MISS ARBUTHNOT: Document NG-766 is offered as Exhibit 377.
DR. SCHILF (Attorney for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg):
May it please the Tribunal, in the German document book, on the second page of this document, on the left-hand margin next to the text, under number three, of the remarks, there are some abbreviations, and also the name of Ministerial Dirigent Dr. Mettgenberg. It has not been stated by the Prosecution that the statement made in the German text is contained in the original or the photostat; it also has not been said that Dr. Mettgenberg's signature appears on it, since the photostat is now before me and I also do not find the note which is contained in the German document book; and, therefore, I would like to ask the Prosecution whether they would like to link this document in any way to the defendant Mettgenberg. If that is not the case, we would eliminate the name Mettgenberg from our German document book.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: On the English translation of this document, we do not find the name Mettgenberg, and the Prosecution has not attempted to link the defendant Mettgenberg with this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We find the letter "M" there, and we wondered if later that would be claimed that might refer to Mettgenberg.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I don't believe so, your Honor. In the original does not appear Mettgenberg's initial.
THE PRESIDENT: While you have the German photostat with you, I wonder if your could give some more definite location of the name Joel.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Perhaps one of the Defense Counsel could do it better than I, because I can't place it with the English.
DR. FREDERSDORF (Attorney for Defendant Joel):
May it please the Court, in order to clarify the initials, may I say that the margin of the document contains the regulations, Ministerial Dirigent so and so, and Dr. Ministerial Director Joel, with request for information: thus, a number of gentlemen of the Ministry were given this document merely for their information, and they initialed it accordingly; that is the only connection which these persons were concerned, among them the defendant Joel had with this affair.
From the English version this is not clearly apparent.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The initial on the original appears at the bottom of page 2, which would be just above the insert notation; page three of the original, 330 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder whether it appears where the interrogation point is found in the English?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Where the interrogation points is found?
THE PRESIDENT: There is an interrogation point before the name "Meyer".
MISS ARBUTHNOT: No, I don't believe so, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is on the right hand side of the page, apparently.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: It is on the left-hand side of the page, but it appears on the bottom of page 2 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, apparently Dr. Haensel (Dr. Fredersdorf) does not deny that there is an initial there of Joel.
DR. FREDERSDORF (Attorney, (Assistant) for Defendant Joel) May it pleases the Court, actually the initial of the defendant Joel are on the document, who thereby said that he got the information.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Document NG-766 is offered as Exhibit 377.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
DR. FREDERSDORF (Assistant Counsel for Defendant Joel):
May it please the Court, may I again point out that the remarks in the marginal notes on the document, and this is something that is not very clear in the U.S. version, that it is only a circulation, which means that those names are listed there, that they were asked to take motive of the information, so that there will be no misunderstanding from the English version of the text.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Mr. Wooleyhan will proceed with the presentation now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, under the provisions of Article 9, Ordinance 7, we now offer for judicial notice the official State Reports on War Crimes of two of the United Nations:
namely, Czechoslovakia and Poland. We similarly offer the Hague and Geneva treaties on the Rules of Warfare. Only certain portions of these reports and treaties are offered for judicial notice, and these portions will be read into the record, if the Court so decides, under precisely the same circumstances as those agreed to by Defense Counsel regarding reports on Nazi legislation presented some days ago.
DR. SCHILF (Attorney for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg) May it please the Court, for clarification I would like only to ask the Prosecution to explain whether this will only be submitted for judicial notice, whether only those parts which are read into the record will be submitted to judicial notice or the entire reports; for, if the entire reports are submitted for judicial notice, we would have to insist for at least one document in the English text to be given to us.
Moreover, this would facilitate matters considerably for the Defense, for excerpts taken out of their context and read do not make it possible for us recognize the entire meaning if we cannot read the other parts of the government reports, that is, if we do not obtain them. Therefore, may I request as to the effect that, first of all, the Prosecution should state whether only the parts that will be read will be given judicial notice; and secondly, we ask the gentlemen of the Prosecution to be so kind, if it is possible, to give, to make available for us the copies of the two government reports.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: To Dr. Schilf's first question, I have already answered that. The Prosecution only offers for judicial notice those portions of the State Reports which we read; secondly, with regard to an English copy for the benefit of the Defense, of each of these reports which, at the Defense's convenience, can be consulted by them if they have any fear that we have lifted something out of the normal context.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a little difficulty on the understanding on the bench. I would like to know if the Defense is asking for a German translation or merely the English copy.
