Q Witness, you say, then, that you believe the indictment was filed with the People's Court because tho case was important for tho whole country and because it contained a novel element?
A Yes, that is possible.
Q Does tho form of tho indictment show that it was the intention to ask for tho death sentence?
A No, on no account. When the indictment was phrased, and in particular because of tho legal provisions which were cited -- in all that, there is nothing to indicate that it was intended to ask for the death sentence. On the contrary; and I should like to refer to tho enclosure, the letter, which was sent with the indictment. It was written on tho 30th of July, 1943, to tho Presiding Judge of the People's Court. It appears on page 5 of the document.
In the second paragraph of that letter, which is also signed by me, it is expressly pointed out that under Article 2 of the law of 20 December 1934, prosecution under that law had been ordered. That law was the Malicious Acts Law, which has been mentioned here a great many times. I should think that is a proof for tho fact that we considered tho application of that law also possible, for otherwise it would have been stupid to make reference to it. The maximum penalty for violation of tho Malicious Acts Law would have been a five-year sentence. I think it is possible that not only the question of tho employment of women was the cause for taking this case to the People's Court, but also tho question of the application of tho law in general.
Q Witness, what was the Senate with which your department cooperated in the field of undermining military morale?
A It was the 4th Senate, and the presiding judge was Dr. Koehler, whose name has been mentioned in a favorable context repeatedly here. May I state that in 1944 Dr. Koehler was transferred from the People's Court to Stettin, because Freisler did not approve of him. The 4th Senate dealt mainly with high treason cases. Later on it also had to deal with the undermining of military morale. However, when the distribution of work was changed again, it had to return those cases because there was dissatisfaction with the sentences that that Senate had passed.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Concerning the incorporation of Dr. Bach's department with the 4th Senate may I refer you to Barnickel Document *1 which has been accepted as Barnickel Exhibit 12. It is in Document Bock I, on page 40. The witness Bernhard Bach, on page 42 of this document -mentions the following statement -- and I would like to direct the attention of the Tribunal to it.
"In the further course of presenting my defense I shall have another document to present in connection with this document. That will be Barnickel Document 27, on page 88 of the Document Book. That is an affidavit of Scheide, District Court Director."
Witness, in connection with those indictments that were filed it would perhaps be advisable if you repeat it briefly, what were the general prerequisites for filing an indictment?
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you with a question first? The letter to which you refer was the letter of 30 July 1943, wasn't it?
WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I wondered if you could tell me what was meant by the last phrase in that letter, where you say: "The prosecution under Article II of the Law of December 20, 1934 has been ordered as a precaution." -- The part, "the prosecution has ordered as a precaution" - what did you mean by that?
WITNESS: Your Honor, by that I want to say that that passage points out that if sentence was not to be passed on the basis of undermining of military morale, prosecution under the Malicious Acts law would be made.
Well, - that was a case of a measure which might be taken, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. Was it the practice to appoint defense counsel even in cases where the death penalty was not expected, in your court, in the Peoples Court?
WITNESS: Your Honor, at my time -- I don't know what happened later -- but at my time, every defendant who appeared before the Peoples Court No. III, Case No. 3.Court had to have a defense counsel, without exception.
That had nothing to do with the death penalty.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DP. TIPP:
Q Witness, may I repeat my question. I may ask you to tell us what were these general prerequisites for filing an indictment?
A Well, that question has been touched upon repeatedly here. There had to be sufficient suspicion that defendant had committed the offense, that is to say, a certain probability was sufficient.
Q In connection with the undermining of military morale, particularly in this case, I think a further question is important. The question: What did one mean when one said the undermining of military morale in public?
AAccording to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Reich Court and the Supreme Military Court, military morale was undermined in public even if statements had been made in front of only one person, if the offender had to expect that that person would pass on his statements to an indefinite number of other persons.
Q These two prerequisites, therefore, in your opinion, in the Beck case, did exist?
A Yes.
Q Now, one more question concerning the undermining of military morale cases in general. Were all those cases dealt with by your department?
A To start with, yes; from the summer of 1943, however, certain categories of cases were transferred to Department I, which collaborated with Freisler's Senate. According to the distribution plan of the Peoples Court, Freisler could also deal with certain cases from my department, at his Senate.
Q How long was it that your department dealt with those undermining-of-military-morale-cases?
