The continuously increasing occurrence of cases of seditious undermining of the defense spirit was caused by a directive given by the Ministry to the Senior Public Prosecutors, to submit all political utterances first of all to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Reich for examination of whether they constituted a case of seditious undermining of the defense spirit.
After the defeat at Stalingrad a more critical judgment had been adopted, but not because of a different interpretation of the law, but because of a different evaluation of the subjective side of the elements of the offense. After that date everybody knew that in view of the critical war situation defeatist utterances could have far much more disastrous consequences than at the time of the lightening wars (Blitzkriege). Rothaug is not charged with individual occurrences connected with his activity with the Reich Public Prosecutor's Office. The Will and Zinsser case, by which he is only incidentally touched, were cleared up by him. I may be allowed to refer to this.
Rothaug is a man whose private life is without fault or reproach, also with regard to party matters. Everything he is charged with pertains to the sphere of his official duty. Here, according to his character, his moral impulse to absolute fulfillment of his duty at all times and in all situations turned out to be fatal for him.
As a judge he ascertained the facts of the cases conscientiously and according to his convictions, and guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court and to the best of his knowledge and belief he ascertained the intent of the laws. Nowhere did he apply a method contrary to the law, neither in general nor in an individual case.
10477 v (Page 141 of original) It is not his fault that he was the product of his time.
Everyone is that after his own fashion, the one more, the other less.
The punishment demanded by the Prosecution could only be imposed upon him for not having consciously sabotaged, in violation of his holy oath of office taken before God, the legislation of his country which, according to the principles laid down in the constitution, he was not allowed to examine in regards to those points of view which constitute the essential points of this trial.
10477 w Your Honors:
My task of defending the Defendant Cuhorst has "become much more difficult by the lack of substantiation of the charges made against him in the indictment of 4 January 1947. To me as a German Defense Counsel this lack is the more marked as I am used to defend on the "basis of indictments in which the corpus deliciti has "been formulated in detail, in which the laws have "been cited exactly and the evidence has "been named for every individual issue. A great number of German indictments of this kind have been presented as evidence by both parties.
Above all it is a principle in German law, maintained in all political periods that the indictment cannot be extended without further ado after the opening of the trial and cannot even be changed by way of subsequent interpretation after all the evidence has been taken.
The presentation of evidence has been rendered difficult for the Defense for the reason already that the Prosecution in submitting evidence failed to disclose which counts they concerned and on what legal reasoning they were based. I, therefore, wish to protest against the action of the Prosecution in disclosing only in their final plea which facts of the case they consider relevant in law and in drawing therefrom legal conclusions as to the extent and direction of the indictment for which the Defense cannot be prepared according to the wording of the indictment. I am compelled to limit my defense to the wording of the indictment of 4 January 1947 which has staked out not only the basis but also the boundaries of the indictment.
By reason of the legally well founded decision of the Tribunal I have been relieved of the necessity of discussing Count I.
In Count II my client has been charged with the committing of war crimes under paragraph 9 generally and under paragraph 11 especially.
It has been stated in paragraph 9 that my client has used his judicial position at an irregular Court as it is called there to create a reign of terror and to suppress by bloodshet political opposition to Case III national-socialism and has thereby subjected civilians of occupied countries to criminal abuse of penal process.
In paragraph 9 special charges have been alleged which have been enumerated exhaustively, among which the unwarranted imposition of the death penalty and so-called discriminatory trial processess appear to be relevant.
In paragraph 11 my client has been charged with special responsibilities of having sentenced to death Jews and non-German nationals for high treason committed by trifling offenses and statements pursuant a murderous system of extermination, whereby the executions were duly carried out.
In Count III my client has been charged with crimes against humanity. Paragraph 23 refers to paragraph 9 expressly and extends the charge of the abuse of the jurisdiction of Special Courts for the purpose of sanguinary suppression of political opposition against the German Reich.
In count 23 the abuse of high treason jurisdiction referring to foreigners and Jews, already mentioned as war crimes in count 11, are extended to natives also, and are being considered from the point of view of humanity.