DR. SCHILF: English.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem then that that adjusts the entire matter.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We begin with the official state report of the Slovak government, prepared by Colonel, Doctor Ecer.
JUDGE BRAND: Excuse me, but will each of the members of the Tribunal receive a copy of this as we do in the case of exhibits?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, pursuant to the rules which Your Honors have promulgated, we are prepared to file with you at the conclusion of the presentation one copy. We can get you more copies of one of these exhibits, but we only have one of the other.
JUDGE BRAND: All right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is the purpose of the Prosecution to take the one copy that is to be delivered to the Bench and file it with the Secretary General, in the archives, so that it will be there for our permanent use. We anticipate handling it in the same way as we did those other reports that were given to the Tribunal for judicial notice some days ago... We will file them with the Secretary General or with the Tribunal, whichever you wish.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have enough copies to do both?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, your Honor, that is the problem. They are rather elaborate and voluminous reports.
THE PRESIDENT: They would be of no value to the Court, and therefore, no value to the proceedings if they are to be kept down in the Secretary General's office where we would not have access to them at all times.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Perhaps I should, after the presentation, file the copies with the Tribunal, then.
This Czecho-Slovak State report was prepared by Colonel Dr. Ecer, Plenipotentiary Czechoslovak representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission. The report is signed, London, September 29, 1945. We invite the Court's attention first to pages 88 through 96. This portion of the report is entitled, "Criminal Court at the People's Court." Quoting now from the report:
"The Czechoslovak republic was not only occupied but entirely annexed by the German Reich. The resistance of the Czechoslovak people against this annexation was fought by various means. The People's Court was one of the instances which was charged with the suppression of all, even the most insignificant activities, aiming at the liquidation of this state of affairs created in violation of international law.
"The People's Court was created by an enactment of 24 April 1943, by the Ordinance of 14 April 1939, signed by the then Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Guertner, and on behalf of Reich Minister of Interior. The People's Court jurisdiction was extended to the "Protectorate."
"The number of Czechoslovak citizens sentenced to death by this court during the occupation is so far only partly known. Investigations carried out up to now brought to light 445 death sentences alone which were executed without exception.
"More than one reason can be shown that the German Reich did not acquire by her illegal occupation of the Czechoslovak republic, the right due the belligerent power occupying enemy territory during a war. In this report, however, we are going to deal exclusively with that part of the activities of the German court in Czechoslovakia. The illegality of which is indisputable. We restrict ourselves, therefore, to that part of their activities which are beyond the rights connected with the occupation bellica.
"An examination of the sentences passed by the People's Court shown again and again that even the most insignificant acts which certainly could not endanger the military security of the German Reich or "other legitimate interest occupying power" was considered criminal and punished with death. That the taking up of mere trifles and their inhumane judgment explained to a great extent the great number of death sentences passed by the People's Court.
"We do not think that the German Reich could claim in Czechoslovakia the rights which international law conceeded to belligerents occupying enemy territory. But, we wish to deal in this report only with the jurisdiction which would be illegal even if the German Reich had the rights.
Indisputably illegal are the sentences passed by the People's Court on high treason. It is not merely because high treason can only be committed by persons owing allegiance. The People's Court had more than once qualified and punished with death acts of Czechoslovak citizens which aimed solely at the removal of the State created by the annexation of the republic, and did not interfere with the 'legitimate interest of the occupying power.' It is quite clear that the German criminal legislation was not entitled to protect a state illegally created as that created by the annexation, and that a jurisdiction which Draconically punishes an activity aiming at the removal of that State, does not find any basis in international law.
The sentences passed by the People's Court on high treason, which punished Czechoslovak citizens in exceptional cases with many years of penal servitude, but as a rule with death, are to be considered as the case may be, 'illegal restriction of personal liberty or as murder'.
