Q. Now let's go to the case Schlamminger. You maintained that the law for the application of legal peace could be applied only if the deed was motivated by political reasons.
A. The law which I mentioned -
Q. Just a moment. Just a moment. The law for maintaining of legal peace, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, Page 723.
A. Even if an official, because of his official activity -- the law is applied even if somebody tries to kill him. It is a combination between political motives. If the attacked person is a bearer of party emblems, SA people, SS people, Gau leaders or policemen or in the case of prison officials, on the basis of their official activity.
Q. In the case of Schlamminger it was a police official, wasn't it?
A. Yes, it was police official Alt.
Q. If, therefore, Alt was attacked, assaulted, was it then still necessary to prove political motives?
A. Only in the case of Alt? No. If it only applies in regard to Alt -
Q. What application for punishment did you make in your indictment as Prosecutor at the time for Schlamminger? What law did you base your indictment on?
A. In my capacity as Prosecutor I talked with the Chief Public Prosecutor on the basis of the information I had. After establishing contact with Rothaug I received the guidance to ask for the death penalty, and I believe the same legal basis which was used for the opinion was also the reason in my indictment -- for my plea.
Q. What was your position in regard to the clemency plea?
A. I wanted to report to Denzler. Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler was somewhat affected in an unfavorable manner because of the discussion Kahm-Nuernberg and because it had been conducted my me with Generalstaatsanwalt Bems, and in regard to the clemency plea he reported me to the General Public Prosecutor. There we discussed and decided that the office of the General Public Prosecutor would then state the reasons for the clemency plea and also be in charge of it. Then in the lower office, in the Oberstaatsanwalt's office who had to sign the clemency plea, that is Oberstaatsanwalt Denzler, I submitted him the clemency plea which was based on the opinion and was for an execution of the sentence.
I think that I am remembering this correctly.
Q. You said that Schlamminger was in the end finally pardoned.
A. Yes, I did. That was for a penitentiary of six or eight years -well, that doesn't matter.
Q. What did you consider the extension of power of Rothaug after the outbreak of the war?
A. Because the war time laws with the very large possibility for penalties, the large basis, reasons, which could be given for penalty, therefore made it possible to inflict capital punishment to a larger extent than before the outbreak of the war.
Q. That was an increase in power which every judge of a Special Court, and especially every presiding judge, was given?
A. We only thought that it was somewhat over-extended in the hands of Herr Roghaug, in our opinion, because in the application of the laws toward the guidance of the Ministry of Justice Herr Rothaug very often went over to a strict application and maintained it, carried it through.
Q. Do you remember that at the outbreak of the war Rothaug was drafted into the Wehrmacht?
A. Herr Roghaug -- yes; yes; yes. For a few days.
Q. Although he was a soldier already during the first World War?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that Roghaug against his will was recalled into the Justice service by the Landgerichtspresident?
A. I don't know that.
Q. 1939, Roghaug was presiding judge of the jury court, that was of a penal chamber, and of the special court. Now you spoke about another old party member to whom the penal chamber was allegedly transferred.
A. Yes. That was Herr Baierle.
Q. That was Baierle?
A. Baierle.
Q. And who was the one other party member, because there must have been two if you speak about the other.
A. No, that was just a mistaken expression. I didn't mean to say that.
Q. You didn't want to say by that that Roghaug perhaps -
A. No, no, no, no.
Q. Do you know what Roghaug's attitude was toward Baierle when he was supposed to become presiding judge of the penal chamber?
A. His attitude was bad, unfavorable.
Q. Bad?
A. Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution would appreciate a clarification of the Tribunal's position with regard to the cross examination on matters involving persons and personalities not raised in the direct examination.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot lay down any rule to govern a line of questions nor to declare the policy of cross examination. The rules of cross examination are pretty well understood and we don't either make them or change them. We only rule on objections that may be made. We will either sustain or overrule them as made.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I object to the questioning of a person or personality not raised in the direct examination, in re the last question just asked the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: We will sustain the objection.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, may I briefly explain why I put this question? During the direct examination through corresponding terms and statements it was expressed, and it can also be detected in the answer of the witness, that the defendant Roghaug was supposed at the time to have given the presiding judgeship of the fourth penal chamber to an old party member, that he was supposed to have handed it to him. That is one of the many mosaics of a small mature out of which the Prosecution makes its picture in the case. I am therefore forced to go into these details because other questions were not raised in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT. The Court has ruled on this question.
