The battle of Verdun was mentioned because Hitler was supposed to have fought at Verdun.
Q. What was Schlegelberger's attitude in regard to the treatment of Poles in German criminal courts?
A. Schlegelberger concerned himself with criminal cases against Poles only after he took the affairs of the Ministry in 1941. At that time the first penal decree against Poles had already been issued, but at that time considerations were already pending and drafts existed already for a change in these penal decree against Poles. Schlegelberger tried to influence Freisler who was the decisive person in these matters in a moderating manner.
Q. Do you know whether Schlegelberger influenced the judges in the Eastern territories to the effect that in the trials against Poles and Jews they apply a just trial?
A. I know that at the meetings of the General Public Prosecutors and Presidents of the District Courts of Appeals in Berlin,-such meetings took place every few months,- that on such occasions the officials from the Eastern Territories, in particular, were requested by Schlegelberger to admonish the judges in determing the facts in the cases, in their sentences regarding Poles and Jews, to do so with the same care and conscentiousness as they were used to doing with Germans; and that repeatedly Schlegelberger, - I, myself, was a witness, of these impressive admonishments - stated that in any case condemmations were not allowed to be supported only by a mere suspicion, and on these occasions he also stated that such a sentence by which he had to suppose that it was based on a suspicion, would be changed by him, by means of a clemency procedure. I also know that in the same sense on the occasion of a visit in East Prussia, he spoke to to District Court President, Funk, in whose district the Poles and Jews were especially numerous.
Q. How did Schlegelberger handle the clemency questions in regard to Poles and Jews?
A. I can answer that very briefly. I mentioned before the case of the Polish woman who was condemned to death, and this showed the practice that Dr. Schlegelberger followed:
That he never made a difference between Jews and Poles on the one side and Germans on the other hand.
Q. Did Schlegelberger, in the course of years, in your presence, mention that he intended to resign?
A. Dr. Schlegelberger expressed such intentions of resigning on the occasion of Dr. Guertner's death. He discussed the question as to whether when the question would arise he should continue to head the Ministry of Justice as acting minister; he had serious misgivings. -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): The question, Mr. Witness, was a very clear and very simple one; whether he frequently discussed with you the matter of resignation. You can answer as brief as you can. Did he frequently discuss the matter of resignation with you?
A. Yes, your Honor, yes, he discussed it with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Alright. Ask another question.
Q. What reason did he state for his remaining in office?
A. He feared that if he would resign the Ministry of Justice would be handed over to an outspoken member and then serious intervention with the independence of the judges, and in the administration of justice would occur.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: That concludes my question on behalf of the defendant Schlegelberger.
Later on, I shall ask a few questions on behalf of the defendant von Ammon.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Your Honor, before examining the witness, may I address the Court with a brief remark and a brief question which refers to the examination. I have no intention to conduct an endless examination. I believe that the remarks of the President in regard to the brief formulation in the Schlegelberger case essentially was based on the fact that, in part, evidence had already been discussed by other witnesses. In my case this is not so because this is the first witness; therefore, I would be grateful to the Court if it would permit me to ask for short concrete examples; of course, understanding that the Court may intervene in individual cases.
May I ask the court to begin my examination of the witness
Q. Dr. Gramm, when did you know Dr. Rothenberger?
A. I knew Dr. Rothenberger since 1931, in the fall of 1931; at that time I was Assessor with the Public Prosecution in Hamburg. I was at that time transferred to Hamburg Ministry of Justice. Dr. Rothenberger was, at that time, Oberregierungsrat, and I made his acquaintance there. I was also his assistant there.
Q. In what capacity were you working there at the time under Dr. Rothenberger?
A. Under Dr. Rothenberger, I worked on civil cases especially under his guidance I had to organize the civil trials by or against the Hamburg Senate.
Q. What was Dr. Rothenberger's task at that time?
A. Dr. Rothenberger was Referent for civil cases in the Hamburg Ministry of Justice.
Q. Can you tell us something about his reputation at the time?
A. The administration of justice in the Ministry of Justice in Hamburg was a very small office. It consisted of only three high officials. It had a very high reputation from a technical point of view. Dr. Rothenberger was known as a recognized efficient and experienced expert in the field of civil law.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger, at that time, do legal research?
