AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours 7 July 1947)
MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BEHLING: For the defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger:
May it please the Court, I would ask you to allow me to call the witness Hecker.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness Hecker has already been sworn in this case. He is here for direct examination on behalf of the defendant Schlegelberger, and counsel will not at this time repeat matters which have already been covered in previous examination of this witness. You may proceed.
BY DR. BEHLING:
Q: Witness, tell the Court your full name.
A: Robert Hecker.
Q: What was your position at the Ministry of Justice?
A: I was Referent in the division of the Reich Ministry of Justice for the administration of punishment.
Q: Was the entire administration punishment in the German Reich under that division?
A: Yes.
Q: In the decree of Criminal procedure against Jews and Poles of the 4 of December 1941, instead of prison and penitentiary terms, penal camps and more severe penal camps were searched for. Have such penal camps been instituted?
A: No, they were not instituted.
Q: In what way were the punishments passed on the Poles executed?
A: The prison sentences which were passed on Poles were executed in the old prisons as previously. However, the prisons were given a new name; in accordance with the new provisions they were called "Stammlagers", basic camps.
Q: How did it happen that only the name was changed and no new camps were created?
A: The Party Chancellory, before the penal law against the Poles was issued, had demanded that a new type of prison sentence was to be introduced concerning Poles, that is to say, camps were to replace the old prisons. In effect, however, there was no reason to do so, and, therefore, the ministry was content to rename the prisons.
Q: Was the food or the treatment of the prisoners in the newly renamed prisons changed in any way?
A: No, the prisons and their outside agencies remained unchanged and the administration of punishment at the prisons and outside agencies took place in the same way as it did for German prisoners in prisons and penitentiaries or their outside work agencies. Concerning the two types of punishment, penal camps and more severe penal camps no fundamental difference was made as to the accommodations. Food in these Stammlagers, these basic camps, remained the same as it had been before the decree against Poles; concerning the entire work agencies, whenever in order to increase the willingness of the prisoners to work, more food was required, no objection was made if the employer on his part gave the prisoners additional rations, especially potatoes, beyond the prescribed rations.
Q: Witness, I am now going over to a different group of questions.
The Prosecution, under NG 340, Exhibit 257, Document Book IV-A, has produced a letter from the Chief of the Reich Party Chancellory, Dr. Lammers, dated August, 1939, to Minister Guertner, which by virtue of a fuehrer order, ordered the transfer of prisoners in safety custody to concentration camps for the purpose of performing urgent work. Do you know anything about that event?
A: Yes, that letter became known in the department at the time.
Q: Did the Administration of Justice comply with the demand contained in that letter?
A: No.
Q: Were the prisoners in safety custody actually transferred to the concentration camps?
A: No, in 1939, in spite of the Fuehrer order, prisoners in safety custody continued to remain in prison under the authority of the administration of justice. The demand made in that letter was based on a statement by the Head of the Fuehrer Chancellory, according to which it was alleged that the prisoners in the prisons under the administration of justice where not properly occupied. Previous consultation of the administration of justice had not taken place prior to the issuance of the Fuehrer order. Therefore, Minister Guertner again called on Lammers and then the matter of the transfer was just dropped and was not taken up until 1942 after Minister Thierack had assumed office.
DR. BEHLING: Thank you, witness, I have no further questions.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court: Dr. Schilf for the defendant Klemm.
The Witness, Hecker, has submitted two affidavits on behalf of the defendant Klemm and I intend to introduce them in the Klemm case, but I understood the ruling of the Court on Friday to say that concerning that subject, because the witness Hecker is present he is to be heard here as a witness. Therefore, I will now examine the witness Hecker on the Klemm case.
Q: Witness, you have already said that you worked in division V of the Reich Ministry of Justice, that was the division dealing with the administration of punishment. Please tell the Tribunal from what date did you work in that department?
A: I worked in division V, administration of punishment, from the fall of 1933 until the end. First I was in the Prussian Ministry of Justice and afterwards in the Reich Ministry of Justice, after the so-called centralization.