A Until the 31st of December 1943. Then they were transferred Court No. III, Case No. 3.to another department.
Q Another document has been presented by the prosecution in connection with undermining of military morale, and there, too, your name is mentioned. I am referring to Prosecution Exhibit 140, Document NG-377, from Document Book III-C. The document deals with the proceedings against Wilhelm Zinser for undermining military morale. The judgment which was submitted together with the Exhibit is dated 6 November 1943. Can you tell us, witness, whether your department dealt with that case?
A The document shows that it was Department I, which I have just mentioned, which dealt with that case.
Q But the prosecution has connected you with the matter, witness. In presenting this evidence on the 24th of March 1947, page 953 of the German text, and page 932 of the English text, the prosecution stated the following, and I quote:
"We point out that the opinion, parts of which we have just read out, were signed, and were initialed by the following defendants: Lautz, Barnickel and Rothaug, That appears on page 93 of the English Document Book." End of quotation.
Please, comment on this, witness.
A My initials which the prosecution mentions do not appear below the opinion. I think that must be a mistake. My initials appear on a so-called circulation slip. Until the Peoples Court broke down, it was the custom for all judgments and indictments to be circulated according to departments for their own information. There are exceptions, for instance, secret Reich matters. According to statistics which have been presented here in Document NG-160, Exhibit 124, the Peoples Court in 1943 passed a total of 1312 judgments. The number of indictments was even higher. If one had wanted to read all those circulated matters one would have had to read approximately three thousand indictments and judgments. Nobody had the time to do that; and nobody expected us to do that. If ever we did have time perhaps, we just had Court No. III, Case No. 3.a look at one or the other document, if one thought that one might be interested in that particular document, but as a rule in those days we just initialed the circulation slip without having read the documents; but we had to put out initials down because unless we did so, these documents would come back to us again and again.
I repeat, therefore, that I had nothing to do with this Zinser case with which I have been connected, nor do I remember that I read the documents when they were circulated to me.
Q In connection with this matter may I refer to Exhibit 9, Document No. 7. The witness Spahr under figure 9a of this document states here on the question of circulated document.
The prosecution submitted further circulation lists with the following exhibit numbers; Exhibit 133, Document NG-642, from Document Book III-A. Further, prosecution exhibit 134, Document NG-497, also from Document Book III-A. And the last is Prosecution Exhibit 137, Document NG-596, from Document Book III-B.
Witness, may I ask you whether the same applies to those documents and exhibits -- does it apply what you said with reference to Exhibit 140, that is to say, the Zinser case?
A Yes, the same is true of that. For the sake of clarity, may I say again that by initialing the circulation list we did not assume any responsibility for the judgment or the indictment. And no such responsibility was connected with initialing the list.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, may I interrupt briefly? The defendant Oeschey is not feeling well and he asks for a brief recess. His request has just been handed to me.
THE PRESIDENT: A recess for him personally, or for the entire -
DR. TIPP: It would be sufficient if permission were granted Defendant Oeschey to leave the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: He may be granted that permission, in proper company. I presume he is in custody. There should be someone to accompany him. 7701 Court No. III, Case No. 3.If it becomes necessary for him to be excused for the balance of the day proper application would be considered by the Court.
DR. TIPP: He has just told me that he does not think that will be necessary, your Honor.
After this interruption, witness, may I continue: I should like to ask you to redirect your attention to the cases of undermining military morale and to tell us something about the question of transferring cases to the General Public Prosecutors, a question with which we have already dealt. Earlier you said that about 95 percent of the cases of undermining of military morale were sent from your department to the General Public Prosecutors - is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. The figure was just slightly above 95 percent.
Q What was the significance of the circumstance that a proceeding was handed to the General Public Prosecutor?
A It had been the custom for many years that the Reich Prosecution sent cases of lesser importance to the General Public Prosecutors. The District Court of Appeals were accustomed -
THE PRESIDENT: Would you explain that to me, please? I think I should understand it now but -- do you mean to the General Public Prosecutors in the various districts of the District Courts of Appeals -- is that what you mean?
WITNESS: The General Public Prosecutors with the District Courts of Appeals, Your honors, had these cases sent to them by us.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You were referring to all of them, not to any one prosecutor? They were spread out and sent to the various appropriate General Public Prosecutors? In what court would they then appear for trial - ordinarily - if they were sent to the General Public Prosecutor?