Based upon the above mentioned counts of the indictment, which in my opinion are of exclusive concern to my client, I would first of all exclude those facts for which the prosecution could not submit any evidence against my client. They are:
In accordance with Par. 9, for murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, bestialities, looting of privatly owned property and other inhuman acts, not the slightest evidence has been submitted. As stated in my opening statement on page 11, such acts can only be committed by military personnel, government employees, possibly by private individuals also but not by judges in carrying out their judicial functions.
In accordance with Par. 11: the charge of extermination of Jews docs not apply, since no Jew has ever been sentenced by my client at the Special Court or otherwise and accordingly has not been condemned to death.
My client is charged with intention of extermination only in the case of the Gypsy Winter-Eckstein, and the prosecution itself does not maintain in this case that nationals of foreign or occupied countries were concerned.
The same applies to Par. 21 and 23.
I must now consider the conception of charges to German citizens referring to war crimes and crimes against humanity, to differentiate between them, and return to the source from which they are taken, the Control Council Law No. 10.
I A. I find listed in Article 2 b war crimes as violations of the laws and rules of warfare.
B. In Article 11 b crimes against humanity are summed up as follows: acts of violence and crimes with the results as stated in the indictment, including persecution for political, racial or religious reasons.
II. A. My client can therefore never be charged with war crimes against German citizens, he can only be charged with war crimes against foreigners, and only from the point of view of sentencing of foreigners from the occupied territories by German Courts, particularly certain Special Courts, since that would be contrary to the provisions of International Law.
In order to fulfill my duties as defense counsel, without identifying myself with the indictment, I regard the charge of the handling of matters of high treason, as stated in count 11 of the indictment, in the broadest sense, i.e. including "Wehrkraftzersetzung" (undermining Germany's defensive strength). I wish to state first of all that my client at no time and in no court participated in the sentencing of a foreigner in matters of high treason or "Wehrkraftzersetzung", in which a death sentence was pronounced; not even a sentence calling for imprisonment has been shown. I shall only deal with high treason cases against German nationals who had necessarily to be tried by the Penal Senate, because the Special Courts were not competent for this.
According to the lines of thoughts followed in the indictment, according to which any illegal judicial activity came under the competence of the People's Court and the Special Court, both of them being based exclusively on National Socialist ideas and methods of suppresion and extermination, I shall deal with this only to the extent, as it complies with the directives mentioned on page of the English transcript in the case Cuhorst under the Presiding Judge Marshal, and where the following is stated:
That is to say we only go into the matter as far as to here get a. complete picture of Curhorst's personality as a Judge.
I am adding this now. This statement is not contained in the text which I have passed around.
According to the indictment one could have got the impression that exclusively political cases were charged against Cuhorst and that cases of general criminality remained as occasional and therefore unimportant outside consideration. In the point of focus of these expressed accusations, is the instituting of a rule of tyranny for the suppression of political opponents, the classification of minor offenses and statements of high treason and the conviction of citizens of occupied countries under this point of view.
Instead of it only such charges were presented by the Prosecution which according to the Penal Laws of all civilized countries of Europe and America are punished with severe sentences, very much to the disappointment of the interested population which due to the propagandists ability of the investigating clerk, was waiting for a sensation. Without repeating the names stated on the list of verdicts which has been submitted to the Court, I only mention the following characteristic cases:
I am going to mention the source but I do not wish to take the time of the Tribunal by stating all of them. I have them ready to be entered into the record later:
(B)
1) Majcher and Strawowski, both charged with robbery with murder, A, 8009
2) Milk and Margitai, two professional cat-burglars and burglars with an international radius of activity, Doc. Bq II S46 p 8011
3) Pollek, a female murder, p. 8018
4) Klausner, a young, incorrigible murder with many previous convictions, p. 8019
5) Oehlbach, an impostor and procurer with many previous convictions, p. 8021
6) Schramm, a previously convicted impostor, p. 8023
7) Staudenmeier, a party official who embezzled great sums of money belonging to the Red Cross, p. 8029
8) Wirbel, a professional burglar and thief with many previous convictions. Doc. 6K II (par. 33) p. 8036
9) The brothers Wolff and all criminals with regard to the War Economy, whom Cuhorst gave the suitable name of "Aryanisation-Hyenas" (Document book II A B par. 31, 21, 25) p. 8040 10) Michael Schmidt, a man who robbed army mail, p 8052 11.