A. I know that Dr. Rothenberger wrote articles about Hamburg's private law in a Hamburg legal journal, and published them in the journal.
Q. Can you say something about the character of the repetitorium which Dr. Rothenberger published?
A. Dr. Rothenberger had a compiled a repititorium, to prepare young law students and referenders for their examinations, And these courses that Dr. Rothenberger conducted had an especially good reputation in Hamburg.
Q. Dr. Gramm, do you know anything about the fact that before 1933 Dr. Rothenberger was supposed to become Reichsgerichtsrat at Leipzig?
A. I know that in 1932, he was supposed to be appointed Reichsgerichtsrat.
Q. Did this come about?
A. No, I heard that the Reich Supreme Court was opposed to such an appointment because Dr. Rothenberger was too young.
Q. Is it correct that in 1933 Dr. Rothenberger became your legal chief?
A. Dr. Rothenberger in 1933 returned to the Hamburg Ministry of Justice.
In 1932 he had left it, and in 1933 he returned, and became Chief of the Hamburg Ministry of Justice and, therefore, my new chief.
Q. Immediately after the seizure of power by the Nazis, can you say something about the difficulties which Dr. Rothenberger had because Party political bigwigs, in brief, were forced upon him in his office?
A. In 1933 Landsgerichtsdirector Rueter appeared in the Administration in Hamburg. He was strongly bound to the Party and especially devoted to the Party. I also know that, as chief of the Hamburg Ministry of Justice, Rothenberger had with a certain Laatz. He was a man who, as far as I know, in his civilian profession, had been a tinsmith. Now he was supposed to be in charge of the Hamburg public prosecution. This man too was very much under the influence of the Party.
Q. May I first return briefly to the case of Reuter and ask you to tell me what Dr. Rothenberger had initialed in the Reuter case?
A. I am not very well informed about this, because I was not told about these details; they were personnel matters which were not in my technical field. However, I did hear that Dr. Rothenberger tried to get rid of this man especially and did not want to work with him. When, soon after that, Rueter was transferred somewhere else and disappeared, I thought to myself that it had probably been done on Dr. Rothenberger's initiative.
Q. Did Laatz, the director of the prison, remain in his position afterwards or not?
A. I believe I remember that I heard this. That is to say, I was no longer in Hamburg myself at the time and I cannot make definite statements because so much time has elapsed in the interim. However, I seem to remember that Laatz too was removed, and I assume that this too was done on Dr. Rothenberger's initiative.
Q. Dr. Gramm, can you now tell us something about Rothenberger's attitude in Hamburg in regard to the Administration of Justice?
A. According to his origin, Rothenberger was a man who was opposed to intervention from offices that were not in the Administration of Justice, and he disapproved of such intervention.
I also know that in the beginning, when I was still there with him and had an insight into conditions, he addressed the Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter with a special request in the direction of preventing interference in the Administration of Justice; that is, not to let it occur at all.
Q. Do you know that such attempts at influence from offices outside the Administration of Justice were attempted in clemency questions? And please describe how Dr. Rothenberger acted.
A. Clemency questions are especially suitable, as we know from experience, for interference by political offices, and there were attempts to try to influence decisions. From the close connection which we had in the Hamburg Administration of Justice, I can testify that Dr. Rothenberger tried to eliminate these possibilities of interference from the very beginning, in all such cases which involved the danger of political intervention, by going directly to the Reichsstatthalter and Gau Leader Kaufmann in order to get over his point of view and that of the Administration of Justice.
Q. Can you please state according to what points of view Dr. Rothenberger proceeded in these clemency cases?
A. They were the usual points of view which normally have to be considered in every clemency proceeding, or rather, I would like to say in every normal clemency proceeding, or rather, I would like to say in every normal clemency proceeding. Thus the elements of which I spoke, in favor of the defendant, were considered; the human point of view was especially emphasized in such decisions.
Q. That is understood for normal conditions, it is obvious. Therefore, I attach more importance to the following question, namely: How did Dr. Rothenberger act if the punishment of Party members, even old Party members, was concerned -- that is, in clemency questions?
A. He applied the same practice there which I just described; that is, he did not make political considerations the basis of his decision. At least, I myself did not observe that he pronounced a pardon for political reasons.