"B - Special Courts "The jurisdiction of the Special Courts was considerably more diverse and extensive than that of the People's Court, and the terrorism eminating from them incomparably more intensive.
"Five Special Courts were set up by a Reich decree in the territory of the Czechoslovak republic. The Czechoslovak law, like the law of other European nations, allowed the trial of criminals in summary courts as an exception. Only in cases of danger to the State from outside, and under extraordinary conditions of similar importance the suspension of ordinary criminal procedure and transfer of jurisdiction of certain crimes to summary courts could be justified.
"It was left to the German legislators to set up in the territory of the Republic summary criminal courts, namely, Special Courts, as a permanent institution, and, moreover, to transfer to them the greater part of the jurisdiction in the criminal matters, certainly the most important ones.
"The competence of the Special Courts and provisions to be applied by them were laid down in a great number of Ordinances and Decrees. And, a great number of these ordinances and decrees violated the principles considered irrevocable by all civilized nations. Again and again we see that they disregarded the principle, nulla peona sine lege.
"Thus the Ordinance against violent criminals, dated December 5, 1939, provides the death penalty for offenses which up to the time of its coming into force, were punishable only by imprisonment, and lays down its retrospective forces in another section.
More or less common to all provisions administered by the Special Courts was, however, that the threat of penalties were in no reasonable proportion whatever to the offense. All of them were barbarous excessive. Perhaps the most excessive provisions applied by the Special Courts is contained in the Ordinance of the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, on the defense against support of acts hostile to the Reich, dated July 3, 1942. Remarkably enough this Ordinance is so-called Gezietszonenrecht, that is to say, it did not take effect in the German Reich, but only in the Protectorate. Pursuant to the first section of this Ordinance, one who gave lodging or any other help to a person whom he knew or according to circumstances could assume that he or she was engaged in acts hostile to the Reich or who omitted to notify the authorities in time, was punished by death. According to another section of that act, circumstances in the meaning of the section just read are given, especially in case the perpetrator is aware of the fact that the person concerned was not registered with the police or did not possess a valid identity card.
"No provision was applied more often by the Special Courts then Section IV of the Ordinance against Destructive Elements, which laid down that whoever deliberately abused the extraordinary conditions created by the war, committed some other offenses which were in excess of the ordinary maximum penalty be sentenced to penal servitude up to 15 years or life or death, if the popular feeling of the people called for it because of the particularly heinousness of the offense.
"Other crimes were considered amongst those, even the slightest infringement against the numerous emergency regulations concerning economy control. A great part of the sentences passed by the Special Court were death sentences butchers who may have sold but small quantities of meat, under the counter, and against bakers who supplied individual customers with bread off the ration. Death sentences for selling clothing or cigarettes on the black market, and even on the occasion of an insignificant overcharge beyond the controlled ceiling price.
These sentences, too, appeared criminal on account of their excessiveness. Moreover they were not jurisdiction but terrorism because the penalties they pronounced were not prescribed by law, but were decided upon arbitrarily by the judge.
It was up to the judge to examine first of all whether in view of the particularly beinousness of the deed, or sound popular feeling of the people asked that the ordinary maximum penalty should be executed. As to the sound popular feeling of the people is not a certain fact which can be established; there was no reliable standard to help to decide whether it was necessary as an individual case to exceed the ordinary maximum penalty.
"The number of sentences passed pursuant to these and similar provisions could so far as be ascertained have incomplete legality.
"The investigations carried out up to now which cover the period up to and including the first half of 1943, have revealed 704 death sentences alone which were executed without exception.
"We have chosen that the German police had the power to commit arbitrarily anybody to a concentration camp, that is to death. It is almost incomprehensible why the Third Reich was not satisfied with this one instrument of terrorism, but in addition unleashed the criminal court and relieving them from all legal barriers empowering them to impose in every case brought before them an inappropriate penalty or even death. The atrocities committed by the court may have been surpassed by these of the SS. If so, the essentially distinguishing feature is the lack of publicity."