Soell, a black marketer butcher on a large scale, page 31/87, Doc. Book II, P. 8055;
12. Stiegler, a black-marketeer with a turnover running into millions, p. 8056 13.
Eckstein and Winter, gangsters haunting the farms of an entire district; one of the two sentences to death was a native Gipsy., page 59, Doc. 11, p. 8060/61 I should like to say about these cases of Milk and Margitai were burglars who had international contracts, and with previous convictions.
Klausner was a Nazi party official who stole goods belonging to the Red Cross and Wirbel was a professional burglar and had previous convictions which involved crimes against the war economy and whom Cuhorst gave a suitable name of "Organization Hyena."
Soell was a black market butcher on a large scale and Stiegler, a black-marketer with a turnover running into millions.
Eckstein and Winter, gangsters haunting the farms of an entire district. One of the two sentenced to death was a gipsy.
It was not for nothing that somebody, formerly convicted for political reasons, who happened to have been present in the audience, has said in this house: "The convicted persons mentioned in the verdicts presented by the Prosecutor had in fact been real criminals". The man in the audience in this connection referred to the verdicts cited against my client on 27 March, i.e. the verdicts against Wirbel, kleinknecht, Wolff, Staudenmeier.
Least of all I am able to understand why the Wolff case should be introduced in this connection volume 2, #36, pp. 25-31. Here the Prosecution overlooked the fact that these were convicted persons whose crime had been the greedy acquisition of former Jewish firms, that the sentences had been carried out as late as 1946, and that the costs had been assessed in the trial which took also place in the summer of 1946, at which trial my client had been the Presiding Judge, not to forget the aftermath for my client on the part of the Party. I am unable to follow the line of the Prosecution. The case Staudenmaier is similar. This convict was a functionary of the Nazi party. Having stolen a verified amount of collected funds, one surely cannot reproach my client for not having pleaded for a milder sentence for the defendent.
If the photographs submitted by the prosecution against my client had not been rejected as evidence, then the prosecution also would have presented the pictures of the place of crime shown at the murder trial against SS Sturmfuehrer Reissing, which took place from 8 to 11 November 1938, at the Special Court, Stuttgart. On account of these pictures which proved that Reissing did not commit manslaughter but the murder of a police official, he was sentenced to death and executed.
Reissing was the Gauleiter driver and was believed to be his special favorite. The population did not expect the trial to proceed.
I shall now focus my attention on the so-called foreigner's cases, which are the base of specially grave accusations against my client. I here deal with the cases Pitra, Milk, Englert, Leszinski, Kroupa and Togni. About the Pitra case much had been said. In this case, the witness Eberhard Schwarz (Tr. page 3273,) was not quite clear about the nature of the sentence. We have taken the pains to elucidate the case as far as this is possible to-day. The result is firmly established. Pitra was not sentenced to death at the session of the Stuttgart Special Court of 12 August 1942. The witness Foetsch has brought light into the case before this Tribunal supported by her notes of lists and her memory. The witness Gramm, Tr. page 2273, has testified that exhibit 197, to so-called FuehrerInformation of July 1942, has no connection with my client. A comparison of the dates makes it apparent that this document, even assuming its authenticity, can have no connection with the Pitra case; even the Minister of Justice cannot know yet in July 1942 what sentence the Stuttgart Special Court will pronounce in August 1942. I tried, during the examination of the witnesses, to point out that no nullity plea or extraordinary protest in favor of the defendant was ever lodged against a sentence of the Stuttgart Special Court. This desposes of Eberhard Schwarz's statement that he was twice tried before the Stuttgart Special Court. As regards the FuehrerInformation, I would like to point out that it dates from 3 July 1943 and that the indictment was already made between the 20th and the 25th July; the trial proper took place on 12 August 1942.. This is shown from the death sentence list of Schwarz. In View of the affair that Pitra is supposed to have had with a much older German woman, the facts can only have been that he committed the rape against another German woman, in which case it may certainly have carried weight for an aggravated sentence that there was even less motive for this sexual crime, because he had already a permanent liaison with a German woman.