Q Would Rothaug or any other judge during tho war in addition to the special court--could they have taken over another penal chamber in addition if the increased amount of work is taken into consideration?
A The taking over of additional presiding judgeships was absolutely impossible, especially since Herr Rothaug was given the cases for the Special Court, partly on the free will of the public prosecution, partly after the discussion about it with him, which in normal times perhaps these cases would have gone to a penal chamber; that is to say, the Special Court in Nurnberg had such an enormous amount of penal cases that another presiding judgeship in addition would have been impossible. It was overlooked with cases.
Q Did in general one team of judges carry out the job on the special court--was that sufficient in order to finish all cases which had to be finished?
A Normally, no; Nurnberg, as in all other places, would have needed two or three special courts as penal chambers. Herr Rothaug maintained the principle that at the top of the special court there was supposed to be one, and that the division of labor, however then was supposed to take place through special appointments; so it happened that we had one presiding judge, Herr Rothaug, constantly--one deputy presiding judge, a further deputy presiding judge, and then so many associate justices that the special court was in a position on one day, for example, to try three cases because of the division.
Q On this day, for example, there were three different presiding judges?
AAs I just told you.
Q I now have the Document NG-409; it's Exhibit 238 from Document Book 3-L. And now I would like to ask you, witness, from the list of these sentences, would you tell me which of these death sentences under your presiding judgeship were pronounced?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the court. We find that the document to which counsel for defense refers was offered and introduced into evidence after the direct examination of this witness. Surely there can be no cross examination on that document.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that the evidence was introduced during the course of the cross examination doesn't make that unavailable to counsel on cross examination of this witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I merely used that point of time, if the Court please, to show that in our opinion it was beyond the scope of the cross examination pleaded.
THE PRESIDENT: So far it's a part of the testimony in this case and I see no reason, especially if we look at the character of that exhibit, why he has not certainly the right to inquire of any witness who testifies against Herr Rothaug. We overrule that objection.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I would like you to tell me the number of the cases in which you were presiding judge of the court that was judging the cases.
A For me, only the time can be considered during which from the first of July 1941, I was the second deputy presiding judge at the special court. Basically, Rothaug himself-
Q I just asked you to state the numbers. It must be very simple to say, "During these death sentences, I was presiding judge."
A I would know that from the time until the first of May 1943 until Herr Rothaug went away, I don't remember that I was presiding judge in a case which ended in a death sentence.
Q Please read the names and take your time about it; then your memory will be refreshed. I believe that a death sentence pronounced on a man is a matter which one can remember for some time.
You can remember all kinds of little details otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which is likely to consume some little time. As we will take a recess in about seven minutes. I think he should have the opportunity to look these over during this recess. You may put the question to him in the meantime.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I shall also ask the witness to tell me after that in which case he was associate judge and in which he was a prosecutor. That is what I would like to say now so that tho witness can try to remember that.
Witness, what proportion of all cases before the special court was tried under the presiding judgeship of Rothaug and what proportion of the cases was given to tho deputies of Rothaug--in what proportion were they presiding judges? Of course, I can only ask you for an estimate.
A The basis for the estimate is as follows: During the week, there were regularly two trial sessions in Nurnberg. It happened that in addition, on two or three other days on such week, there were also trials outside of Nurnberg. One session in Nurnberg was conducted normally by Rothaug always. The rips to Regensburg, Straubing, to Amberg, Kahm, Schwandorf, Weiden, were regularly also undertaken by Herr Rothaug himself. If one assumes that during one trial session, there were regularly four to five cases, then it results from this that there were about ten sentences per week in Nurnberg. In the outside localities, there were not so many because time was lost during travel. I estimate that during one week, there were about five additional sentences from outside localities, perhaps a little more sometimes. Of these, 15 sentences, on the average in a week; there were, after all, ten regularly which were under when Rothaug was presiding judge, and five were conducted by the one or two deputies.
