Consequently, it was a task of the Allgemeine Generalreferat, the main general Referat. It was the endeavor of the Ministry of Justice--and frequently complaints were received in Berlin from all over the country against such perpetrations and interference-that such matters which were definitely bad for the reputation of the Administration of Justice should be stopped. We in the Ministry of Justice at that time tried as much as possible to prevent such arrests after release or acquittal. However, I personally had nothing to do with these matters.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted a document--Exhibit 256, NG 366, Document Book IV-A; in the German book it is on page 12 and following pages. Apparently these are notes or remarks which are personally initialed by you. On page 2 of that document your name with the date 25 January 1939 appears, and on page 5 again there is your name with the same date beside it. Therefore, will you elucidate to the Tribunal what the purpose was of these notations in your handwriting? And, in order to make that quite clear, I ask you to also discuss the reason for these notations.
A. As to these meetings of the Chief Presidents and General Prosecutors with the Minister of Justice, I know that a transcript of the minutes was kept. I never kept the official minutes. As for the notations which are compiled in Exhibit 256, these are notations which I made for my Department Chief, Dr. Krohne. These were the facts: Dr. Krohne, too, considered it unbearable that the Police were criticizing the Administration of Justice in every manner, and charged me with the mission of putting down the statements which the Chief Presidents and General Prosecutors would make concerning this matter. On the basis of that material, he wanted a letter to be composed, or, on the basis of that material, he wanted to have the Minister intervene with Himmler or Hitler. I still recall that he was very downcast because the material, at that time, could not be used for that purpose because of the final remarks made by the Minister, which can also be seen from that transcript.
That is the way I recall that whole matter.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q For further elucidation, who was the minister in January 1939?
A Dr. Guertnert.
Q The Prosecution has raised a charge against you that you were in charge of a special Referat that dealt with regulations and directives concerning more severe methods of interrogation. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 33 in that connection. That is NG 310, Document Book 1-B, German page 56 and following pages. That is a socalled "Hausverfuegung" (Internal Directive) of the ministry which was circulated bearing the date of 18 October 1937. I ask you to explain to the Tribunal the meaning and the purpose of this short directive of 18 October 1937 and also to explain the background.
A That directive in point one does not mean that I was to handle those penal cases where the Administration of Justice asked the police to carry out more severe interrogations. Just the opposite was the case. In the few cases where we found out about more severe interrogations (verschaerfte Vernehmung) by the police and had the possibilities at all to initiate proceedings against the police officials who had carried out such more severe interrogations, these were the proceedings in question here, and those were the proceedings I was supposed to deal with. I should like to elucidate. A file was received in the Ministry of Justice which contained material on the criminal procedure against homosexuals, and in these files it was revealed that one of the accused had stated before the judge, "I withdraw my confession which I have made before the police. I was under duress and I was beaten." In a case of that kind that file was submitted to me. That was the meaning of that internal directive. I had a copy made of those parts of the file from which the act of the police official could be clearly seen and returned the file itself to the district referent, and in his referat then the original procedure, that is the proceedings against the homosexuals, was further dealt with. This is the meaning of figure one of this internal directive. That figure one also influenced the business distribution Court No. III, Case No. 3.plan of Department III.
When I was questioned by the Prosecution I was shown a business distribution plan of that period, and there one can see that under my name there is listed as a special point criminal procedures according to Paragraphs 340 and 341 of the Penal Code. Both of these paragraphs, however, are concerned with mistreatments by an official.
DR. SCHILF. May I inform the Tribunal here that I have made an application to the Prosecution, to be given that business distribution plan, which dates from the years 1937/38. As soon as that is done I will be in a position to submit it as a document to the Tribunal, together with a copy from the German Penal Code of Paragraphs 3340 and 3341, which will show quite obviously that it must have been somewhat different than what the Prosecution believed to be able to affirm when Exhibit 33 was introduced.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Klemm, I should like to ask you, however, you dealt with that special referat. Did you have any actual cases where procedures were initiated against police officials for mistreatment of the accused?
