THE PRESIDENT: How much time would, you like to have?
DR. SCHILF: I would need ten minutes. It is a rather extensive document and if I may ask for permission to make the decision of the Defense known in ten minutes whether it is necessary to have a recross examination about this letter, I would appreciate it. If I may make the suggestion to have a recess of ten minutes now, then we would be in a position to do so. However, if the Court prefers that in the general morning recess, we discuss this question, examine this question, and then cross examine the witness after the usual morning recess, we will do that.
THE PRESIDENT: The latter suggestion is the better. Can the Prosecution hold this witness until after the usual morning recess?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, we can, but I would like to make an announcement now in regard to the Prosecution. We can follow this witness with another witness, however, it may well run over a half hour if cross examined. We have nothing else to follow him with. Also for that reason, and since we are getting to a point where the Prosecution hopes to rest within, I hope, a week, certainly at the end of ten days, I want to ask the Court after the next witness follows, without regard to what decision is made of this matter, to recess until Monday in order that we may attempt to get some further documents processed, and that we may organize our witnesses, and be able to proceed on Monday. At the close of the testimony of this witness, we will follow with another witness, but we have nothing until then.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to be the better plan for the Tribunal to recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(The Tribunal then took a recess).
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the cross examination.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (For defendants von Ammon and Schlegelberger): May I make, first, a suggestion in connection with the question brought up previously. The defense, and the prosecution, in the course of this trial will certainly frequently, in the direct examination, cross examination, and re-direct, introduce new documents which are not known. The unique nature of this trial, the number of the documents which may be introduced -- and in particular, the extent, the size of the documents -- does not allow close examination of the documents unless the contents have been announced a little while beforehand. That difficulty appeared in the International trial too, at the beginning. The Tribunal then took those difficulties into account and made a ruling, according to which all documents which were to be introduced by either party on direct examination, the cross-examination, or the re-direct, should, not later than at the beginning of the day's session, be made available to the other party. If that is not done, a proper scrutiny of the documents would be impossible for the party to whom this document has come as a surprise. I would ask whether the proper moment -- this question could be considered -- whether a ruling on it could be made.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that sufficient time has been allowed to enable defense counsel to cross-examine the witness concerning this letter, and that will expedite the trial, if that happens. This will be without prejudice, of course, to the right of defense to bring this letter up in the course of the defense. So we think that no ill effects will occur to the defense by reason of that ruling.
We hope you can now proceed with such cross-examination as to this document as you care to make.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg): With the permission of the Tribunal, I will now continue the cross-examination on the letter of 23 June 1933.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court one question in this connection? This cross-examination is to be permitted on the narrow limits of this letter. The letter is addressed to Von Ammon, and for that reason I do not see the relevance of questions concerning Mettgenberg being asked at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution counsel has first brought up the subject of this letter and has asked this witness questions, and so we will not limit the defense to ask questions concerning the sane letter.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, I assume that you still have the photostat of the letter before you?
A. Yes.
Q. On the first page, in the last paragraph but one --
A. Yes.
Q. I am going to quote that paragraph, as to how that practice was introduced:
"It could not be discovered how such practice had developed. The OKW was left in the dark as to the fact that the deportation of the accused was a matter for the Gestapo; the moment the culprits had been handed over they, however, disappeared from view."
That is the end of the quotation.
Witness, I wanted to ask you, you made that statement as to the focal point of the OKW and the Judiciary. Do you know whether, thereby, the General Administration of Justice, for its part, by transferring them to the Gestapo, had the possibility, concerning the offenders, to take over the judicial administration of those cases?
Is that quite clear, or is it not clear?
A. Yes, it was quite clean; I understood you. Yes, I have understood you.
The letter, so it seems to me, is difficult to understand. At the beginning it contains a description of the procedure such as was customary in the Netherlands. I would like to point out at this moment that the English translation, which I have just received, contains a translating mistake. At the end of the first paragraph it states, in the English text: "Our procedure, rather, has been as follows." The word "our" is wrong. It should say "the procedure" because it was not the procedure which was started by the Wehrmacht. It is characterized as the procedure in the Netherlands, against which misgivings are voiced later on in the letter. I should like to make that clear.