In the case Wilk and Margitai, Cuhorst case 5, Tr. page 8011, the facts are not exactly as represented by the prosecution in their plea, according to which the two criminals were sentenced to death by the Special Court Stuttgart with Cuhorst as presiding judge because they had as uninvited guests entered the villa of the Gauleiter and had taken some food away with them. The Prosecution refers here to the witness Eberhard Schwarz. From the statements of that witness on page 2267 of the Transcript, I suggest that they had within a few weeks committed 20 burglaries, a number of them as cat-burglars. Under cross-examination by me the witness admitted, Tr. 2287, that he had in his own words burgled the villa of the Gauleiter and had stolen household goods, which in my opinion means no doubt real carpets, and in his own words, a camera. The case is besides dealt with in detail in the affidavit Frey, Doc. Book II, page 46, Doc. No. 40, Exh. 50. It is also pointed out there that they often committed their burglaries in the villa district during blackout hours, and that this greatly alarmed the population. According to Frey, the number of burglaries amounted even to 24. Previously, they had also entered the villa of the Turkish Ambassador in Baden-Baden as cat-burglars and had removed valuable jewelry from the bed-side table in the bedroom while the couple were asleep. Even professional burglars are not in the habit of working without a loaded revolver.
In this respect, too, there is no difference between those gentlemen in America and Europe, In America, the adjudicating judge would hardly be interested to learn that one of them probably was a Balt, the other one probably a Hungarian. One of them had already broken jail in Oran, Africa, as my client testified in the witness stand.
These are the people whom the Prosecution pictures as harmless people only feeling some hunger.
In the Englert case it has been established through the affidavit of Eckert, (Cuhorst Exh. C No. 46, Doc. No. 46) that, contrary to the statement on oath of witness Eberhard Schwarz, my client did not preside over the case.
In the Leszinsky case, the witness Eberhard Schwarz, in answer to my question in cross-examination, who had presided, answered; "I don't remember." Tr. page 2299. He hesitated here, in the fact of his former statement under oath to make a deposition whose falseness could possibly be proved. We have never contended - this in order to rectify an error on the part of the Prosecution - that Cuhorst never tried cases on Saturdays, but that he never tried them in Stuttgart. If we were to follow the argumentation of the Prosecution that what he was doing on weekends was fashioned by his fervent nazism, he would have been much more important for him in Stuttgart to don his brown uniform, to tighten his chinstrap, and to march over hill and dale "Heil-Hitler-ing" and singing the "HorstWessel-song" and thus living a full life. I maintain that Cuhorst used to spend the weekends in the mountains, in the Harpprecht-house, whither he had taken his family out of bomb-endangered Stuttgart.
The Kroupa case gives me the chance to examine these circumstances. This trial against the Polish national Kroupa, on the charge of arson, took place in Stuttgart on a Saturday.
The witness Eberhard Schwarz, according to Transcript, page 2261, did no more than mention the Kroupa case as number 29 on the death sentence list, Exh. No. 252, NG-398, which originated from him. He swore that my client presided over it. I find that this case was discussed neither in direct examination, nor in cross-examination or re-examination, nor in the prosecution affidavit of this witness, introduced before, Exh. No. 209, Doc. No. 485. In another part of my plea, I shall discuss what this so-called death sentence list really means.
The first time the Prosecution ever mentioned the Kroupa case as an incriminating case was in its plea, attributing to it a certain series of criteria whose accuracy will be contested by the Defense. I am by duty bound to protest against such a procedure. This case was not mentioned in the indictment and cannot be made the object of judicial findings."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Brieger, we are under the impression that counsel would like to got their consultation started before five-thirty. We will recess in a moment; we will recess until tomorrow morning at the usual time. May I communicate this information to counsel for both the Prosecution and the Defense. We assume that all of counsel for both sides will be present at the closing of the statements by the defendants tomorrow afternoon, and the Tribunal would be very much pleased if counsel for both Prosecution and the Defense would repair for a moment to the Judges' Chambers adjacent to the Courtroom 600 at the close oi the proceedings tomorrow concerning a matter which has nothing to do with the judicial problems which are before us.