A I did that work about ten years ago. Just the same, I believe I can remember one case against two or three police officials in Dusseldorf who mistreated prisoners under investigation who were charged with homosexual offenses. The procedure against the police officials was carried out, and they were sentenced and had to serve their sentence.
Q Exhibit 33 contains two points. You discussed the first. We come now to the second. Here in 1937 you are put in charge of a special Referat. You are to handle cases on the basis of reports concerning so-called executions when escaping from concentration camps and suicides in concentration camps. What was the purpose of that task which is also contained in this directive?
A That also was based on a wish by Dr. Krohne, who purely statistically wanted to have all that material compiled in order to be in a position to gain an insight in such matters seen as it occurred in the Court No. III, Case No. 3.territory of the entire Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: What department was he in, did you ask him, Krohne?
THE WITNESS: In the department at that time that was called three at that time and later was called four. He was my department chief. We had no materials against the police otherwise and in order to point out irregularities in that connection, to have something to go by, we had to collect material and to draw attention to the frequency of such occurrences which would give us the right to inquire about what was going on there. And that information should be given by this statistical compilation of material.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Klemm, when your department chief, Dr. Krohne, charged you with that task also, could you tell the Tribunal what his motives were in assigning that task just to you?
A Dr. Krohne complained to me frequently about the interference and the perpetrations of the police into the field of the Administration of Justice. He knew my basic attitude in these matters, and that may have been the first motive why he gave me that assignment. Another reason may have been that I was not an SS leader. I was an SA leader, and that on that basis I was more unbiased with respect to the police, which was conformed(gleichgeschaltet) to a great extent, by being taken into the SS.
Q You have just mentioned the business distribution plan of 1937-1938. I hope to be in a position later on to submit that plan to the Tribunal. I only want to ask you whether from that plan one can see anything else about your work during that period which would be of importance for the information of the Tribunal.
A There would be less about my work as such, but about the fact that that business distribution plan shows all the other special referats which were in the hands of other referents. It can be seen then that high treason was a special referat, treason was a special Court No. III, Case No. 3.referat, treason was a special referat, and that they had nothing to do with the political referat.
Q Therefore that would be a further confirmation of the facts that you have already stated?
A Yes.
Q. Concerning that period of your activity in the Ministry of Justice, the prosecution has not submitted any further documents -that is as far as your actual work is concerned -- but it has submitted documents about your activity as a so-called liaison fuehrer of the Ministry of Justice with the supreme SA leadership. Therefore, I should like to ask you first in general what were the tasks of a Verindungsfuehrer -- a liaison man?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I only wish to take this opportunity to say this, then I will be through. We would like to have the witness Miethsam and the witness Hecker called, if we may, as soon as we convene after lunch. we have called in Miethsam and Hecker and they are here. I understand from what we said on Thursday that those men might be examined and dismissed if we could have them here and interrupt the defendant Klemm's testimony for a few moments. They will both be available right after lunch and the court can hear them at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: They are being called by the defense.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, but they are available for cross-examination so that those affidavits may be cleared up, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that agreeable to the defense?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may interrupt the direct examination of the defendant Klemm and put these two witnesses on the stand, commencing at one-thirty.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes. thank you, Your Honor. I shall advise the witnesses.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- I don't think I have to repeat my question. Would you please answer it now?
A.- The position of the Verbindungsfuehrer -- the liaison fuehrer -
had two sides. On the one hand, on the part of the Ministry of Justice to remove difficulties which may arise or may have arisen locally between the SA and the Administration of Justice, or to make suggestions on the part of the Administration of Justice to the Chief of Staff of the SA. On the other hand, on the part of the SA, to function as a legal consultant and to assist the SA in case it had to discuss some legal matters with the Ministry of Justice, or wanted to address itself to the Ministry of Justice in writing.