According to what I have read here, the Wehrmacht commander in the Netherlands, concerning some of the defendants, did transfer them to the Secret State Police, the Gestapo, and apparently with the intention that the police should keep those persons. That is how I understand it. And as that procedure departed from the decree, and we evidently only heard about it at that time, we pointed out that a regular procedure had been adopted.
Therefore, I cannot say whether the defendants who were handed over from the Netherlands to the police were later handed over to the General Judiciary. I do not know that. However, it seems to me that that was not done.
I do not know whether I have now cleared up the matter properly.
Q. Another supplementary question. Could you answer this, please?
You and your office did not hear about the development of the procedure described in the first paragraph, evidently, because the Gestapo immediately took hold of the defendants concerned and kept them. From that we can probably deduce that when the Gestapo got hold of the offenders they could only be transferred to the General Administration of Justice if the procedure, such as it was adopted in France, had also been introduced for the Netherlands. At the time of your letter - that is evident from the letter - that procedure had not yet been introduced in the Netherlands. The letter was the cause to discuss and consider as to whether the procedure as it was in force in France was to be introduced in the Netherlands as well.
The conclusion is justified that at the time that letter was witten the General Administration of Justice had nothing whatsoever to do, or could not be brought into any connection whatsoever, with cases from the Netherlands. Is that conclusion correct?
A. Yes, I should think so.
Q. My second question - may I ask you to turn over to page 2? The third line from the top - I will quote again:
"The practice of courts in Germany, so far as I can see it, has led to it that the culprits are either executed or detained in a concentration camp until the end of the war." That is the end of my quotation.
There are only two possibilities in this form of "either/or". There is a third possibility that arises from the practice in Germany, that is to say, that persons might have been sentenced to imprisonment, either to a limited sentence, or to life imprisonment, and for that time they would have been imprisoned under the Administration of Justice. I would ask you to re-examine that possibility. Here the opinion is expressed that the practice of courts in Germany only knew two alternatives, but in practice, of course, there were three possibilities; that is to say, death sentence, a prison sentence, and the possibility of either squashing proceedings or acquitting the defendants.
May I ask you to say whether those three possibilities always existed?
MR. KING: One moment, please. If this cross-examination is based on the letter, which I understand it should be, then I submit that this question is improper, because the witness did not write the letter. The question relates to an interpretation of what the writer meant when he used the disjunctive "either/or". This witness is not in a position to say what the writer had in mind when he used that particular disjunctive. Therefore, I think the question is out of order, and I object to it.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I say this? The witness expressly stated that he was responsible for this letter. He further said that he inspired the letter. He further expressly referred to the testimony in the letter which says that the Chief of Office - the witness - expressed the wish that this proceeding should be adopted. That, I think, is what justifies my question.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be no particular objection to the right of the defense counsel to ask that question, or to the purport of the question that has been asked. However, the Tribunal feels that this question and the one previous to that went far beyond an interrogation and took the form of an argument. It should be put in the form of a concise question and not involve an argument into the question.
THE WITNESS: May I be permitted to say one word to clear up a misunderstanding?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: This sentence is not meant to mean that there are only two possibilities. The sentence is supplemented by the following sentence, which begins after the semi-colon. Naturally, there was the possibility that a defendant who had been transferred to Germany was moved into a German prison to spend his prison sentence there. That, of course, was the normal case. The theory "either/or" only becomes clear if one reads the second sentence.