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished one document yet?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have finished a chapter of one document.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be a proper time to take our noon recess. We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Before we resume the natter interrupted by the noon recess, we would like to inform the Tribunal that - mainly for the convenience of defense counsel - of the fact that at the completion of this material which is being offered for judicial notice, which means, roughly, an hour from now, the prosecution will call as witness, General Rudolf Lehmann. We had intended to inform defense counsel of that fact this morning but somehow it was overlooked. In any event, notice was duly filed on the 21st of this month and the notice stated that we would call General Lehmann at any time after the 22nd.
Continuing with the Czechoslovakian State Report. The last portion of that report, to which we invite the Tribunal's attention, is found on pages 103 and 104, which is part of the chapter entitled "Standgerichte", which previously in this trial has been translated "Emergency Civilian Courts Martial". With reference to these "Standgerichte" the Czechslovakian State Report says the following:
"To sum it up, it may be said that the wholly inadequate qualifications of the judges end the impossibility of rejecting even an obviously prejudiced judge make it questionable whether the institution we are discussing is one which, measured by the standard of civilized nations, can be described as a 'court'. And, do the proceedings before the Standgerichte merit the name 'trial'? To recapitulate the main points, we have already referred to the exclusion of the public. The restriction of the rights of the defense was a worse feature. Even an experienced counsel would have found little opportunity for exercising his role at these entirely irregular trials. But that little opportunity, too, was withheld from the accused. There was no rule which provided that the accused must be represented by counsel at a trial before the Standgerichte, and in practice, according to our information, accused persons have never been so represented.
It may be difficult to define the conditions which are essential to enable an institution to possess the character of a tribunal. It may also be difficult to state the principles which must be observed to enable proceedings before a criminal court to be called a trial. We are, however, not concerned here with borderline cases. It is evident that the Emergency Civilian Court Martial lacked almost every quality which, according to general opinion, a tribunal ought to possess, and that the trials before these 'courts' offended practically every principle which has to be respected under the law of all civilized nations. The Courts Martial can certainly not be considered as tribunals, nor their proceedings as trials and sentences. Executions carrying out the sentences of the Courts Martial did not differ in any way from executions without trial. They must be qualified as murder. It is impossible, in the provisions which regulated proceedings of these Courts Martial, to discover the least vestige of humanity. The rule, for instance, which required the sentence to be executed immediately, and the practice which did not grant the condemned men even a brief respite to prepare himself for death were a form of brutality which, like the whole institution of the Courts Martial, made at terrorizing the population."
That concludes the portions of the Czechoslovakian State Report to which we invite the Court's attention by way of judicial, notice. Before submitting it, however, we wish merely to refer, in passing, to the statute on page 11 of Document Book 2, which sets forth the statute that created the "Standgerichte" or Courts Martial within the rank itself. Statute setting up the "Standgerichte" in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was not included in Book 2.
DR. GRUBE (For the defendant Lautz): I would like to be excused if I have to ask the question. The translation didn't come through quite clearly. As much as I understood, the statements made dealt not with the Special Courts but with the "Standgerichte". Not "Sondergerichte" but "Standgerichte". It was those courts instituted by Heydrich. May I ask the prosecutor if this is correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My remarks just now were directed to the "Standgerichte".
DR. GRUBE: I have here before me the ordinance, the decree, of 3 July 1942 which was signed, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Daluege, and the further decree which had been issued before on the 27th of September 1941, signed by Heydrich, the chief of the SD. By this decree of Heydrich's of 27 September 1941 martial law was declared in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and by Heydrich and not by the Administration of Justice, at the time the "Standgerichte" were introduced, which, therefore, had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice as such.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): You did read from the document, comments on the Special Courts, didn't you? Is there any question about that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Before lunch I was reading about the Special Courts, no question about that. Dr. Grube just now has injected a contention which I did not make; namely, I have never contended that the Act setting up the Courts Martial in Czechoslovakia was promulgated by the Ministry of Justice. I stated that that Act was not in Book 2. I only cited you to the page 11 of Book 2 to show you the parallel thing set up in the Reich to which the Ministry of Justice was a party.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): The "Standgerichte" to which you refer - in the Protectorate - was not military court martial but was police court martial, is that correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It was civilian court martial, carried out by both civilian and police judges.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): But not by army?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: But not by the army.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Since this and the other United Nations reports are to be filed with the Bench, do you wish an exhibit number to be attached to it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that for reference it would be proper.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As Exhibit 378 --
THE PRESIDENT: Does that apply to what you read this morning as well as what you read now?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor. As Exhibit 378 we offer the reports of the Czechoslovak State Report previously described, those portions which were read for judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I refer now to the official report of the Polish government dated, jointly, London and Nuernberg, December 1945, and certified on the fly page as being the official document of the Polish government to be submitted to the International Military Tribunal under the provisions set forth in appropriate articles of the London Agreement. It is signed and sealed by Dr. Tadeusz Cyprian, Deputy of the Polish representative of the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London, signing on behalf of the Polish government.