That should be about it, regularly speaking.
Q That is, about one-third of the cases were tried under Rothaug, when Rothaug was presiding judge?
A On the average, yes.
Q If the facts are thus-
JUDGE BRAND: May I interrupt you, please. I think we misunderstood. I understand from the witness that about two-thirds of the cases tried a week were under the presiding control of Rothaug.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, and one-third by others.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Since the facts were so, why did you say that Rothaug kept the activity of the special court--reserved it exclusively for himself? That is what they said before.
A The setting of the date of those trials which he did not conduct himself--that Rothaug reserved to himself--it was not so that he, when the files were handed in from the very beginning, understood a certain division of the case, but he considered it important to give to his deputies only those cases which they could also deal with. That was my regular observation. If here in Nurnberg there had been a case which was of significance and he himself was anxious to be in charge of this trial. It happened that such a file was deferred one or two weeks once in a while until Herr Rothaug gained the appropriate time in order to be the presiding judge in the trial of such a case.
Q. But I believe, witness -
JUDGE BRAND (Interposing): Just before the recess, which is due now, I wanted to ask the witness what Party position this man Haberkern held. I don't recollect.
THE WITNESS: Haberkern was Gau-inspector in the Gau Franken. In addition, he was Ortsgruppenleiter of the Nazi Party for the old City of Nurnberg. In addition, in matters regarding inns and lodges, he
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We will take our morning recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness had time to examine that document?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. KOESSL: Unfortunately I did not understand.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Witness, can you tell me now during which cases you were the presiding judge of the court?
A. On the 1st of May 1943, concerning this list - I could not find one case during which I was the deputy presiding judge at the court, but I do remember that in two cases in Weiden I did conduct the trial and that a death sentence was passed. I do not remember the name of the man and I cannot find it in the list. That must have been in October, perhaps September, 1942, but I cannot find the case here.
Q. Just one moment, witness. You spoke of two cases.
A. Yes, I did. I spoke of two cases when I was the presiding judge.
Q. Both in Weiden?
A. Yes, both in Weiden on the same day.
Q. Both cases are missing in the list?
A. I can't say because I no longer remember the names. It was a farm worker. I think it is not very important.
Q. Were you the associate judge?
A. I started to be an associate judge - just a minute. Number 11 in the year 1940, Breifenthaler, that was the first case, 5 December 1940; that was when my office as judge at the Special Court started. The next case, No. 12, Neupert; then 1941, Case No. 7, Rost; then Cases 8 and 9 and 10 belong together. This is the case of Dwetryszyn, Klarzynski, and Ocejniezak. No. 11, Gruber; No. 12, Becher; No. 20, Dassler; No. 22, Rottenkolber; No. 28, Katzenberger; No. 34, Schieber. Then in 1942 No. 16 and 17, I am not sure whether I took part in those cases, Maderer and Ketterer, but I did take part in one of these cases. No. 30, Grasser; No. 35, Scibiar, Essentially those are the cases which at first sight, immediately when I was presiding and I am doubtful about Case 75, Wota, and 83, Petlikowski.
I am not sure about those cases. That concerns my work as an associate judge under Rothaug.
Q. Did you at the end of the list, during the time when you were presiding judge of the Special Court, do you not pass any death sentence?
A. From the time beginning on the 1st of May, yes.
Q. Do you know whether all those sentences were passed by you?
A. No, no, from 1 May 1943 those cases included cases with which I did not deal. I know that from the pre-examination. At the time from 1 May 1943 until 1 October 1943 those cases included a number which do not effect me personally.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, during the direct examination of this witness, whenever a case specifically was discussed, the official relationship of the witness to that was always brought out, whether he was the prosecutor or whether he was an associate judge or presiding judge or whether he had no official relationship with it. In other words, the prosecution inquires at this time if any of the present questions are relevant. The questioning is concerned solely with the witness's official relationship to a list of cases, a great number of which were never touched upon in the direct examination. We, therefore, object to this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: It is apparent that the direct examination thought to show the severity of Rothaug in sentences pronounced. Therefore, it seems to be competent to show that a great number, or such persons as he may be able to show, of the severe sentences were not pronounced by Rothaug.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue?