Thank you for permitting me to make the statement.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions on that point. That has cleared up the matter entirely. My last question: In the same paragraph there appears the following statement: "A deterrent effect on the inhabitants of the occupied territories will not be connected with either one or the other form of trial, because these trials are held with the public being completely excluded." That is the end of my quotation. To avoid misunderstandings I would like to ask you one more question which was put to you during the cross examination with reference to this passage of the letter. Would you have considered that it was possible for trials to be held with the exclusion of the public? I am merely asking you whether in the general judiciary and under military jurisdiction it was not a general principle that trials which affected the security of the Reich, that the main trials on the subject of the prosecution, generally speaking, were held with the exclusion of the public. That regulation was the result of the juricature act.
MR. KING: How does that question, may I ask, relate to the limits of this letter? The question purports to elicit a question concerning the operation of the military tribunal, which, of course, goes far beyond the quotation which was read.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like to hear that quotation read once more, for my benefit.
DR. SCHILF: In the German text on Page 2, the second paragraph about half way down, it begins with the words: "Neither the one nor the other way of treatment by the courts constitutes a deterrent of the inhabitants in the occupied territories, because these procedures are conducted with a total exclusion of the public." That is the end of the quotation. The exclusion of the public -- that expression is expressly mentioned in this passage.
JUDGE BRAND: Then reduced to a few words you are asking him whether in other trials, and particularly in military trials, the public were not excluded when the security of the Reich was involved.
He can answer that yes or no and we can be through with the whole matter.
THE WITNESS: In other cases, too, the public was excluded from the trials, but the sentence itself was announced in the presence of the public. My misgivings about the decree which I myself helped to draft referred mainly to the seclusion of the defendants after they had been sentenced.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. KING: If there are no further questions, we ask that the witness be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution calls as a witness one Josef Hach.
JOSEF HACH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: You will raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, please tell the Court your name and where you were born.
A Joseph Hach.
Q Where were you born and when?
A On 24 May, 1906, at Herlingen.
Q During your early life -
A 1922 -
Q I don't believe I was afforded an opportunity to finish my question. During your early life where did you live and what kind of work did you do?
A I lived at Herlingen. I did farm work with my parents.
Q Mr. Hach, were you ever tried by a court for a crime?
A Yes. 1929.
Q What was the crime for which you were tried in 1929?
A 1929 I was tried for murder.
Q At that trial what sentence did you receive?
A I was sentenced to death at that trial, but there was a pardon from the Reich Ministry of Justice which commuted my sentence to a life sentence in a penitentiary.
Q What penitentiary were you imprisoned in?
A The penitentiary at Heisingen near Donauwoerth.
Q Were you ever transferred to another penitentiary?
A In 1939 I was transferred to the penitentiary at Amberg.
Q When were you told that you could normally expect a pardon?
A I was told on the 11th of January that I might expect a pardon -- correction -- after five years I was told that I could expect a pardon.
Q May I ask if the witness answered that question? I got something about five years. Mr. Hach, please tell the Court again when you were told that you could normally expect to be pardoned.
AAccording to the law, as far as I know, the pardon happens after fifteen years, under the new laws when the pardon plea is submitted to the Prosecution which handed it on to the Reich Minister of Justice, and it was then approved by the Prosecution and handed back to the Reich Minister of Justice, and it happened after fifteen years' imprisonment.
Q To sum up, then, and you may correct me if I am wrong, you were tried for murder in 1929, you were sentenced to death, your death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, you were sent to a penitentiary first at one place and finally at Amberg, and you could normally expect a pardon in fifteen years; is that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q. Mr. Hach, who commuted your death sentence to life imprisonment?
A. My sentence was commuted by the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner. He was the Minister of Justice of Bavaria at that time.
Q. Mr. Hach, after you went to Amberg prison, did you remain there until the end of the war?
A. I stayed in Amberg until 1943. On the 18th of November 1939 I was moved to the concentration camp at Mauthausen. There I stayed for two days and then I went to the armament factory at --
Q. Mr. Hach, you said in 1943 you were sent from Amberg prison to Muehlhausen concentration camp and then you said you went somewhere else. Where was that? I didn't hear it.
