the war would be bearable for Germany, I lost that belief during that April night in 1945 when the order came from the Reich Chancellery saying that Ministers and Under-Secretaries were to leave Berlin and to go to northern Germany.
Until then, I was dependent on what information the German population in general had about the war situation. As far as negative news was concerned, I only heard what the press, the wireless, or the High Command communiques told us. I, in my position, was not told anything by persons who were of different opinions. Furthermore, there were the rumors which sprang up again and again about new V-weapons, about new U-beats, submarines, there were Hitler's various speeches. I would only remind you of the phrase, "Berlin remains German; Vienna will become German again." I also remember that I think it was in March 1945 -- the Reich Prosecutor Lautz came to see me and with him the President of the People's Court, Haffler, Freisler's successor. Both had been to see Keitel. They told me how confident Keitel had been and that he had assured them they might think as they like but he could tell them that the war from the military point of view would come to a happy end for Germany. All those circumstances made me hold that belief.
Q Herr Klemm, the prosecution has asserted that the clemency practice became more stringent during the time when you were Undersecretary. Would you give us your views on that matter?
A I must answer that question in the negative. When I came to the Reich Ministry of Justice as Under-Secretary, Thierack had been for about 18 months the Minister of Justice. The clemency practice at that time when I arrived had been developed along definite lines. I, myself, could not even take up a more severe attitude, for concerning death sentence matters, only clear cases were submitted to me -- that is to say, cases where the head of the department too took the view that the death sentence would have to be executed and clemency was out of the question.
Concerning my attitude in doubtful cases, I would like to revert to those later. I now just want to make a general statement.
Q In the Affidavit 441, which we have mentioned here several times, the witness Altmeyer mentioned four cases where you, refused a suggestion for clemency which he as tho Referent had made. Would you give us your views on those cases?
A When I look at those four cases which Altmeyer described, I can only say that in accordance with the usual practice concerning clemency please at the Reich Ministry of Justice, those cases must be described as clear.
As concerns Case I, railway employees who had previous convictions had stolen blankets and food tins from a hospital train they had previous convictions. They had exploited extraordinary wartime circumstances. The goods that had been stolen were difficult to replace and they had been stolen from a hospital train according to Altmeyer's description. The use of that hospital train had thereby been endangered.
By way of introduction, I would like to say that I cannot remember one of those four cases, I cannot remember that Altmeyer reported to me about them.
In the second case, looting of a water pump is concerned. In such cases, it was not always the value that mattered, nor did it always matter whether the stolen goods were replaceable in money, for in Germany the situation was such that money was of no use at all because with money one could not buy tho goods that had been stolen. They just didn't exist. Concerning that particular case, I am supposed to have said that, "Plunderers, in principle, should have their death sentences executed immediately." I could not possibly have put forward that theory in an uncompromising way for I could not defend myself or give orders contrary to the opinion which as the Minister's own opinion had been given in the judge's letter, and that was in the judges' letter, Exhibit 96, NG-321, Document Book I-D.
The third case also concerned an impositor who had previous convictions. He had committed series of frauds in a particularly disgusting way -- brutal way. He approached people whose relatives were missing from the front, and proetended that he had met their missing relatives and that he brought good news from them. Thereby he made them give him food, etc. It is that particular brutality which that case so serious. The last case, also, concerned a person who had previous convictions; he had broken out of a prison, and then had committed burglaries and thefts on a number of farms. In such cases particularly the death sentence was executed because it was particularly necessary to provide protection for the inhabitants of the open country. In consequence of the shortage of laborers, the farms were unguarded, or, it was only women who lived there. All those cases and those circumstances speak for the fact that they were clear cases. On no account can Altmeyer have suggested clemency to me, for only clear cases were reported to me. If the mitigating circumstances which Altmeyer described did in fact exist, he should have described them as doubtful, and a report would then have been made to the minister. I assume that all the more because I cannot bring them into any connection with names on any of my lists reported to me, but what may have happened is that these were in fact doubtful cases on which a report had been made to the minister and about which the minister had made a decision, and that one, two, or three days later, such as I described earlier, I merely signed the decision because during the report to the minister the final copy of the refusal of the clemency plea was not available. But if Altmeyer and I emphasize that on purpose, had asked for clemency, I could not have decided upon these cases being doubtful cases.