Q. In addition to that, do you also know that he insisted that in the case of old Party members their penalties had to be observed completely?
A. I don't know anything about that. I ask you also to consider that approximately 15 years have elapsed since that time.
Q. Thank you.
Can you state, briefly, something about the relationship between Reicstatthalter Kaufmann and Dr. Rothenberger?
A. I have already said that it was Dr. Rothenberger's endeavor to go directly to Reichsstatthalter and Gau Leader Kaufmann in order to influence him. During the time when I was still in Hamburg -- that is, until the end of 1934 -- I had an opportunity to observe that Dr. Rothenberger had exercised considerable influence upon Gauleiter Kaufmann. He may have succeeded in doing so because Kaufmann -- I didn't know him personally -- was generally considered to be a man who was amenable to quiet and reasonable arguments, a man with whom one could sit down at a table, and who was intelligent enough to let other people speak to.
Q. According to your experience, was the good understanding that existed between the Reichsstatthalter and Dr. Rothenberger achieved at the cost of the Administration of Justice?
A. I never had that impression.
Q. For example, did you have the following experience or can you say that the opposite was true, namely that any attempts were made on the part of the Party to influence pending trials?
A. I don't know anything about such attempts. I remember only one case in which a pending trial was concerned in which the Gau Leader and Reichstatthalter wanted to interfere, but no political considerations were decisive here, only purely human considerations.
It was a non-political crime, the murder of -
Q. (Interposing) We do not have to know the details about that.
How long were you active in Hamburg under Dr. Rothenberger?
A. I left at the end of 1934 because, as I mentioned, on 2 January 1935 I began my service in the Ministry of Justice in Berlin.
Q. At the time that Dr. Rothenberger sent you to Berlin, were you a member of the Nazi Party?
A. No.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger ever urge you to enter the Party?
A. No.
Q. Or even ask you to?
A. No.
Q. Why did Dr. Rothenberger then send you to Berlin, in your opinion?
A. Experts were asked for by Berlin, namely, experts who were able to give exhaustive information about the conditions of the Administration of Justice in their home territories. Special attention was supposed to be paid to the technical selection.
Q. Do you believe that your examination played an important part in your transfer to Berlin?
A. I suppose so.
Q. What kind of an examination did you take?
A. I made a very good examination.
Q. Thank you.
Dr. Gramm, we now come to the time you were in Berlin. I shall go in medias res -- I shall go to the heart of the matter immediately.
There were regular meetings of the chief presidents in Berlin. Did you regularly take part in these "Chef Praesidenten" meetings?
A. Yes, I did.
Q Can you especially remember one such meeting from 1939 in which attacks on the part of the Schwarze Corps were discussed? That is the newspaper.
AAbout the Journal, the Schwarze Corps, there were frequent discussions at the meetings of the chief presidents because, as I already remarked before, that was one of the main worries of the Ministry of Justice.
Q I want to remind you of one special meeting at which Dr. Rothenberger made lengthy statements to cause the Reich Ministry of Justice to undertake certain steps. Can you remember that particular meeting?
A I know that on the occasion of one or several meetings I don't remember any more exactly -- Dr. Rothenberger also made extensive statements about this problem and expressed his worries about this in regard to the Ministry of Justice.
Q Did he do this in an especially emphatic manner so that he can be described as the main initiator of these endeavors?
A In these discussions, Dr. Rothenberger expressed his worries especially emphatically and thus in a certain sense became the discussion leader of the rest of the presidents. But, please, do not understand this to mean that he was the only one to speak about this problem. But he was, as I said, one of those whose statements were especially memorable.
Q I do not want to ask you about the other subjects of these meetings in order to avoid repetition. Therefore, I want to summarize whether it is correct that the correction of sentences by the police, transfers to the police -- in short, whether it was a question of all those measures which had for long been the sign of the interference of the police into the Administration of Justice -is it correct that all these matters, in all their different forms, were the main worry of the chief presidents?
A It was not only the main worry of the chief presidents, it was the main worry of the Minister of Justice.
In the meetings of the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, this subject was of course discussed especially. The gentlemen who came to Berlin from the provinces, of course, also made especially extensive about this problem.
Q Can you remember one concrete remark made by Dr. Rothenberger in that connection in one of the meetings of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal that such conditions would be untenable for a constitutional state?