Q; In the year 1937, therefore, you were in division V?
A: Yes, I was.
Q; In the year 1937, my client Klemm was at the Reich Ministry of Justice as ministerial councillor; do you know about that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Besides the official position in Division IV, he was also the socalled Liaison fuehrer of the Ministry of Justice with the SA; do you know about that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q. Roughly in 1937 Klemm, as Laison Fuehrer to the S.A. was occupied with a case which concerned the execution of punishment, that is to say your division, and I am referring to Regiurungs Director Schaefer. Schaefer was an S. A. Fuehrer, and at the same time an employee of the Justice service. He was a Regierungs Director, that was his official function, and he held that position at the penal camp Papenburg.
Q. Do you remember that date?
A. He was the head of the penal camps as an official, that was at the same time he was with the S.A.
Q. Do you know what rank he had with the S.A.?
A. I believe in 1937 he was Standartenfuehrer, and afterwards became Oberfuehrer.
Q. Do you know that under the auspices of Schaefer at the penal camp Papenburg irregularities occurred?
A. Yes, irregularities occurred which caused criticism on the part of the Ministry of Justice.
Q. And what were those matters?
A. Mainly they were administrative matters. They concerned the administration of supplies, clothing, food -- they also concerned other problems, and there were also some cases of ill treatment or where ill treatment was supposed to have occurred.
Q. Did you become acquainted with these events in your official capacity as a member of Division V?
A. As a member of Division V I heard of it and made a report to Berlin.
Q. To whom did you make your report?
A. I reported to under-secretary Freisler, and in the course of my report I told him that it seemed to me that close examination of the matter was necessary. That examination was refused. The reason given was that there was no cause, and the matter was reverted to a later date when prosecution and disciplinary action were ordered.
Q. Who ordered that?
A. The order was made by the Minister.
Q. In spite of the investigation Schaefer is said in his capacity as SA Standartenfuehrer to have continued to lead and influence these guards who were SA men.
A. He did remain on his post, and therefore investigations were rendered difficult, because none of the S.A. men wanted to incrikinate him in any way, because he was still on his post.
Q. During the investigations, during the disciplinary proceedings had he been relieved in his functions as an official by the Ministry of Justice?
A. He had been relieved as an official, but remained in his post as a leader of the SA guards in his capacity as SA fuehrer and those guards were still under his influence, therefore.
Q. Would you describe to the Tribunal what steps you caused, so as to eliminate Schaefer's work in his capacity as SA fuehrer?
A. I myself played no further part in the handling of that matter. Other gentlemen took over, but I know that in the penal division, as well as in our division, on account of later information the case was resumed, and that subsequently it was decided through Klemm as liason man with the SA to approach the Chief of Staff, Lutze; Klemm brought about such a discussion for which the head of Division IV, the head of Division V, the Ministerial councillor (Ministerialrat) Klemm called on the Chief of Staff.
Q. Will you please give the Tribunal the names of the chiefs of Division IV and Division V, I mean the men who together with Klemm were to see the Chief of Staff, Lutze?
A. In Division IV it was Ministerial Director Krohne, and in Division V, it was Ministerialdirigent Marz.
Q. Did a discussion with the SA leadership, that is with Lutze actually take place?
A. Yes, a conference took place, and the effect was that the Chief of Staff decided that Schaefer was to be sent on leave.
He was forbidden to wear uniform and during the investigation and for the duration of the investigation proceedings he was relieved from his office as Standartenfuehrer.
Q. Thus he left the Papenburg camp?
A. He didn't actually leave, but he no longer had any possibility to exercise influence there.
Q. In what way did the result of that conference come to your official notice as far as Krohne and Marz and Lutze in the the presence of Klemm, were concerned?