Q. Altmeyer said quite generally that Thierack only in unusual cases had allowed clemency, and you, witness, always had shared his view. What do you have to say about that?
A. All I have to do is to refer to the list of reports on death sentences which reveal that in almost ten percent of all cases the execution of the death sentence was not ordered. In particular with reference to Altmeyer's statement in his affidavit, I reexamined those lists, and, as far as these copies show it, I ascertained that during those thirteen months covered by those lists, 361 doubtful cases were decided upon; in 191 of those cases, that is to say in the case of 53 per cent, execution was not ordered.
Q. Will you tell us as briefly as possible what was the attitude toward clemency pleas. If it was not death sentences that were concerned, but to use a technical expression -- individual penal matters were concerned.
A. I personally allowed clemency in the case of individual penal matters wherever it could be done in regard of the general problem, and the lists submitted in reports, as far as they concern me, reveal that according to the list on sheet 6, in the English it is sheet 5 and 6, I granted three clemency pleas. The list on sheet 77, in the English text 87 and 88, in one case; according to the list on sheet 91, English text 103, 104, in three cases; and according to the list on sheet 135 , in the English text 154 and 155, in six cases.
Q. Apart from those lists submitted reports from which almost everything can be reconstructed, the Prosecution has only submitted a few files where clemency was granted and where you may have played a part. Those few cases I would like to discuss with you. May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that I am now dealing with Exhibit 144, NG-363, in Document Book III-C, pages 127 and following in the German text; that concerns the so-called Riedel case. Would you tell us something about that, please.
A. That was a clear case. Riedel, as the opinions of the sentence show, was sentenced on the account of statements he himself made.
Furthermore, the court stated expressly that it was a serious case. Riedel was a communist, who since 1921 had spent more than eighteen years living under assumed names. As early as 1940 he was convicted for statements hostile to the State; there were no reasons to grant clemency which would have justified commuting the sentence.
Q. Now, I would like you to tell us something about the Kaukowitsch case; that is Exhibit 244, NG-459, Document Book III-D; in the German text it is at page 137.
A. I cannot check up on that case because it occurred at a time--- I believe it was February 1945, that is to say at the time which is not covered by these lists. I no longer remember whether it was a decision of my own or a decision of the minister which I signed afterwards. This is in itself a perfectly clear case. The way in which the prosecution read out the case into the transcript does not represent the actual facts. Jaukowitsch had not committed an ordinary theft, but besides he had committed serious thefts in the same cellar. He did not steal because he was in difficulties, but he immediately sold the things he had stolen. And thefts from cellars in particular had been on the increase in Germany on a tremendous scale at that time; they had become an epidemic. That is shown from Exhibit 171, NG-544, Document Book III-A; that is a report on the situation. Thierack reported about the situation in penal justice in Exhibit 172, NG-252, of Document Book III-E. There it is stated that theft from cellars in 1943 had increased by one hundred per cent. This was a very common offense because the most valuable possessions of people were housed in the cellars, and when no air raids were on, nobody was there to guard those cellars. The criminal made a full confession. I know from the insight which I have had into the clemency practice that every other person, in such cases would have been sentenced to death and would have been executed.
Jankowitsch, however, was not executed for the files which I examined revealed that the prison of the court house here in Nurnberg was damaged severely during an air raid, that Jankowitsch was able to escape.
Q: Concerning the Jankowitsch case, a special question arises rand I would like to discuss that question with you now. No defense counsel had been appointed for Jankowitsch. Can you give us the reason for this, briefly, please? That may have played some part in reaching a decision about the clemency plea.