TEE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Witness, at what case did you act as public prosecutor?
A. In four cases. They were Case No. 1 and Case No. 3, 1939. And No. 40. No. 9 and 10 belong together. I acted as public prosecutor for those four cases.
Q. Witness, according to what you ascertained and observed, was the Special Court at Nuernberg that of the average of the Special Courts in passing sentences?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, under a thinly disguised form this is clearly a question calling for a personal opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
Q. Have you ever seen a statement concerning the percentage of pardons, concerning sentences of the Special Court?
A. No, no.
Q. Do you know how many of the death sentences of the Nuernberg court came under the pardon?
A. The pardons in 1939 and 1940 were still a little more frequent; later they were fewer. The percentage, comparing it with the total number, I do not have. I had a written statement but they have been destroyed.
Q. Can you remember how many sentences were squashed for legal faults?
A. I believe two or three were cancelled because of legal objections - were excused for mis-trial.
Q. All other sentences were recognized or were there other cancellations?
A. There were also cancellations which were not due to purely legal considerations, but were made because the punishment awarded showed defects. The reasons for the unusual punishments were considered not sufficient.
Q. In those cases was there also more leniency shown or were they more severe?
A. That was about fifty-fifty. I remember a death sentence passed on a Pole was objected to because the emergency defense had been assigned incorrectly in setting the fact as a whole. Rothaug held the view that under the law against Poles a Pole did not have the privilege of emergency defense and that was also a mistake in the sentence. The Supreme Reich Court squashed the sentence and a prison sentence was imposed instead.
In another case a more severe sentence was passed. This was the case of Lopata.
Q. Under direct examination you said that the reputation of the Special Court of Nurnberg had been very bad.
A. Yes. That was because, I am now going to speak of two statements made by defense counsel; that was because an attorney at law with a reputation such as Vaugner said to me once in 1942 that the activity of Rothaug was no longer considered by him as the activity of a judge; the form in which he spoke to the defendant, this was concerning clergymen particularly, the manner in which he examined witnesses, Vaugner asked me whether he could speak to me quite frankly and I said yes; he said literally to me: in my eyes Rothaug is a hangmen, but not a judge. The other defense counsel would make remarks in the same manner jokingly, but he meant it seriously, and I want to add I deliberately base myself on statements by attorneys at law and not on statements from judges, but I would also like to add that Rothaug himself liked to call himself Lucifer; and he chase the translation from the Latin into German, the servant of the Reich; those were the circumstances which generally showed up the Special Court and particularly Rothaug in a very bad light. May I add one more sentence. When it was said that Rothaug liked to call himself the tenno; and that he was called the tenno; the Emperor; that means the Emperor of Japan; that was some symbolic designation the public prosecutor took; it was symbolically the Emperor of Manschuko; thereby, outwardly and inwardly the relationship is characterized best.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. I couldn't make out one word; it sounded like "tenno"; what was that word and what does it mean"
DR. KOESSL: The word "tenno" was the designation for the Emperor of Japan, and the witness compared Rothaug with the Tenno, or the Emperor of Japan; and evidently, if I understood him correctly, the chief public prosecutor Schroeder was the regent of Manschuko.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I definitely heard the witness say that he was not comparing Rothaug to the Emperor of Japan, but that Rothaug, himself, compared himself to the Emperor of Japan. I believe the transcript will show that.
BY JUDGE BRAND: While the interruption continues, I should like to ask a question.
Q. Mr. Witness, you spoke about one case in which a sentence against a Pole was quashed and only a penitentiary sentence was imposed by the Supreme Reich Court; do you remember your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you who raised the question; or how it was raised in the Supreme Reich Court as a matter of legal procedure. How did it get to the Reich Supreme Court; just briefly, please.