WITNESS: Your Honor, this was the way it was handled: If, when passing on the case, we did not also issue instructions, then the General Public Prosecutor could handle the case in whichever way he liked. For example, he himself could file an indictment, or he could pass it on to a subordinate Senior Public Prosecutor. Or, he could quash the proceeding if he thought that the evidence was not sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: But if he deemed that an indictment was proper, where would the indictment normally by filed in that type of case? Did he have an option as to what courts he should proceed in?
WITNESS: A General Public Prosecutor was the prosecutor with the District Court of Appeals, and when he himself filed the indictment he filed it with the District Court of Appeals.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q I would like to ask you another question on that: Who were the General Public Prosecutors to whom you passed on cases when you did pass them on? Were there any local limitations or did you deal with the matter according to where those cases had occurred, or what district, or what was the way you handled them?
A Well, that was a competency question. For example, if the defendant had committed his offense in Munich, then it was the General Public Prosecutor in Munich who was competent. But I would like to add, and that is essential in judging this problem, I would like to add that the District Courts of Appeals, which also regarded these cases as cases of lesser importance, as a rule passed more lenient sentences.
Q Now, I am coming to the subject of you in your capacity as a department chief. When you passed on cases to the General Public Prosecutors wore you quite free to act as you liked?
A The department chief himself had to sign tho document by whih the case was passed on. As I have pointed out here before, that was really a main field for which he had to give his signature.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask one more question. I am merely trying to understand as well as possible the procedure. If a case was transferred to a General Public Prosecutor could he also file an indictment in a Special Court if there was a Special Court in his district?
WITNESS: No your Honor. A General Public Prosecutor could only file indictment with his own court, that is to say, the District Court of Appeals, and the case was tried before the Penal Senate of the District Court of Appeals.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
WITNESS: But I should like to add this: For example, if a General Public Prosecutor, before he had filed the indictment with his court, came to the conclusion that this was not a case of undermining military morale but was an offense against the Malicious Acts Law, then he could pass on it on to the senior public prosecutor, and the senior public prosecutor could file the indictment, under tho Malicious Acts Law.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q We stopped at the question as to whether, when passing on cases, you had a free hand.
I don't think you finished answering my question.
A Well, I had said that really that was the main sphere in connection with which the Reich Prosecutor had a right to sign, hut there were certain directives and for example, in connection with cases of undermining military morale, the Chief occasionally asked for a report, a summary, and then gave his orders stating what cases were to he passed on, and what cases were to he indicted with the Peoples Court. But all those directives were very vague, and there was quite a lot of scope for individual judgment. When in the summer of 1943 Freisler began to deal with the undermining of military morale cases, we were particularly anxious to pass on cases which otherwise might have come before his Senate.
Q There is one more question, witness, which I would like to discuss with you in this connection. From exhibit 220 of the prosecution, Document NG-671, from Document Book III-I-it can be seen that when dases were passed on to the general public prosecutors instructions could be issued, - directives. May I ask you, witness, whether you, in your department, made use of that right to issue directives?
A Well, that is a problem on which I have already touched. But, I may point out that that exhibit originates from the year 1944. And at that time a new custom had been introduced. I myself, as I pointed out before, as from 31 December 1943 handed over the undermining of military morale cases to another department. And during the time I dealt with those cases the general public prosecutors did not receive instructions, but had a free hand.
Q Before I leave the subject of undermining of military morale cases, witness, may I ask you at hand of Exhibit 124, Document NG-160, which you have already mentioned, to tell the Tribunal that the figure of about 90 indictments with the Peoples Court according to that statistics is correct; for you will admit that in comparison with the total number of 2,400 cases a number of only 90 indictments sounds almost improbably low.