The first portion of this Polish Government Report, to which we invite the Tribunal's attention, is that contained on pages 23 to 27.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time how long it will probably take to read what you have yet to read?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Oh, at the outside, twenty minutes, Your Honor. Does Your Honor have some objection?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: This first portion is entitled, "Expropriation and Plunder of Public and Private Property."
"By a decree of January 15, 1940, the whole property of the Polish State was put under 'protection', which practically meant confiscation of the whole State property in the incorporated territories. A special decree of February 12, 1940, dealt with agriculture and forests to the same effect.
"The confiscation of private property in the Western Provinces was initiated by a decree of January 31, 1940. Acquisition of rights or shares, the transfer of any business out of or into the incorporated territory, required special permission.
"The process of confiscation, however, went further. The property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and confiscation unless the owner acquired German citizenship, in accordance with Hitler's decree of October 8, 1939."
At the bottom of page 25, I continue:
"Plunder and confiscation of Jewish property:
"All measures taken in this respect were designed to deprive the Jewish population in Poland of all material rights. By decree of September 29, 1939, the absence of persons concerned justified the sequestration of their property. The formation of the Ghettos and the deportation of Jews made them forcibly absent, thus rendering their property liable to confiscation.
"More decrees and regulations were issued in this respect. They legalized robbery, but in practice went even further than these robberies under the cloak of law. Among the most striking laws were the following:
"A general carte blanche for the confiscation of Jewish property was given by the decree of September 17, 1940." This decree is enclosed as Enclosure No. 8 in this report.
"Jews were forbidden to buy gold and other precious metals without a special permit.
"Finally, Ordinance 13 to the German Civil Code of July 1, 1943, provided, in paragraph 2, that upon the death of a Jew his property falls to the Reich." This ordinance is contained in this report as Enclosure No. 9.
"Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a quite wrong impressions to the way the guilty dealt with Jewish property in Poland, but one has to remember that steps concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries to the much greater crimes to come. They were meant to settle the Jewish case for the time being, before the mass attack against Jews as human beings began. Having secured the property of the victims, having made certain that it would not be lost, the process of extermination was set into motion."
Here the report comments:
"'History gives us the right to be ruthless', said Hans Frank when addressing Nazi lawyers in 1933. Throughout the time that Hans Frank was Governor General of Poland he remained faithful to that principle. The confiscation of the property of the Polish State and its exploitation for the benefit of the Reich ruined Poland economically."
Skipping, now to the last portion of this report to which the prosecution invites attention, it begins on page 55 and it is a chapter entitled, "Judicial Murders":
"On December 4, 1941, Goering, Frick, and Lammers signed a decree which virtually outlawed all Poles and Jews in the incorporated Polish territories."
If I may interpolate, the decree there referred to is found on page 48 of Document Book II.
"This decree made Poles and Jews a different and second-rank group of citizens. It meant that Poles and Jews were bound to obey the Reich unconditionally, but, on the other hand, being secondclass citizens, they were not entitled to the protection given by the law to others. In general, German criminal procedure was followed, but exceptions were allowed when the courts were of the opinion that quick administration of justice required some divergence from the formal regulations. In such cases, sentences could be passed which were against and contrary to the accepted rules of procedure. Thus, the law manifestly ratified lawlessness.
"The death sentence came automatically into operation if a Pole or a Jew committed an act of violence against a German on account of the latter's German nationality. The death sentence could be passed also in the following cases:
"1. For removing or publicly damaging posters set up by the German authorities.