A. On 18 November 1943 I was moved to the Mauthausen concentration camp. There I stayed for two days and then I was moved up to an armament factory at Redelsieck. That was a branch camp of Mauthausen.
Q. At the time when you were transferred to Mauthausen concentration camp in 1943, did any other inmates of Amberg prison go with you?
A. There were twelve of us. First the transport moved up in June or July - it might have been 20 to 30 - they were also taken to Mauthausen concentration camp.
Q. Mr. Hach, before you were transferred from Amberg to Mauthausen concentration camp, did any of the prison officials personally interview or examine you in any way?
A. Before we went to Mauthausen, we were not told by anybody that we were going to be sent there. Early in the morning, we were told to get dressed and we were told that we were going to move off, but nobody knew where to. The head of the sick bay told us that we would probably be moved up to Mauthausen concentration camp. It was said that Mauthausen was the extermination camp for penitentiary inmates, etc.
Q. You mean the morning that you were transferred from Amberg you were told in the sick bay of Amberg prison that you would probably be sent to Mauthausen concentration camp?
A. Excuse me?
Q. I am asking you, witness, if that statement I just made was correct. Isn't that what you just said?
A. I was in the sick bay and then we were told: "Get dressed. You are going to be moved off." That was on the 17th of November 1943. And then the head of the sick bay came and said that we were probably going to be sent to Mauthausen concentration camp, and we heard that another transport had gone there before us.
Q. Who was it, do you remember? Was it another prison inmate or was it a prison official who told you there in the sick bay that morning that Mauthausen was the extermination camp for penitentiary inmates?
A. That was evident because not only penitentiary inmates were sent there but also political prisoners who it was their intention to liquidate completely and remove from this world, and these things were discussed in the sick bay. It was always said that Mauthausen was the extermination camp and that nobody ever got out of it alive.
Q. Mr. Hach, when you arrived at Mauthausen for the first time, were you physically beaten?
A. When we arrived in Mauthausen, an SS guard beat us. We asked him what he had done - and some of us were beaten to such an extent that the blood was pouring down.
Q. During your stay in Mauthausen concentration camp, and later in the branch camp of Mauthausen to which you were sent, describe the food that you were fed, particularly during late 1944 and early 1945.
A. In 1944 I was taken to the branch camp at Ebensee. In Redelsieck the food was plentiful, but it wasn't enough for the very hard work which we had to do. It was bad food. It consisted of sweets, and potatoes which were not peeled. The bread ration when we arrived was about a pound a day. Then on the fourth of May 1944 I was taken to the Ebensee branch camp. That is between Badischl and Gmunden. There the food was bad. In the Spring of 1945 we were only given water, a little bread, coffee in the morning. At lunchtime we were usually given potato peels and perhaps a little sweet, sometimes nothing, only water. In the evening we just got a piece of bread and one couldn't cut it up, it just broke into pieces - it may have been about 70 grams - a little margarine and a little sausage.
The margarine was perhaps about 50 grams. That was our supper, bread and a little tea or coffee - perhaps 70 grams of bread and 50 grans of margarine, sometimes only 30. But when we had no bread, then we just had soup. That was in the evening, and that soup was very thin. It was just soup with a little potato peel and things that we picked up and scraped together. It was a starvation diet.
Q. Mr. Hach, during the time that you have just described, did anyone you knew there in the concentration camp die of starvation?
A. Yes. From what I saw, I can say that everybody died of hunger or starvation. One evening I was walking along the barracks and I went into the sick bay and there I asked - some dead bodies were lying there and on the other side there were people who were alive and people who were near dying - I asked how many dead there were and I was told since yesterday evening until today - this morning - it was about half-past nine then - more than 100. And that was from one barrack. They all died from starvation. They were just skeletons and the color of their skin was green and black and blue.