A. The sentence was submitted through the usual channels, through the Ministerial channel at Berlin; it must have reached the Supreme Reich Court Landgerichtsrat because the legal question had been broached and Rothaug denied it; that a Pole did not have the privilege of self-defense, that is to say when an employer just discharges the Pole, the Pole was not to have the privilege that this assault was illegal.
Q. My only question related to the procedure by which one of Rothaug's judgments was reviewed and modified by the Supreme Reich Court; it was done on the motion of the Ministry; was it?
A. I assumed that.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, can you give us an example of a sentence when Rothaug had passed too lenient a sentence?
A. Yes, that was the Wendel case; that is a case which went on for many months; it was a model case which Rothaug repeatedly said that Ostermeier's objections during the deliberations had been incorrect; if the original plan had been followed, Rothaug's plan I mean, this objection would never have been raised.
Q. Do you mean to say that in this case the associate judges out-voted the presiding judge Rothaug?
A. Rothaug himself, in this case used the expression he was of the opinion he followed Ostermeier's opinion; he meant to say that he had allowed himself to be influenced by the other person's opinion and that the sentence had been formulated in that way against his will; he repeatedly said that just for once he had allowed himself to follow Ostermeier's ruling.
Q. I conclude that these sentences were properly deliberated; that once Rothaug and in another case the associate judges gave in; that a proper deliberation of the sentence and a proper decision of the chamber was achieved.
A. This ruling in accordance with the code of penal procedure was regularly abandoned by Rothaug; when he organized a trial which politically exceeded a small circle because then in the presence of the Gauleiter or in the presence of a Kreisleiter, in the presence of well-known representatives of the party and the SD, the voting by the presiding judge, which is laid down by the code of penal procedure, that is to say he had to vote last, that procedure every time it occurred was an infringement because Rothaug at such an important public session from the beginning of the first examination of the defendant put to the defendant; told the defendant what he had to expect. For example when he said to a defendant at the end of this session your head will lie at your feet, or when he said why did you steel that coat, and the defendant answered because I was cold, and he said then you will never again need a coat in your life; if in a politically significant trial, such as in the case of Katzenberger, for example, it is said again and again what ideological significance the racial question has for the existence of the German people; that he who infringes must be physically destroyed; then in front of such an audience Rothaug at any rate has already voted for that audience hears from the mouth of the presiding judge how he will vote, and what will be the result of the sentence. We always said that the presiding judge foretold the sentence.
Q. The following interests me. How did the associate judges, and in particular yourself, view your office as an associate judge?
A. There was a unanimous view among the associate judges and that was this: Naturally we tried, at the Special Court Nurnberg, we tried within the framework of the deliberations insofar as there were any deliberations after a session, we tried to counteract the opinion that Rothaug had publicly stated; to counteract it to a certain extent; imagine that Rothaug's vote had been cast, let us say in the Grasser case, in the presence of Gauleiter Holz, that officially the dogma that his head must be taken off, where is the strength to come from to counteract such an opinion.
Q. Witness, I believe we have reached the point where we must have a more serious discussion.
A. I do take a very serious view of all this.
Q. If you were of the conviction as an associate judge that a man was to be sentenced to death wrongly, did you only vote with Rothaug for the only reason because you had to fear that Rothaug's prestige would be diminished, or did you vote for the death of another person because you perhaps -- which has not been proved yet -- were to have been transferred from the penal chamber to the civil chamber?
A. When might I have been in such a situation as you have described? When should I have voted for a death sentence?
Q. In all cases you or the other associate judge voted for the death sentence in all cases in which a death sentence was promulgated; is that correct or do you wish to dispute this conception?
A. In that form as you have put it that in question can only lead to a half truth. I believe it is necessary to explain this by the example of the individual cases.
Q. I believe the question is completely clear. Did Rothaug ever announce a sentence which had not been decided on by a majority? That is the question.