A. I heard of it by Ministerial Director Marz.
Q. Did you compile a file or any notes?
A. As far as I know a written ordinance by the Chief of Staff was brought along, and probably a note was made.
Q. It has been established that Schaefer, both as an official of the Ministery of Justice and *** his capacity as a SA Fuehrer was no longer allowed to exercise any influence on the guards; what else happened?
A. Then the proceedings were carried out, penal proceedings against several guards, and also a disciplinary action was taken against Schaefer himself.
Q. These men are also supposed to have come to Papenburg to inform Schaefer of the decision which had been made by the authorities concerned, is that correct?
A. What happened first, that a trip was taken through the EMS District for other reasons, and the opportunity was used for a trip to Papenburg, where the decision by the Chief of Staff was communicated to Schaefer.
Q. By whom?
A. By Ministerialrat Klemm.
Q. That settles that affair. I am not going over to the second point. It refers to the time from 1944. You have described to us how until the collapse in 1945 you were employed in Division V of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
You know that Klemm in January 1944 was appointed undersecretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes.
Q. I am now asking you, was Division V, that is penal administration placed under Klemm's direction as undersecretary. Was he as undersecretary placed in charge of the supervision of division V?
A. No, Division V, as under Klemm's predecessor in office, was immediately under the direction of the Ministry. That meant that the reports were sent immediately from the head of the division to the Minister. The under-secretary was consulted at the time, either immediately by the head of the division or occasionally by consulting also one of his referents, and he was informed so only when particularly important matters were concerned. But he himself did not make decisions for that division.
Q. Did Klemm have any practical influence at all on the penal administration as a whole after he became undersecretary?
A. No. He only made decisions when the minister was absent, and when matters were so urgent that during that absence of the minister an immediate decision had to be reached.
Q. Did you yourself ever report to Klemm as undersecretary on a matter concerning the administration of justice which was so urgent one could not await the return of the minister?
A. I remember such a report only in a case which concerned the appointment of two officials which had to be given particular support.
There were two heads of prisons which were to be promoted government (Regierungsdirektor) directors. The undersecretary Klemm was particularly interested in that matter, because that matter came from the party chancellory, and because the chancellory, as far as I remember, had approached him immediately to assist in the matter.
Q. That was the only report that you made to Klemm the whole time?
A. In any case, I don't remember any other report.
Q. And that report did hot concern the matter of penal administration in itself?
A. No, it concerned personnel matters.
Q. Did you ever, outside of an official report, discuss with Klemm in a conversational manner the work of Division V?
A. Well, after the head of the division was no longer in Berlin but was in an evacuation center. I, for my part, occasionally went to Under Secretary Klemm and informed him of the most important events because the usual way of information through the head of the division could in effect no longer be adopted.
Q. Would you tell the Tribunal, please, where your division was evacuated to from Berlin?
A. Division V was in Zoebenik. That was about an hour and a half from Berlin -- but on account of air raids rail service on that line was frequently interrupted and communications between the evacuation centers and Berlin were disturbed and it happened frequently that the reports could not be rendered.
Q. Did that state of affairs exist already when Klemm became Under Secretary?
A. No, that began -- just a moment -- that started Christmas 1943. It was at Christmas 1943 when the division was evacuated and from January 1944 that state of affairs existed. But the interruptions and the opportunity to get to Berlin worsened only at a later date -that is, the 2nd half of 1944.
Q. In a conversation - as you say yourself, it was not an official report - in such a conversation the Prosecutor General for the Supreme Court of Appeal of Berlin Hansen is supposed to have been discussed.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what Klemm told you about Hansen on that occasion?
A. He told me that concerning the handling of matters by the General Prosecutor Hansen he felt certain misgivings because Hansen was particularly harsh and inclined to comply with the wishes of the party and he asked me to talk matters over with him and to make him understand that, like the other General Prosecutors, he ought to maintain a certain amount of reserve and should not comply with everything that the party demanded in that respect.