We will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 18 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 18 October 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present this morning?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Petersen, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Petersen was excused yesterday afternoon; I presume that Counsel desires that excuse continue for this morning's session.
DR. DOETZER; (For Dr. Aschenauer and the defendant Ptersen.)
Would you kindly excuse the defendant Petersen. He is ill and I ask that he be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: Will he be able to attend this afternoon
DR. DOETZER: Most probably he will be able to attend this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, before I continue with my plea for my client Cuhorst, I should like to make an important statement of a technical nature. On account of an agreement which was made between the Prosecution and the Defense, at the beginning of the trial, we all the time have been receiving the transcript in the English language and also the documents in the English language. Consequently we were in a position to have a very excellent translator, a university woman examine these translations for their accuracy.
She has worked on that job for many weeks, I would like to say for months, and now I would like to pass her work to the Tribunal, and I would ask the Tribunal to have those mistakes corrected that she found.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the procedure which was agreed upon was that where there were differences of opinion as to translations, the matter should be submitted to counsel and they would arrive at an understanding as to what was the proper form. This document may be filed; that is as far as we can go this morning.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, during the past few days I had no opportunity to take care of the matter, but I shall make up for it now and as soon as possible I shall make contact with Mr. La Follette.
For your information I have passed to the Tribunal an index for my plea. I had no time to translate it into English, and now I shall like to read it out because it shows the layout of my plea. So as to avoid the Tribunal thinking that I want to waste their time, I should like to say right now that a large portion of my plea I only want to have made part of the record, but I don't want to read it all; I only want to read a fraction of it. I intend to read out points which were touched upon and which were made topical and important by the Prosecution's plea.
Now, I am going to read my index.
1. The charges of the Prosecution, page 2.
2. The cases in general, page 6.
3. Cases of Foreigners, page 9.
4. Cases of alleged religious persecution, page 24.
5. Critical evaluations, 29-A. A. Prosecution witnesses, B. How the Prosecution affidavits came about, page 29-A.
6. Basic significance of the cases in favor of the defendants, page 30.
7. Such cases in detail. A. Foreigners' cases.
8. Political cases of Germans, page 34.
8. The cases of the penal senate, which were considered incriminating, page 41.
9. Basic statements about Cuhorst as a presiding judge of the special court. A. The principle of voting, page 42. B. Handling of procedural matters on the part of Cuhorst page 43.
10. Trial Brief of the Prosecution, 16 July, 1947, page 46.
11. Control Council Law No. 10, page 19. Responsibility of the judges, page 50. These two subjects have the heading, Control Council Law No. 10.
12. Count IV.
With reference to the statements which I read out yesterday, I should like to make one correction on page 9 of my transcript, line four from the bottom. Instead of already between the 20th and the 25th of July, it should say only between the 20th and the 25th of July.
I shall now continue where I left off yesterday. I come to the Kroupa case and that is where I continue now.
I beg your pardon; I think there is something else I have to say first. On page 9 in connection with the Pitra case I said yesterday -- I am referring to the third line from the bottom -- "In this case the witness Eberhard Schwarz". It should say, transcript page 2273 etc.
Now, I am going to continue where I left off yesterday.
The first time the Prosecution over mentioned the Krupa case as an incriminating case was in its plea, attributing to it a certain series of criteria whoso accuracy will bo contested by the Defense. I am by duty bound to protest against such a procedure. This case was not mentioned in the indictment and cannot be made the object of judicial findings. I could not make investigations any more nor introduce evidence.
The witness, Azesdorfer, testified, Tr. page 84, 18, 53, 54, that the same Saturday Krupa was tried, my client tried the Mueller murder case at a place 120 kms south of Stuttgart, Azesdorfer being the investigating judge, my client the author of the verdict. Those cases show that the witness Eberhard Schwarz has been grossly mistaken in his testimony to the detriment of my client several times.