A You're asking to much, if you ask me to give information about individual remarks today. But the question which you formulated, of course, was the subject of all these discussions.
Q To what time do the experiences which you just spoke about refer?
A Well, they refer to the time when I was working in the Ministry of Justice, as I said, until I left it; that is the beginning of 1943 when I became a soldier.
Q Thank you. About the personality of Freisler, you spoke already. Can you tell whether apart from the characteristics which you mentioned already. Freisler was considered as an extraordinary dangerous man? Could he be described as such?
AAll those who knew Freisler agreed that he was a dangerous man. He had no inhibitions and he gave in to the wishes of the Party. I can even say he was serville.
Q Thank you. I do not have to ask you to characterize him more closely now. I only want to ask you to answer the question as to what Dr. Rothenberger's relationship with Freisler was.
A The two didn't like each other.
Q Did you observe that yourself at these meetings, and how was this expressed?
A I concluded that from the fact that Freisler, when Rothenberger made some remarks, was especially irritable and short-tempered and was inclined to shut him up quickly.
Q When Dr. Rothenberger was in Berlin, did he frequently visit you personally because of your old Hamburg acquaintance?
A Yes, When he was in Berlin, he, I believe, visited me every time.
Q Did he tell you his worries and report what steps he had taken in regard to the measures which were discussed before and the measures which he took with Minister Guertner in regard to this?
A I also have to answer this question affirmatively. He told me that he had seen Guertner or wanted to go to see him to report his worries to him.
Q Is it correct that the circumstances that Dr. Rothenberger brought along a number of assistants from Hamburg was described as "Hamburg Invasion" by the Berlin circles of the Ministry of Justice?
A Yes. They spoke about the "Hamburg Invasion" because Dr. Rothenberger brought along a number of high officials to Berlin with him to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and there he employed them by relieving those who had worked there before of their position and put his men into important positions.
Q Can you briefly tell us about the two main assistants of Dr. Rothenberger Ministerial Director Letz of Department I and Dr. Segelkin of Department II. Can you give us an opinion about their technical and other abilities for their position?
A I knew both of them from my time in Hamburg. There were no objections to be made to their character. I know in particular that Segelkin, who was put in charge of the examinations office -Pruefungsamt -- as a jurist, too had an especially good reputation.
Q Do you know anything about the fact that Dr. Segelkin in particular in his final position as in charge of Department II, was not confirmed by Party circles because in brief he was considered politically suspicious because of his former membership in the League for Human Rights and other reasons?
A I heard about that, but I believe that these incidents occurred after the time in which I was working in the Reich Ministry of Justice. But since you now mention the League for Human Rights, I recall that this point did play a part in the case of Segelkin.
Q Is it correct that Dr. Rothenberger commissioned you during the time he was Under-Secretary to look for persons who without having offered services to the Party could be considered as very well qualified from the technical point of view and should be brought back to the Ministry of Justice from other parts of the administration?
A Yes, that is correct. When in the fall of 1942 Dr. Rothenberger appeared, he asked me whether there were efficient people outside of the Administration of Justice. Then I told him some names. There were people who were very well qualified professionally and did not have a political stamp. I also know that Dr. Rothenberger later brought these people to the Ministry of Justice.
Q Can you remember any names?
A Ministerial Councillor Fachner, Ministerialrat Stolzenburg and Ministerialrat Beltz.
Q The last two questions refer to the distribution of business, Dor you know whether the Penal Division were under Dr. Rothenberger or not?
A I can only answer this question in reference to the short time during which I remained in the Ministry of Justice. During that time, the Penal Divisions were not under Dr. Rothenberger. The Division for Individual Penal Cases, the Penal Legislation Division, and the Penal Execution were directly under the new Minister of Justice. During the time which I am talking about and am able to talk about, Dr. Rothenberger had nothing to do with them.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger want to do anything with the criminal law? Did he make any remarks to you to that effect?
A He refused in speaking to me to deal with criminal cases.
Q Dr. Gramm, if I remember correctly, you said before that Department 11, criminal legislation, was concerned with criminal legislation. In that connection I would like to ask you whether later on matters were not as follows: After Dr. Rothenberger took office, that Department 11 in the Ministry dealt with edication and examination matters, pruefungsamt; and general criminal legislation was Department 111. Do you know anything about that?