A I believe that the statistics which I have before me will allow me to give proof of that quite easily. How that I have looked at the statistics I am actually inclined to believe that tho number of 90 indictments before the Peoples Court for the year 1943 is almost too high. The statistics show, for the Fourth Senate, a number of judgments of a total of 186. As I said before, the Fourth Senate mainly dealt with cases of treason, and in 1943 it also had to try the cases of undermining of military morale. If from the 186 judgments which the Fourth Senate passed in that year, one deducts the figure 90 for undermining military morale cases, one would find that in the whole of 1943 the Fourth Senate only passed 96 judgments in cases of treason. The statistics show that there would have been far fewer judgments than were passed by the Third Senate, which also worked on treason cases. Unfortunately, this calculation cannot be made with mathematical exactitude, but in my view the statistics show clearly that my estimate must be approximately correct. I would ask you not to believe that these 90 indictments had resulted in, shall we say, 90 death sentences, for in the whole year the Senate only passed 72 death sentences. If in the case of the Fourth Senate I wore to assume that just as in tho case of the Third Senate about 50 death sentences were passed, then for the year 1943 there would remain 22 death sentences for undermining military morale, and that with a total number of 2,500 cases. Purely from memory, however, the figure 22 death sentences seems too high to me, but, as I have said, all that is purely an approximate estimate.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask you one more question, please? Were all of the indictments which your department filed with the People's Court, filed with the Fourth Senate of the People's Court?
A Your Honor, in principle we only worked with the Fourth Senate in cases of undermining of military morale. Our high treason indictments were sent to another Senate. But as I pointed out earlier, it did happen that Freisler dealt with some of our indictments in his Senate.
Q Did any other department file indictments for undermining military morale with any Senate of the People's Court?
A Yes, Your Honor, apart from my department there was Department I which dealt with undermining of military morale cases, and Department I filed all its indictments with the First Senate.
Q Your statistics are limited to the work of your department, as you have given them?
A The statistics which I have given, Your Honor, refer only to the work of my department.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Concerning the practice in dealing with undermining of military morale cases. Herr Rothaug a little while ago made statements here, and I believe that there is a certain amount of contradiction between his statements and yous. Perhaps by a few words, you can clear up that apparent contradiction.
A Yes, but I should like to call that not a contradiction but rather a difference, for Rothaug spoke about the period after the first of January 1944; whereas my statements referred only to the time up to the 31 of December 1943. Quite apart from that, every department and every department chief in these as well as in other matters, had his own customs.
Q Concerning Dr. Barnickel's practice in passing on cases, I shall later from Document Book II submit Barnickel Document 30 on Page 104.
That is an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Stegemann on 21 July 1947. Dr. Stegemann was Expert with the General Public Prosecutor in Hamburg, and he was an expert who dealt with the undermining of military morale. In that capacity, he worked together with Dr. Barnickel for a long time.
Your Honor, I believe this would be a moment for the recess, because I am now going over to a new chapter. If the Tribunal would like me to continue now, naturally I will do so.
THE PRESIDENT: We'd like to have you continue until three o'clock. You have ten minutes vet.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, I am now coming to the next chapter. Who was it at the People's Court who had to deal with sessions?
AAs a rule, the referent with the Reich Prosecution.
Q Did the prosecutor receive instructions from the department concerning the sentence he was to ask for?
AAs a rule, a few days before the trial opened, the referent came to see his department chief and made a suggestion to him. He, after all, was the man who knew the case best. The department chief commented on the case. A definite directive to the effect that a certain sentence had to be asked for, I never issued. I always described my opinion as being just my view, I assume that the matter was handled in a similar way in other departments. But I don't know for certain. I always told my referents above all, that first of all the sentence for which they would have to ask would have to be made dependent on the evidence and on the impression which the defendant made at the trial, etc.
Q Were there any special rules in cases where the death sentence was to be asked for?
A I believe that has been mentioned hero. If it was possible that the death sentence might be asked for, a report had to be made to the Chief--the Behordenleiter.
He then commented on the matter, but also said that it would have to depend on the result of the evidence at the trial. During the latter course of the war, in many cases, in particular if the law made the death sentence mandatory, such a report was not made.
Q Now another question. The prosecution has stated here repeatedly that the free decision by the court was curtailed because between the prosecution and the court contact, or guidance had been ordered. Did such contact exist at the People's Court too?
A No, of that close contact, which several prosecution documents have mentioned, I heard here for the first time. We didn't have that at the People's Court. I never heard anything about guidance there. I never heard anything about any instruction to make such contact, as was evident from these documents. But please understand me correctly: on the other hand, this whole idea of making contact has been known to me from the time when I was a public prosecutor myself and that was in the days before the First World War. But it wasn't that the public prosecutor tried to exercise any influence on the sentence to be passed by the court, but the prosecutor informed himself about the views of the court so as not to deviate too much. That sort of contact existed almost all over Germany, and it always had existed. But it was entirely at the discretion of the public prosecutor whether he wanted to make contact or not.