This is what I have to add to the Prosecution plea on page , My client never said that Krupa had been tried by him. When discussing the death sentence list of Schwarz's, my client only said in the witness stand that the Krupa case, Case No. 29 of the Cuhorst list, or Case 11 on Schwarz' list had, as far as he could remember, been a murder case. Next, my client still on the witness stand, subsequently stated that several other cases, such as the Englert and Schmitt cases, had been tried by the People's Court, that is to say they were tried by the People's Court and not by Cuhorst. He declared, that he was a victim of the same deception as the witness Rimelin. The actual facts of the case were never discussed or offered. The only details of the case that my client remembers is the fact that it was not his case.
Only the case Pfaudt may be attached to the cases of Engler, Leszinski and Kroupa.
Eberhard Schwarz stated again under oath that my client had been the chairman in that case -- I will give the transcript page later -- while the defense counsel for Pfaudt -- I will give the exhibit number later -- had shown that, in accordance with his notes, not my client had been the chairman but one of his deputies.
In the so-called Skowron Case, Case No. 32, evidence could be established with a little more certainty. Exh. No. 465 does not exclusively consist of the original charges of the witness Rimelin but also of the summons for the official defense counsel for the two defendants Dulie and Skowron (Exh. Cuhorst No. 12 Doc. C No. 6) for whom the prosecution intended to apply for the death penalty, and actually did apply for. The time for answering the summons was 13 days. The following witnesses have testified in this matters: The witness Wizigmann, defense counsel for Potschivalik -- I will give the transcript page later -I further refer to the affidavit of a prosecutor who participated in this case Exh. C. No. 125 Doc.No. 124 and the affidavits of the office clerk Rieder, Exh. C. No. 59 and 131.
Skworon, a Pole, was the leader of a gang of thieves consisting of several foreigners. The lesser infractions of which he was accused, also in accordance with the penal provisions referring to Poles, wore already not considered by the court anymore when the defense counsel was summoned. The sentences proposed against all defendants were based upon the same law and the sentences against the defendants Skowron and Dulie were pronounced, based upon the same provisions, it was neither appropriate nor legally necessary to apply the so-called penal provisions referring to Poles.
That Skowron, as principal, received the most severe punishment is in accordance with the undisputed facts of the crime and in accordance with the jurisdiction generally applied by the Reich Supreme Court.
Significant for my clients is the acquittal of the third foreigner who was willfully incriminated only by Skowron, and the recommendation of a clemency plea for Skowron, for whom my client had sympathy, in spite of the fact that he was dangerous and corrupt. It is furthermore significant that the order to handcuff Potschivalik had to be issued by my client since Potschivalik attacked Skowron during the session in court because he felt that he had been unjustly incriminated. Dr. Wizigmann, the defense counsel for Potschivalik testified before this Tribunal that from there on ho had very little hope for the fate of his client and that he was so much more surprised about the acquittal by the court.
In compliance with a previous ruling by the court, the entire unread final plea for Dr. Guenther Joel is to be made a part of the transcript.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT Military Tribunal Nuernberg - Case III Final Plea for Dr. Guenther JOEL in the case of the United States of America against ALTSTOETTER and others Dr. Carl H a e n s Defense Counsel of the Defendant Dr. J 0 E L Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel About the Arrangements of My Arguments First of all I shall discuss the accusations against Guenther Joel, inasmuch as they are connected with his activities as Magisterial Referent (II) and as General Public Prosecutor (III). Before that I shall refer briefly to the law to bo applied.
(I). I shall then discuss the question whether ho is to be considered a member of a criminal organization (IV).
In order not to confuse the discussion by mentioning quotations and source material used, I have compiled all these quotations and sources in an appendix which I shall present to the Tribunal and to which I shall refer only by stating the current numbers.
I.
The Law to be applied The Public Prosecutor finished his opening speech, which he made on 5 March, with the following words (Annex):"Therefore, the true significance of this trial exceeds the mere question of guilt or innocence of the defendant.
This trial applies to the conceptions of morals of the civilized world and therefore puts the people of the world under the obligation to recognize the standards applied in this case as gauge. Although this court was constituted as an international one, it is American. The obligations which arise from this procedure are therefore binding, especially for the United States."
Without incurring the blame that I twist the words of the Public Prosecutor, I should like to switch the next to last sentence and say.
"Although this is an American court, it was constituted as an international one."