A When I talked about the organizational structure of the Ministry of Justice before, that referred to the conditions which I found when I came there. It is correct, as counsel says, that Department 11 later on did not have anything to do with criminal legislation any more, but it was the pruefungsamt, the examination office.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSHOF: (Attorney for Defendant Joel) May it please the Tribunal I request permission to address a few brief questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, the transfer orders by Hitler were originally only given to the police, that later on Minister Guertner succeeded in having Hitler not only give such transfer orders to the police, but also informed the Ministry of Justice about it by way of the Presidial Kanzlei, the Chancellory, that is Minister of State Meissner. If that is so, Hitler used two channels, first, he gave transfer orders to the police; and secondly, via Meissner, he informed the Reich Ministry of Justice.
In what form did Meisssner inform the Reich Ministry of Justice about this transfer order by Hitler to the police?
A First, I have to correct what you said. I did not say that Meissner informed the Ministry of Justice, but as far as I remember, this information was sent by Lammers or Schaub. As to the form itself, I cannot say anything about that, for today I can no longer recall the literal wording of these orders or of this information.
Q Witness, I did not mean how such information was formulated. Did Lammers inform the Reich Ministry of Justice in writing or as far as you remember, did Lammers send such information by telephone?
A I believe that both methods were used -- the written and the oral, but I cannot say so with certainty any more because I had nothing to do with those things.
Q If a telephonic information was given, in addition to the written information, what was the purpose? Why did they not wait in the Reich Ministry of Justice until the written information reached them?
A Well, I believe this question is answered by the fact that I explained before that there was a great deal of pressure of time.
Q Thank you. Why was the defendant Joel, under the circumstances, at all concerned receiving such information from the police and with the subsequent negotiations with the police. What I mean is, in what capacity did he do that -- in what part of his referat, his department, did this affect him?
A I suppose that this can be explained by the fact that Joel was in charge of the central public prosecution, or perhaps because as liaison to the police outside of the Ministry he was used for that.
Q And can you tell me who commissioned him in the Ministry of Justice to take charge of the liaison with the police?
A I don't know that, but I would like to suppose that Dr. Guertner personally, who valued Dr. Joel highly, and, as we all knew, could take an especially attitude against the party.
Q Excuse me, you mean Dr. Joel.
A Yes, Dr. Joel -- that Dr. Joel seemed to be especially suited to Dr. Guertner as liaison with the police.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Thank you very much.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Attorney for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon).
Q Now, a few questions on behalf of the defendant von Ammon. For how long have you known the defendant von Ammon?
A I met von Ammon on the day when I entered the Reich Ministry of Justice, that was on 2 January, 1935. He, liked me, had been detailed by the Ministry of Justice of his Land to Berlin. He came from Munich and I from Hamburg.
Q Did you have personal relationships with von Ammon in addition to the official one?
A I was in a very close personal relationship with him and not only an official one.
Q Do you know anything about von Ammon's attitude toward the party and the party offices?
AAs I said, I met von Ammon frequently of the office, too, and then we discussed with each other the matters; and, therefore, I know very well what von Ammon thought about the party and political conditions in Germany. In accordance with his entire attitude and bearing, he is a correct, honest man, who disapproved very strongly of every intervention and encroachment with the Administration of Justice. He had to do so in accordance with his whole background because he is a believing christian man; and the basic characteristics of his character I noticed again and again in his human goodness and personal decency.
Q What was von Ammon's relationships with Freisler and Thierack?
A I believe about these two that you just mentioned, I had already testified extensively this morning. On the basis of his innerattitude von Ammon was opposed to these two people and their methods on principle. I know that he mentioned to me in particular as regards Freisler; he spoke to me about it quite openly. If I remember his remarks about Thierack less well the reason for that is that at that time I was no longer in the Ministry of Justice.
Q When in your conversations with von Ammon did it become known to you what he knew about the conditions in concentration caps, especially about mass killings?
A In the political conversations which we had, and which I discussed here, we also spoke about concentration camps; and, therefore, I can also testify about von Ammon's attitude. We had to count on that since the concentration camps were under the SS, and were closed to outsiders, that occasional abuses took place there, and mistreatment. But I can say with certainty that with limited possibility of obtaining information available to us, we did not know anything about the unspeakable cruelties and mass exterminations -- which we have found out about only now.