Sometimes the court, for its part, approached the public prosecutor. I knew of contact being made at tho People's Court only in that form. I repeat: contact between the prosecution and the court, meaning that jurisdiction was to be guided -- that I had not known of until I attended the trial here.
Q May it please the Court, concerning these last points, I would like to refer to documents which have already been introduced.
The first document to which I want to refer is Barnickcl Document No. 9, Exhibit 10, Page 29 of the Document Book. The witness Bodo Meier made statements on those points. Furthermore, I would like to refer to Barnickel Document No. 10, Exhibit 8, Affidavit By Bexmann, on Page 35 and 36 of the Document Book. Further, the affidavit by Dr. Bach, Barnickel Document 11, Exhibit 120, Page 40 of the Document Book; and finally, Barnickel Document 12, Exhibit 11, also in Document Book I, Affidavit by Dr. Lenhard.
At a later time, I shall offer Barnickel Document 27 from Document Book II, Page 90. That is an affidavit to which I have already referred by Heider; and Barnickcl Document No. 29, Affidavit Weltz of 21 July 1947, also in Document Book II. All these witnesses further explained the questions which Dr. Barnickel has just touched upon.
Witness, I think I have now finished discussing questions with you which deal with the procedure before the trial opened. I am how going to the next group of questions, and I ask you what was the work of the Reich Prosecution with the People's Court after the sentence had been passed?
AAs we all know, tho judgments of the People's Court immediately acquired legal force, unless there was a question of the clemency plea. After tho sentence had been passed, the prison was asked to accommodate prisoners. There were special forms on which the personal data of the defendants were entered, the sentence was entered, the computation of the term etc. Those forms could be signed by the Rechtspfleger. But there was an instruction with tho Reich Prosecution, according to which the department chief had to sign the form which had been completed by the Rechtspfleger.
Q Witness, we are now going over to the sphere of execution of punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a 15 minute recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Witness, before the recess, we came to discussing execution of sentences. Hecker, who has repeatedly been a witness in this court, on the 7th of July, 1947, stated that the authority for the execution of punishment by the peoples' court was the Chief Reich ProsecutEr and that that task was. carried out by the office chiefs. (Geschneftsstellehlelter). Previously you have said that there were several decisions which had to be signed by the department chief. You mentioned already one such decision. The prosecution has submitted two documents against you in this connection which I should like to discuss with you now. There is first Exhibit 266 of the prosecution, Document NG 598, from Document Book 3- A. It concerns the case Schoppa, Franz. I should like to discuss with you the letter of the 8th of March, 1943, which is part of that document. It Is signed by you only in typewritten form and it has the letterhead "The Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court." When it was submitted on the 18th of April of this year, the prosecution, as can be seen on page 2395 of the German transcript and page 2353 of the English transcript, stated the following: "The defendant Dr. Barmickelwrites to the commandant of a prison camp and asks the latter to carry out the program of transferring prisoners to the Gestapo in special cases."
Witness, may I ask you to comment on that document, and particularly the point of view of the prosecution which I have just quoted?
A: I base myself first on the assumption that I signed that document also in the original. However, I should like to state that, as far as out routine was concerned, it was quite possible that the original and the copy had different signatures.
However, I should not like to go into any detail. It is a little complicated and I base myself on the assumption that I did sign the document. However, if it is stated, according to the transcript that I had asked the commandant of a prison camp to carry out the program of transferring prisoners to the Gestapo in particular cases, that is probably an error. It was rather the case that a directive, which was frequently mentioned by the witness Hecker, had come down from the Minister of Justice to the effect that Poles had to be turned over to the Gestapo who had been sentenced to a term of more than three years. That transfer was carried out directly by the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Chief Reich Prosecutor had nothing to do with it. The document which is under discussion now, and which one of my office chiefs (Geschaeftsleiter) had drafted, was not concerned with a transfer at all, with which we had nothing to do, but only with the computation concerning the end of the term. It is suggested in the letter that that should be established later and expresses thereby without any doubt that we expected that these prisoners would be turned back to the administration of justice. Otherwise, it would have been quite impossible to concern oneself with figuring out the duration of the term.