Q. And I am now going to discuss two events which occurred in the year 1944 in Division V of the Ministry, or rather which are said to have occurred. The Ministry -- I mean Division V -- is alleged to have taken severe action against two officials of the Penal Administration Service. The first case concerns a Chief Warden (Hauptwachtmeister) at a prison in Southern Germany who was said to have illtreated prisoners. Do you remember that event?
A. Yes, that occurred at a penitentiary. It must have been in Munich or Nurnberg. The Chief Warden had mistreated a prisoner. If I remember, the prisoner died afterwards. The chief warden who was accused was the Ortsgruppenleiter in that locality and the head of the prison had failed to conduct investigations with sufficient energy and had not reported on the matter. If I remember rightly, it was during the revision carried out by the General Prosecutor that the matter became known. Application was made for the arrest of the Ortsgruppenleiter. The matter was reported to the Ministry and the Ministry ruled that energetic action was to be taken. A warrant of arrest was issued for the chief warden and the head of the prison was relieved of his post. The Party through the Gauleiter registered protest that, in spite of the various protests it was proceeded with.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what was done about the head of the prison. He was supposed to be an Oberregierungsrat after the trial of the chief warden had been finished.
A. I can't tell you. I can't remember that now. I don't know how that matter ended. I didn't follow the matter at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I was wondering, Dr. Schilf, what part the defendant Klemm had in carrying out that prosecution. The witness spoke of the Ministry of Justice having caused an arrest to be made.
DR. SCHILF: The defendant Klemm does not play an immediate part in these events.
THE PRESIDENT: I supposed that you were examining for the defendant Klemm and I wondered if you claimed Klemm had anything to do with prosecuting this officer who had been guilty as the witness says.
DR. SCHILF: No, Your Honor, but I would like to say that I am concerned with a subject that comes under the heading of General Defense.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I spoke about the first instance which you have described to us. In 1944 a second case is supposed to have occurred when again we heard the head of the prison was criticized by the Ministry -that is to say, by the Division V or by the Minister himself. Can you tell us something about that case?
A. Yes, that was the head of a prison in the district of Posen. He was a Oberregierungsrat in charge of the Schirat prison; concerning supplies and the administration irregularities had occurred. The head of the prison acquired foodstuffs which were not his due and he had also derived other benefits from prisoners working by fixing higher rates of pay than were laid down in the regulations. Proceedings were instituted against him and he was sentenced to a prison term of, I believe, about 16 months.
DR. SCHILF: That is enough. May it please the Court, I have no further questions to this witness.
MR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger): I would ask you to permit me to ask the witness two questions.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Hecker, do you know that Dr. Rothenberger during his period of office was only in charge of the division dealing with civil matters?
A. Yes, Divisions IV and V here, during the whole time when he was Under Secretary, immediately under the direction of the Ministry.
Q. Did you ever in your affairs make a report to Dr. Rothenberger?
A. No, I do not remember that a report was ever made. It is possible that at the beginning when he arrived, as a general survey on matters on the Division, some sort of a report may have been made to him, but not on details. In any case, I myself, as far as I know, never reported to him.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger make any decisions or play any part in matters concerning your division?
A. No, no he did not.
Q. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz)
Q. Do you know that the Reich Ministry of Justice issued a circular decree to the prisons containing detailed instructions to these prisons concerning the treatment of NN prisoners and the manner in which they were to be secluded from the outside world?
A. Yes. At the beginning of the NN matters a circular decree was issued to the prisons, where such prisoners were housed and to the prosecutors concerned. Those instructions ruled on visitors, on correspondence, and other communications concerning prisoners held for trial. The order was that permission for letters and parcels was to be held up -- that concerned the sending of such mail as well as the receipt.
Q. Were the prisons told in that circular decree that they would have to make an exception as far as the defense counsel was concerned?
A. No, concerning the defense counsel I believe only oral communications were allowed. That was settled by the prosecution. But, later -- yes they could write to defense counsel; I must assume that.
Q. Were the prisons under the Administration of Justice, under the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court?