Q. Mr. Hach, how did you escape from the concentration camp?
A. How I escaped? This is how it happened. The food was so bad there that all of us were nearly starved. There was only enough food left for another two days. There were about - I don't know exactly but about 18,000 to 26,000 people there. When North Germany and East Prussia were being occupied, when the occupation forces arrived, and when they finally came to Ebensee, there was hardly any food left. It wasn't sufficient. When the Americans occupied Ebensee, we left. I went to an American and asked him to sign a letter, and then I simply left. The gates were open and the barbed wire had been cut through and I just ran away towards my home. There I reported --
Q. Mr. Hach, I believe that is sufficient. Thank you. We have no further questions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, so that Defense Counsel may be advised and that we may make progress, the witness Roemer, who signed the letter which was not sworn to, is now in Nurnberg and I hope that we will be able to use him after this witness, which modifies my request for a recess after he is used. It shouldn't be long; I want to advise counsel now so that they don't leave. It may be that we cannot put the witness on, but I think that we will following this cross examination, or during the day.
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LINK: (Attorney for Defendant Engert)
Q. With the permission of the Tribunal, I am going to put a few questions to the witness Hach. Mr. Hach, you stated that sometime before you were moved from the Amberg Penitentiary to Mauthausen a rumor was rife that that camp was an extermination camp.
A. Yes.
Q. Was there also a rumor going about, or do you have some more positive information on that point as to how that transfer to Mauthausen from the penitentiary came about. Was there any talk or any rumor about that?
A. I didn't get that question properly.
Q. While you were in the penitentiary, were people wondering, were they able to find out about any facts as to according to what points of view individual prisoners had who were to be moved away as to who selected them?
A. Who selected us, I don't know. I wasn't there when it was done, when it was decided which of us would be sent to the concentration camp, but the fact that some of the people had already been moved ant that no answer came from them, and that political prisoners had already gone to that concentration camp and had returned to the penitentiary and had said that things were not going very well at that concentration camp, we assumed that Mauthausen was the same camp and would be the same sort of extermination camp as other camps.
Q. That isn't what I asked you, Mr. Hach. What I wanted to know from you was merely whether you can state how you and the other persons in your transport were selected; and you said you don't know.
A. No, I don't know; I wasn't there.
Q. And the head of the sick bay couldn't tell you anything about that?
A. He didn't say anything about it, nor did I ask him.
Q. Another question: I would like to know from you; you told us that normally you would have been pardoned after fifteen years in a penitentiary; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you think it would happen; did you know what the pre-conditions for such a pardon were?
A. The prerequisite for pardon was good conduct, hard work and good qualifications, and a good testimonial by the head of the prison.
Q. Do you know at all as to how your reports were until you were sent up to Mauthausen?
A. No.
Q. Are you convinced that you filled the prerequisites for a pardon -- all those prerequisites which you named just now?
A. Prerequisites which I mentioned just now amounted to my being able to put in for a pardon after fifteen years, and I think a pardon would have been granted.
DR. LINK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination on the part of the Defense Counsel? If not, is there any redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Just one question, your Honor. Mr. Hach, were you ever tried for or convicted for any other crime than the one which you have described this morning?
A. No, it was my first prison sentence, and my last.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If your Honors please, I did not hear what Mr. LaFollette said with regard to procedure following the excusing of this witness. Did he say that we would ask for an adjournment, or that we would proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that he would have Mr. Roemer follow this witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Then, if we may ask the Tribunal's indulgence for a minute, we will send a messenger to see what is available. Your Honor, may the Prosecution ask that the Tribunal adjourn until 1:30, at which time we will be able to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Under ordinary circumstances it would be a very reasonable request and we would be glad to comply, but I have a personal reason I would like to get through with the witness today.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe we can assure you that we will finish with this new witness today.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give that assurance with very great certainty without consulting Defense Counsel?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As a matter of fact, no.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate it is apparently inconvenient to proceed now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you have the witness here by one o'clock?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: By the normal time that we reconvene at one o'clock, 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: I am inquiring whether you can possibly have your witness here be one o'clock.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We could, Your Honor.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm) May it please the Court, in the interest of the defendants may I say if we resume at one o'clock it means that the defendants will not get their lunch, or won't get it in time; any how, a great difficulty would arise.