Q What was von Ammon's position in the Ministry of Justice?
A von Ammon was referent for the international traffic in criminal cases. His referat -- he belonged outside the scientific research and assistance to the lower group of higher officials in the Ministry of Justice.
Q What authority for making decisions, or for signing documents did such an expert in the Ministry of Justice have?
A In effect he did not have the authority to make any decisions. The authority for making decisions in any matter, that some how significantly was not with the referent but the sub-division chief, or in accordance with the importance of the case with the division chief, the under-Secretary, or the Minister himself.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 3 July, 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, we discussed last, what right of decision and right to signature a Referent in the Ministry had?
A. I had said that a man dealing with the case in the Ministry, apart from a research assistant, was in the lowest level of an official active in the Ministry; his superior was the sub-department chief, the Ministerialdirector, the chief of the department, and then the undersecretary, and finally the minister. Any important decisions of any kind had, at least, to be signed by the sub-department chief, and depending upon its importance, also by the department chief, the under-secretary or in some cases even by the minister.
Q. In this trial we have seen various documents which in the middle of the document were signed by an official, and on the margin showed the initials of other officials; can you explain the significance of these initials?
A. That is the so-called co-initialing or counter-initialing. The Referent usually, the one who had drafted the document initials first, with the initials of his name in the right corner of the document, then he added to that the date, the other officials who put their initials next to his were also on the right side of the document, expressed thereby that they agreed with the material contents of the document and confirmed that it was technically correct, but that they considered the decision to be so important that they expected the provisions or regulations to be signed by that official whose signature had to be in the middle below it; that latter official then assumed the responsibility for the document. It happened with such documents, that they bore a large number of initials.
For instance, in the cases which various departments of the Ministry participated in the draft of a regulation, a regulation of that kind circulated for a certain period of time from one official to another until it came to one official who had to sign his name in the middle under the text. By going through these channels drafts of that kind were frequently modified as each individual who put his signature or initials next to the initials of another one, had the right to make changes, and that right was used amply. Even the under-secretary and the Minister made corrections in such drafts. The first one who had drafted the regulation of that kind found out about that usually long after it had been passed on, that is to say, after the file had been returned to him, and he could see what corrections had subsequently been made.
Q. Did the Sachbearbeiter, the man preparing such a draft, have a right to report directly to the undersecretary or to the minister?
A. No, he did not. In all cases where the under-secretary or the minister had ordered that the matter be reported to them or submitted to them or where the Referent, himself, considered it important that the matter be submitted either to the under-secretary or the minister, he had to pass it on through his sub-department chief, department chief, under-secretary, and finally to the minister. And, that submission, that report before the last instance, be it the undersecretary or minister, was a report made by the department, in the name of the department. The Referent, therefore, with his sub-department chief and with his department chief, went to the under-secretary, and if the report had to be made to the minister, the under-secretary joined them for that purpose. There, at first, the matter referred to was reported by the man who had first signed and initialed on that occasion everybody had the opportunity to make additional statements.
Q. The department administration of criminal justice where Ammon was active; was that very extensive?
A. That department was also the largest of the Ministry of Justice. As I remember there were about 50 to 60 high officials.
Q. The Prosecution has asserted that von Ammon had been Referent for international law; is that correct?
A. No, Ammon was not exactly Arbiter or Referent for international law. I believe that the designation of his department could give cause to mis-understanding; he was a Referent for the exchange of, international exchange of ideas in matters of criminal law, but not for international law. International law in the Ministry of Justice was dealt with with Ministerialdirigent Kriege, and his assistant the Landgerichsrat Feaue De La Croise. Ammon was only concerned with international exchange of ideas and procedure in matters of criminal law; that comprises extradition of foreign nationals upon request of their native authorities, the authorities of their native countries, for trial by their national courts, and vis versa, the request on the part of the German Reich for the release of Germans who were in a foreign country to be tried by German courts for crimes committed within Germany. The extradition --
(At this point the sound system failed.)
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty requires the work of a technician which will take about 10 minutes. We will take a recess until the sound system has been repaired.