A. No, he had no influence on the measures which were taken at those proceedings;
Q. He did not exercise supervision over the prisons?
A. No, he did not.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: (Attorney for Defendant Joel) I would ask the Tribunal to allow me to direct a few questions to the witness.
Q. I would like to refer to Document NO-638-PS, in Document Book IV-A. That document contains a note which the defendant Joel made after a conference with Reichmarshal Goering on 14 September, 1942, and extracts of which concerning one point are contained in this document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number, please.
DR. THIELE-FRIEDERSDORF: That is Exhibit 262.
Q. In this document the defendant Dr. Joel reports on a suggestion by the Reichsmarshal of that time, Goering, to the Reich Ministry of Justice to the effect that smugglers and poachers were to be selected from the prisons and possibly used in counteracting band activities on the eastern front. Mr. President, from your activities in the penal administration division and the Reich Ministry of Justice, do you know with what branches of the armed forces there were so-called Bewaehrungseinheiten probation units?
A. Those probation units -- Bewaehrungseinheiten -existed with the army.
Q. Only with the army or also with other branches of the armed forces?
A. No, neither the navy or the Luftwaffe had any probation units.
Q. What was to be understood by that conception of probation units?
A. Those units of probation were comprised of persons who had previous convictions and persons who were altogether unworthy. There were probation units for persons who were unworthy of doing service with the armed forces; and other units of probation for persons who had not lost their status of being eligible for service with the armed forces but on account of their heavy sentences were not thought suitable.
Q. Without dealing with any details, one can say in brief that in such units of probation there were persons who in some way or another had been in conflict with the penal laws, who had either finished their Berm, or who had teen removed from the prisons in order to prove themselves worthy of service with the armed forces.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear that the employment of those units was carried out in a manner which was contradictory to international law?
A. No. The difference in the employment was laid down in such a manner that the units of probation were sent to a particular danger spot.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Excuse me. I cannot get to this microphone. I did not hear all of the witness' answer, but I ask that the answer to that question be stricken for the reason that it was a leading question and also called for a conclusion of the witness on a question of law. If I could have gotten here in time to stop it, I would have objected; it is the only recourse I have.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer will be stricken.
Q. Mr. President, who dealt with the callup for those units probation at the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. They were dealt with by Division IV, which had to come to an agreement with the high command of the armed forces.
Q. Who was the expert?
A. The export was -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Wait a minute; your Honors, it is going too fast.
Excuse me, I must ask the Court to ask the witness to wait until the question has been asked and reaches me through the interpreter. I can't intelligently object to anything here -- the answer comes before I have heard the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is directed to pause after the question has been asked and until the question has been translated,-
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And the counsel for the Prosecution has had opportunity to object if he desires.
Q. May I repeat my last question. Who in fact was the expert who dealt at the Reich Ministry of Justice with the callup to units of probation?
A. That was the Ministerialrat Westphal.
Q. Did the defendant Joel have anything to do with the handling of matters for penal administration and the execution of punishment at the Reich Ministry of Justice in a general way?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object to the qualification "in a general way." I want to know what that means.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: The meaning of my question is this: I want to ask the witness to tell us whether the defendant had anything to do with those divisions and with the questions with which that division dealt; that is a question concerning the division of work.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I have no objection to that now; it was just the general way -
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
A. Ministerialrat Joel was not in charge of the field of penal administration; he dealt with other questions with in Division IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The question was not whether he was in charge. The question was whether he had anything to do with it.
A. No.
Q. And did the defendant Joel have anything to do with the callup of prisoners for the armed forces, that is to say for the units of probation of the armed forces; did he specifically have anything to do with that?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember that Dr. Joel in the autumn of 1942 was sent by the Reich Minister of Justice to a conference with Reichsmarshal Goering, in the course of which Goering made certain suggestions which I have already indicated from the document, for the Reich Ministry of Justice -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Please don't answer. I object to that, Your Honor, for the reason that the witness cannot possibly know what suggestions were made by Goering, or does not have any way of knowing for what purpose Joel was sent to the conference; he was not the director of it.