Q.- What gave cause to your becoming a liaison fuehrer?
A.- I have mentioned briefly that in 1935 when I was transferred to Berlin into the Reich Ministry of Justice, I also had to be transferred by the way of the SA. At that time, the Gruppenfuehrer of the SA of Saxony wrote to the Chief of Staff Lutze in Berlin and recommended me for a position of that kind as a liaison man. The SA Gruppenfuehrer in Saxony knew me well from the time when I was in the Ministry of Justice in Saxony and from the case of Hohenstein.
Q.- Therefore the case Hohenstein was one of the reasons that one thought one could trust you, both on the part of the SA and on the part of the Administration of Justice, if that should become necessary to be quite sufficiently unbiased.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. The question is purely leading.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- I still want to ask you whether that appointment as liaison fuehrer was made with the agreement of Dr. Guertner, the then Minister of Justice?
A.- First Lutze, Chief of Staff, asked me informally to take over that assignment as liaison man, If I remember correctly, a letter was subsequently written by Chief of Staff Lutze to the Reich Minister of Justice. At any rate, I was then officially listed as SA liaison fuehrer between the SA and the Ministry of Justice in the Ministry of Justice.
I can no longer remember what the official negotiations were that led to it, but I remember that I was listed as such also in the telephone directory.
Q.- All right. The Prosecution has submitted 438, that is NG-938.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you, please? Would you ask the witness when he became liaison fuehrer? I haven't that date in mind.
THE WITNESS: In 1935, when I was transferred from Dresden to Berlin, Your Honor.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- Exhibit 438 was submitted by the prosecution; that is NG-938. It is in Volume I Supplement, German text pages 71 to 74. There are suggestions for the appointments of members of the SA to honorary associate judges of the People's Court. The document begins with a letter of 4 December 1936; that is after your appointment as liaison fuehrer. The Supreme SA Leadership writes to the Ministry of Justice. I want to ask you now in what way did you contribute to these appointments of SA Leaders to associate judges in the People's Court in 1936?
A.- As to the honorary associate judges of the People's Court, they were established by law. That has frequently been discussed here. These associate judges were selected from the ranks of the Armed Forces, the Party, and the Labor Service -- and I don't know what other organizations may have participated. One day the Personnel Referent dealing with these matters in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Department I, called me in my capacity as SA Liaison fuehrer and explained to me that associate judges were required for the people's Court. He wanted me to tell him whether the SA could nominate some. The way it was handled in the People's Court was that each Senate was assigned a certain number of judges and a certain number of honorary associate judges, and from these groups five people were chosen who had to attend on the days of sessions. I im mediately wrote from the Adjutant's Office of the Chief of Staff of the SA to the Personnel Office of the SA, which was in Munich -- or maybe I made a telephone call -- I can no longer recall that.
The Personnel Office of the SA gave me a list of names and a selection was also made right there in the Personnel Office, and I forwarded these names, as can be seen from the exhibit, to the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, it will be necessary to postpone the further examination until he is recalled to the witness stand. We have two minutes before the time for recess. Dr. Schilf, will you refresh our memory as to what you said about the proposed cross-examination of Dr. Miethsam. On what affidavit was that to be based?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is a Kubuschok matter, if Your Honor please. If you recall, on Thursday, that was an affidavit which Your Honors ruled you would receive and on which we could cross examine. As I recall Your Honors said we could try to arrange to get him in. On the Hecker affidavit, you wouldn't receive them unless he was cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly I have the wrong affidavit in mind. It's my recollection that one of the defense counsel referred to the proposed cross examination of a witness and said that it would be necessary to examine him page by page for 120 pages of a certain document book. Who was that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That was Dr. Schilf, if Your Honor please, referring to the witness Altmeyer.
THE PRESIDENT: That issue is not involved this afternoon?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: We are not going to go through 200 pages this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: If it were involved this afternoon, the Court would have had something to say about it in advance.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
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.