A. Voting in the proper sense of the Judicature Act Regulations -that means to say we vote on differences of opinion -- such a voting I do not remember at all. The custom was this: we deliberated in this form, in the consulting room Rothaug voiced his view -- continued to give us his views, and that in the same way in which he had done at the trial itself, and when he had examined a defendant or when he had examined the witnesses if an objection was made, which not all cases, but in the cases which were border cases -- for we can only be concerned with such borderline cases -- in such cases Rothaug, from the ideological angle, from a purely political motive, put his arguments forward, and generally it is difficult to describe in a general way, but it is easier to do so in concrete cases as, for example, in the Katzenberger, Grasser, and Lopata cases, which I remember well and which show how it happened that without open opposition Rothaug made sure that one of the associate judges would agree so that he could announce the sentence even without a purely formal vote within the meaning of the provisions of the Judicature Act.
That is obvious.
Q. Witness, tell the Tribunal quite clearly what happened usually and always. The Court withdrew for deliberations; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The court withdrew to a small room for deliberation and was alone there; is that correct?
A. Yes, they were alone.
Q. The three judges who were in contact every day hardly took the vote like a referendum or a plebiscite, but they discussed things with one another; is that right?
A. Yes, the word "discussion" -- when I remember things I feel a resistance against the word "discussion." Rothaug didn't like discussions.
Q. Very well then. At some time he had to lay down his cards and at some moment one of the associate judges had to show his cards. At what moment did that happen?
A. We will take the Lopata case.
Q. I now want to know in general how these deliberations took place. When the sentence was ready, that is to say, when the three judges realized, for example, that they were going to pass the death sentence, what happened at that stage in that room?
A. As I said, Rothaug had already cast his vote publicly at the first. That means he could only -
Q. Well, what did happen? I don't want any long statements.
A. But you can't say that -- I do not need to make excuses.
Q. I want a clear answer.
A. You will get that clear answer from me. At that stage in the room Rothaug again gave a precise form to his attitude. He continued here in the same manner and he took the position which he had from the beginning of the trial. That is to say, he acted as a reporter. And now when I was present and I personally was of a different opinion, we tried to make Rothaug see why we had a different opinion. For example, we pointed out was it necessary in the interests of a deterrent, because of the frequency of such cases -- practically specking, all these things sound much too abstract now.
For example, whether the Poles frequently or infrequently illtreated the cattle of the farmers or tried to kill it with glass splinters.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Witness, to your knowledge, did defendant Rothaug ever announce a judgment of conviction in a case in which both of the associate judges had voted for acquittal?
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE BRAND: Did you have the power to vote as associate judges?
THE WITNESS: As the last way out we could say, Well, then, we will take the vote. But -
JUDGE BRAND: That is all I want to know.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. When the vote had been taken or when unanimity had been reached beyond doubt, what happened next?
A. Then the announcement of the verdict had to be written out.
Q. In other words, then the sentence was written down; is that right?
A. Yes. It was laid down in writing.
Q. Was this written sentence signed by all judges?
A. Yes, regularly. When I looked at the files now I saw that in some cases there were not three signatures.
Q. Was that a mistake?
A. Yes, in my view that may have been due to an oversight.
Q. The oversight probably lay equally with the associate judges and Rothaug.
A. That is the only way I can explain it.
Q. We won't go into that now. But the sentences were signed when they were announced?
A. That is right.
Q. Therefore not a single sentence was announced which did not have the approval of the majority of the chamber?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you find yourself in an inner conflict in view of these facts, now that you say that frequently you were outvoted?
A. At these conflicts things became easier, and it had to be expected that it would be so, because in the presence of the highest chiefs of the authorities in Nuremberg, in the presence of the Oberpresident, the Generalstaatsanwalt, the Landgerichtspresident, and the Oberstaatsanwalt, because in their presence it had become evident concerning the conduct of the trial and the shaping of the trial what might have been wrong with it, and it had been clarified by consultation that the chiefs of the administration ministry would make representations for settlement. In three cases I know that Oberpresident Doebig himself submitted special reports on such trials and their results immediately so that a change in the verdict might be achieved.