"2. For acts of violence against members of the German forces.
"3. For lowering the dignity of the Reich or harming its interests.
"4. For damaging furniture to be used by the German authorities.
"5. For damaging things intended for the public works or public order.
"6. For causing disobedience to regulations and orders issued by the German authorities;
"And several other cases, which in fact justified imprisonment for a short period at the most.
"No Pole, stated official Nazi instructions, was allowed to approach a German woman, to stain the noble bleed of the Herrenvolk. Those who dared to do it, or even did not get beyond the stage of attempting to do so, were inevitably facing death.
"But it was not only the courts, the German courts, which were called upon to pass sentences in these cases. It was found superfluous to arrange trials. A simple order of the police eventually proved sufficient to deprive people of their life. This had particular reference to Poles who were deported to Germany for forced labor. Polish workers were hanged in pursuance of orders issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS and by the police without any judicial proceedings. This practice was generally adopted.
"Further evidence is provided in a letter signed by the President of the District Court and Chief Public Prosecutor in Kattowice, and addressed to the Minister of Justice in Berlin, dated December 8, 1941", of which I quote the following excerpt:
"Against the adoption of this procedure" -- namely, the procedure just referred to -- "the President of the Court and Public Prosecutor of Kattowice raised objections, but they have done so not in the interest of justice. They claimed only that, pro forma, it would be much better if those cases were dealt with by the courts and where the same effect could be achieved under the cloak of law; the prisoners would meet death in any case. As far as jurisdiction in our district is concerned, the courts are in a position to follow the necessity for an immediate penal action by introducing special proceedings. This would have the effect that between the handing over of the case to the prosecution and the execution, not more than three days would elapse."
The text of this letter is enclosed in this report as Enclosure No. 10.
"But later events proved that the German authorities in Poland abandoned the pretense of carrying out judicial proceedings as the Judiciary eventually was left out altogether. Even pro forma trials, which would have been in any case nothing short of judicial murders, were dispensed with and the matter was handed over to the police.
"On November 5, 1942, the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Minister of Justice, Thierack, agreed on a scheme by which 'the Judiciary renounced their right to carry out normal judicial proceedings in penal cases against Poles and Eastern European ethnic groups. Those persons of foreign ethnic groups should, in the future, be handed over to the police. Similar treatment ought to be accorded to Jews and Gypsies.' This agreement was approved by the Fuehrer."
That document is attached to this report as Enclosure No. 11.
"Thus, hundreds of thousands of human beings found themselves at the mercy of the police and Gestapo. They were the final and ultimate judges; they became masters of their lives.
"According to information collected from various sources, it has been established that thousands of Poles became victims of that procedure. Thousands died, hanged as a result of trials conducted without any legal justification. Scores of thousands were murdered without having been Tried at all. An order of the police eventually decided on their being hanged or shot."
The Prosecution offers the portions which we have just read of this Polish State report for judicial notice as Exhibit 379.
JUDGE BRAND: Part of tho same exhibit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last of this material currently being offered for judicial notice comprises certain articles from the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Prisoner of Far Convention of 1929. The articles to which I refer are mentioned by number, both in the indictment and in the opening statement, but it is thought that for purposes of convenience they should be read into the record. Both of these treaties are contained in a United States War Department Technical Manual No. 27-251 entitled "Treaties Governing Land Warfare." In the regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land which are annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 the following articles are quoted:
"Article 4. Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile government, but not of the individuals or corps who captured them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military papers remain their property.
"Article 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they can not be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.
"Article 6. The state may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted.
The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war."
We omit the remainder of that article.
"Article 7. The government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance. In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the government who captured them."
These articles are found on Page 17 of the technical manual described above. On Page 23 we refer to:
"Article 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions it is especially forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons or to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."
On page 31 of this manual we refer to the following articles:
"Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the law enforced in the country.
"Article 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power.
"Article 46. Family honor and rights, the lives of persons and private property as well as religious convictions and practice must be respected. Private property can not be confiscated."
On Page 33 of the Manual we refer to:
"Article 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."