Q: Witness, what did you know about the purpose of those transfers of prisoners?
A: I can say I didn't know the least thing about it. I was of the opinion that it was a question of manpower allocation, but, of course, of that entire subject I know less and could only know less than the witness Hecker. He was in the Ministry of Justice, whereas I had no direct contact with it.
That whole matter, and Hecker pointed that out was kept strictly secret, particularly because the real purpose of that transfer, such as it has been discussed in this trial, was quite unknown to any outsider.
Q: Could you explain to the Tribunal how it came about that such important matters remained unknown, even to the Chief Reich Prosecution with the Peoples' Court?
A: On the basis of the so-called (Verschluss-sachenanweisung) directive, the directive to keep matters in closed envelopes, a matter which to be kept secret, could be kept from the outside world. That directive was carried out very strictly and any violation could be punished as treason. That went so far that, in the case of so-called top secret matters (Geheime Reichssachen) a mere inquiry about a matter of that kind was considered quite irregular. Apart from that directive, since the 25th of September, 1941, there was also the so-called fundamental Fuehrer order which extended the duty to maintain secrecy.
Q: May it please the court, with reference to this subject I want to offer a document which may be of particular interest to the court. It is found in Document Book 1, on page 15. It is an affidavit by the defendant Dr. Barnickel made out on the 12th of May, 1947. The document contains the original text of the fundamental Fuehrer order of the 25th of September, 1941. In this connection, it will be interesting for the court that the wording of that Fuehrer order, even in the case before the IMT, was not available. At that time, by cooperation among several high offices, the approximate content was compiled, but the original text, the original wording, could not be submitted. Dr. Barnickel had copied that Fuehrer order which was available at the time in every German office, had kept the text with him, and has put it down here in this affidavit.
May I ask that this document be received as Barnickel Exhibit #13?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel undoubtedly understands the position which the Court has taken with reference to the receiving of affidavits from witnesses who are available and are testifying. However, in this case, I think we may make an exception because your only purpose in offering it is to present to the Tribunal the text of a document. Well allow Dr. Barnickel to incorporate this as a part of his verbal testimony, by reference.
Dr. Barnickel, you vouch for the accuracy of the quotation which you have made in this affidavit, do you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: For convenience we'll receive it as Exhibit 13.
Counsel understands this is a special case?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Concerning the question of maintaining secrecy on transfers and their purpose, may I remind the court of the statements made by the witness Hecker on the 7th of July, 1947, on page 4781 of the German transcript and page 856 of the English transcript?
Witness, now I should like to deal with the next document Prosecution Exhibit 267, Document NG 614. It is found in Document Book IV-A on page 74 of the German and page 50 of the English text. The prosecution document contains four individual documents, all of them are from the trial against a Pole, Kubiak, among other offenses for treason and high treason. From the opinion of the peoples' court of the 5th of November, 1941, which has been submitted, we can see that all defendants were sentenced to six years in a penitentiary.
To discuss the opinion itself is not necessary, I think. Then, there is a letter from the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court of the 6th of May, 1942, over your signature. It is directed to the superintendent of the Penitentiary Schiratz, and the prosecution stated the following when it submitted this document: "It is ordered by that that Kubiak and three other Poles, who were sentenced together with him, should be sent to a more severe penal camp."
Witness, can you tell us briefly about this document?
A: That was not an order made by me, but the circumstances are the following. As I have said before, after a sentence had been pronounced, a so-called request for reception was sent to the penal institution, in which among other things, the penalty pronounced was mentioned. In the case before us - Kubiak -- the senate had passed a sentence of six years' penitentiary each. As later the directive was issued that the Poles had to serve their terms in penal camps, that decision, of course, had to be altered and that was made mandatory by the law, and one must not think that I had given an order to my office chief to effect that change. He, on his part, drafted that request and then submitted it to me for my signature, Since there was no doubt, according to the sentence for Kubiak, that the convicted individuals were Poles, there was no alternative to signing that request. That was mandatory. Moreover, if we would not have requested that change, either the person in charge of supervision of the penal camps, who was the general public prosecutor, or even the management of the institution itself, would have had to effect that change. Apart from that, I want to emphasize that the witness Hecker said that, in practice, tore was no difference in the administration of penalties for Poles and Germans.