Therefore, in the interest of the defendants, I would like to suggest perhaps 1:15, or rather 1:30 -- could you make it 1:30, please?
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish to announce at this time that without any desire to hurry these proceedings, if we do not get through with this witness by 4:30, the adjournment will not be until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon instead of tomorrow morning.
MR. KING: Before the prosecution asks this witness to be called, we would like to state that his testimony will concern the document 720. Document 720 is to be found in the English document book VII-A at page 147, and in the German document book beginning at page 175.
We ask at this time that the witness Walter Roemer be called, and it is our understanding that he will testify in the German language.
WALTER ROEMER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. May I ask you, please, to state your name?
A. Roemer, Walter.
Q. And what is your present position, please?
A. Ministerialrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice.
Q. And you have held that position from what time until the present, please?
A. Since the 1st of December, 1945.
Q. And may I ask what position you held prior to that time; that is, during the war?
A. I was, since the 1st of July, 1934, first public prosecutor at the District Court Munich 1, Landgericht.
Q. That position you held until the end of the war, or shortly after the end of the war, when you assumed your present position; is that correct?
A. Yes; yes.
Q. I show you a document which bears the identifying symbol of NG-270.
(Document submitted to witness.
MR. KING: May I point out, for the benefit of the Court and of defense counsel that this is the original of the document which appears in VII-A at page 147 in the English book, and 175 in the German.
Q. (Continuing) Witness, is this document which you hold in your hand, NG-270, the original or a photostatic copy of the original of a document which you submitted to American authorities in Munich some time in July of 1945?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Are you at this time willing to swear that all of the information contained in this document, to your best knowledge and belief, is accurate and represents your thoughts on the subject at the time the statement was made?
A. Yes.
Q. Without going into the details of how this particular document happened to be written, will you answer only this one question? Was it an unsolicited document so far as the American authorities were concerned?
A. I was solicited by no one to write this document. I made this statement voluntarily and it was unsolicited, and I handed it over to the American authorities. First I gave it to a Colonel in the American Army, and later on, through an intermediary, through the help of the then Minister President Dr. Hoegner, I gave it to the Bavarian Military Government.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we offer the document NG-270 as Exhibit 382.
The prosecution has no further questions to ask of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: This being a sworn affidavit, we feel that we can receive the document in evidence at this time. Of course, counsel for defense may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz):
Q. Witness, in your statement you said that you were director, in Munich, of the executory authority of the prosecution in Munich?
A. Yes.
Q. In your statement you stated further that in that capacity you had to carry out sentences of the People's Court.
A. Yes.
Q. May I now ask you the following question?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. I noticed the yellow light flashing a moment ago, and I think I should explain to the witness what that means. When you see this yellow light flash, you know that the translator is hurrying too much; slow your language a little, to let her catch up with you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, may I now ask you the following question? In what form was the prosecution in Munich asked to execute the sentences?
A. The prosecution Munich 1, in each case, received a request from the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court to execute these sentences. In this case the files did not accompany the request, but only one copy of the sentence with the opinion.
Q. Thus you had an opportunity to look into the sentence?
A. I read every one of these sentences.
Q. In these sentences, were there also sentences against defendants who had been convicted under the NN decree?
A. Yes; you can see that from the statement.
Q. Can you tell us, as to the Reich Minister of Justice, or the People's Court, or any other authority, whether you complained to them about sentences which you saw?
A. I did not do so myself. I was not the President of the Prosecution, or the Chief Prosecutor. The head of the prosecution Munich 1 at the time asked the Reich Ministry of Justice not to hand the execution of such sentences to the Prosecution Munich 1.