THE PRESIDENT: The question as I understand it is whether the witness knows if Joel was sent to the conference; to that extent he may answer.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I would like to put the document to the witness, with the agreement of the Prosecutor, and I would like to ask him if he still remembers that note.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: To which I object, Your Honor; the witness has never testified he had any knowledge of the note. The note was issued by any authority; the witness has not shown that he is qualified to have any information of any of these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood the question to relate, as I said before, to this: Does the witness know whether Joel went to this conference; he has not yet asked what happened at the conference. The ruling was the witness, if he knows, may answer whether Joel went to the conference.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I thought the last question was beyond that.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer that question if you know.
A. I know he was there, because afterwards that note was submitted to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your next question.
Q. Who submitted that note which you have just looked at to you?
A. It was Westphal who showed it to me.
Q. Do you remember that this Westphal was the competent expert on that suggestion by Goering and do you remember what he said about that suggestion?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object to what Westphal told this witness. If there is any written document, any captured document, any documentary evidence all right; but to call now for what Westphal told this witness about what happened at a meeting with Goering, at which Westphal wasn't present, I object.
DR. THIELE--FREDERSDORF: I cannot see that the fact that Westphal is dead is to cut off the answer to my question, and in that case the Defense would not be in a position to conduct any defense against this charge made by the Prosecution. The defendant Joel can hardly be subjected to such a disadvantage from the death of Westphal.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I may have not put my objection properly. Certainly there is nothing in the testimony of this witness, nor in this document, that shows that Westphal was present or that he had any personal knowledge. Now I don't care whether he is alive or dead; he is not qualified to testify in answer to this question which was, as I get it: What did Goering say at this meeting? That is what I thought it was.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: May I show the prosecutor the bottom of the document, which says "Ministerial Director, IV and V"? That means to say, as the witness will be able to tell us--- Who was the Ministerial Director of IV and V, witness?
THE WITNESS: It was Ministerial Director Krohne and Ministerial Director Marx.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I believe that under the Distribution of Work Plan, which is not disputed, it is clear that a matter like this would have been dealt with by the expert - that is Westphal - and that therefore, particularly when one looks at the note at the end of the document, it is clear that Westphal must have known about that note.
May I show the Tribunal the note which is at the bottom of that document? May I read it out? It says there: "Ministerial Directors IV and V: I enclose extracts from the notes on the conference submitted by Ministerialrat Dr. Joel for the preparation of the report on Friday, 9 October."
That reveals that that note on the conference was sent to all competent officials and the witness has already confirmed that to us.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I guess I am completely confused by now. I am not objecting to the fact that there are certain numbers on here; I am objecting to the question as stating an argument and a conclusion from the facts, and also I again object to any statement by this witness of what Westphal might have told him because Westphal was not at the meeting.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q. Witness, what happened, according to your memory and your knowledge, after that suggestion by Goering, the Reich Marshal? What steps were taken on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice? In other words, what steps did the competent expert take?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object. The witness has not shown that he knew who the competent expert was, or what steps he would have taken.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him first if he knows.
Mr. Witness, do you know who the competent expert was, and do you know what steps were taken by him?
THE WITNESS: I will answer that question--
THE PRESIDENT: Answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your next question.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q. Do you know and do you remember what steps the competent expert did take?
A. The competent expert went to the headquarters where he had a discussion with General Meindl. Afterwards he had a discussion with General Oberst Jeschonek. Afterwards, when he came back, he said that nothing had come of the matter because suitable people for that employment were not available.
Q. Who was it who went there?
A. It was Westphal who went there.
Q. Did you hear what the opinion was of Jeschonek and Meindl concerning Goering's suggestion?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object. Your Honor, I object to that in the form in which it is stated. I am not concerned about the opinions, nor do I think they are relevant.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: This is not a question of the opinion of the witness, but it is a case of finding out a fact, because the witness was the official in charge of these matters of penal administration in the ministry and therefore heard about them in his official capacity.