A: The legal situation was this: It was no longer proscribed by law to appoint a defense counsel; that was due to curtailment as a measure of simplification which had become necessary because of the lack of personnel. Beyond that, and that, too, can be seen from the files, Jankowitsch was asked expressly whether he wanted a defense counsel, and Jankowitsch said he would do without one. That question was taken into account when a decision on the clemency plea was made. I cannot remember that the Jankowitsch case was reported to me; therefore, I cannot say anything about that, but considering how the experts and referents, dealt with the case there is no doubt that attention was paid to the fact whether a mistake was committed.
Q: We are now coming to the third case, that is the last case which the Prosecution brings in connection with your person, where you took part in making a decision on the clemency plea, that is the Bonnes case. May it please the Court, this is exhibit 181, NG 155, document book III-G, page 5 in the German text. Would you tell us something about that?
A: The Bonnes case was also concerned with a death sentence for the undermining of the defense moral.
When the first sentence which had been passed in this case was submitted to the Ministry of Justice, it was the original intention to make an extraordinary appeal. I had made a special plea on that vount to the Minister, but it was not done because the defense counsel was trying to have the case resumed. The resumption was vigorously supported by the senior Reich Prosecutor and the Reich Ministry of Justice. No extraordinary appeal was made because the reopening of the case had started. At that stage the only thing that could be done was that concerning Minister Thierack, a very severe letter should direct Senate President Krohne; and in that letter he criticized the quite impossible opinion which were was given for the sentence. When Thierack had written that letter he snowed me a copy and told me he hoped that Preisler took that to heart, whose trivial undignified opinions had attracted attention for sometime past. When the second sentence in the case arrived, and still the result was a death sentence, there was a lengthy and violent discussion in Thierack's office and finally he was prepared to propose to Hitler that the death sentence should be commuted into a penitentiary sentence of eight years; but at that time already the Gauleiter who was locally competent, had to be consulted and his opinion had to be submitted. That letter was answered by Stuerz, the competent Gauleiter, in very sharp terms; he was very much against granting a clemency; he used some arguments which involved considerable charges against the Ministry of Justice. That letter first reached Thierack and Thierack became so much persuaded by that letter that at the bottom of the letter he put down a note by way of instructions to Department IV, "execution". When the letter came to me with that note on it, I went to Thierack and told him that was impossible.
After he had once taken the view that eight years penitentiary were a suitable punishment in that case, he could not now consider the death sentence suitable. Thierack said to me he had thought the matter over, he could see now that his view, that the sentence could be commuted, had been wrong. There was no point in reporting to Hitler on the case; Hitler would share Stuerz's view. He, Thierack, too, could no longer with a clear conscience suggest that the sentence be commuted. It was impossible for me, therefore, to persuade Thierack to adhere to his former view. I initialled that letter from Gauleiter Stuerz, to show that I had seen the letter, and in the same way I initialled on the margin -- Thierack's instruction "execution", signed by him, -- that again means nothing else but that I had taken note of it. I did not have to decide on it and I did have to take note, and I had to give evidence that I had taken note. If I had not done so, the department would have returned the letter to me to take note of the Minister's instructions.
Q: You mentioned that Thierack, in such a case, could bring about Hitler's view. The Prosecution has submitted documents and I would like you to give us your views on those documents. Your Honor, we are concerned with exhibit 282, NG 319, document book VII-A; exhibit 358, NG 137, document book V-B; and exhibit 45, that is NG 304, document Book V, supplement. Please give us your views in brief?
A: Paragraph 453 of the code of penal procedure lays down the following: Death sentences do not require confirmation, but they may only be executed when the authority which is competent to deal with the clemency plea has decided that it does not wish to make use of its right to grant clemency.
The next paragraph is of no interest in this connection. Under the law the right to grant clemency was Hitler's, as the head of the State. During the war he had delegated it to the Reich Minister of Justice, in so far as the Minister of Justice, Thierack, could execute sentences, that is to say, could reject clemency pleas; but if it was a question of commuting the death sentence, that is to say, if clemency was to be granted, then Hitler reserved for himself the final decision.