THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
A. Westphal told us that Meindl had stated that they had no interest in the matter. It had been an idea of the Reich Marshal, but they themselves were not interested in following it up.
Q. And was anything done later on, following up Goering's suggestion?
A. No, the matter was not taken up any further.
Q. I would now like to ask you a few questions about a second point, witness. Can you give us some general information concerning the work of the defendant Dr. Joel at the Central Prosecution Office in the Reich Ministry of Justice? Can you tell us what the work of that Referat was?
A. The duties of the Central Prosecution Office were to handle proceedings where the local prosecution had had difficulties with the Party agencies.
Q. What was the result of Dr. Joel's work within the framework that you have described to us; concerning his relations to the Party, I mean?
A. Concerning individual Party agencies, and particularly Gauleiters and some Kreisleiters, Joel was very much attacked for prosecuting Party members.
Q. As to these difficulties which arose in Joel's relations with the Party, were they given prominent expression in any remarks made by any Party persons so far as you remember?
A. In my recollection, Reich Marshal Goering, at a meeting of the Prussian State Council, demanded that Joel should be recalled and should no longer handle these matters.
Q. What were the reasons that were given?
A. As a reason he said that he was too severe with people who had made great merits for the Party.
Q. Did the defendant Joel allow himself to be confused?
A. No, no, he appeared to be for the same course as before.
Q. And after that Referat of the Central Prosecution was dissolved, did he perform the same duties? Was he charged with the same duties as before?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Were those duties identical with what is charted, under the Work Distribution Plan, as "Special Measures"?
A. I believe that must be the same.
Q. Can you remember a case which was particularly sensational and which occurred in the practice of Dr. Joel in that connection in the war years?
A. Yes, I remember a case which occurred in Luebeck where, at a Gauleiter's office, the Gauamtswalter of the NSV was prosecuted and was sentenced to death in spite of protests registered by the Party agencies.
Q. Do you remember what his rank in the SS was and do you remember his name?
A. His name was Stegmann, I believe.
Q. Stegmann. And can you remember his rank in the SS?
A. No, no. He was a high SS leader.
Q. Do you remember what Party agencies and offices tried to assist that criminal?
A. It was the Gauleiter and the Minister of Propaganda.
Q. The Minister of Propaganda Goebbels?
A. Yes, Goebbels.
Q. The defense counsel for the defendant Klemm brought up the subject of irregularities which occurred at the Papenburg camp. Can you remember whether the Central Prosecution dealt with the prosecution of the prison wardens who had committed such irregularities?
A. What happened was that the proceedings were carried out at Osnabrueck. Afterwards, I believe the Central Prosecution took over some of the work, but I can't remember the details.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I have no further questions to ask of this witness. 4844 BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the defendant Barnickel):
Q. Dr. Hecker, first of all, would you please tell the Tribunal whether the organs of penal executions - that is to say, the organs which had to actually carry out the penal executions - were there any legal provisions about them?
A. Yes, those organs were laid down in the Code of Penal Procedure.
Q. Am I understanding you correctly, witness, that concerning paragraph 451, Section 1 of the Penal Code of Procedure - is that the paragraph you are referring to?
A. Yes. In that paragraph it is laid down--
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to the answer what is laid down in the paragraph, Your Honor. I don't mind his referring to the paragraph; I object to the witness testifying as to what is in this section of the statute.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the statute in evidence?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is not, as far as I know, or if it is in evidence, I still object.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, naturally I can read the paragraph to the witness and I can ask him whether that is the article he is referring to. Perhaps that would be a better way.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead and do it.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Article 451, Section 1, of the Penal Code of Procedure says:
"The execution of punishment is carried out by the prosecution."
May I ask you, witness, whether that is the article you were referring to?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Witness, concerning sentences passed by the People's Court, do you know which, then, was the authority that dealt with the execution of punishment?
A. Concerning sentences passed by the People's Court, in the first instance the Oberreichsanwalt was in fact the authority that dealt with the execution of punishment.
Q Is there a legal provision governing that point, too, Witness?
A The order as to who will be the authority dealing with each case was laid down in the code of procedure.
Q I will read the regulation to you and then will ask you whether that is, in fact, the regulation you are referring to. It is Article 2 of the Code of Penal Execution. That provision says: The execution authority, unless something else has been laid down, will be-tried the Oberreichsanwalt of the Supreme Reich Court or the People's Court in the first and last instance. Was that the provision you referred to, Witness?
A Yes.
Q I can say then, witness, that the transfer of the authority of execution to the Oberreichsanwalt to the People's Court occurred by virtue of a legal provision; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now I would like to ask you, Mr. Hecker, as to what the law means by execution of punishment within the meaning of the provision which we have just discussed. Are we concerned with the instruction that the prisoner has to be sent to a prison for a certain time and for what fine or do we mean the actual execution of punishment at the prison concerned?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to that, your Honor, for the reason that it is calling for the opinion of this witness upon a provision of the law which has now been read.
MR. TIPP: If I may reply in brief, I did not ask the witness for his opinion, but my question was what, under German law, is understood by the execution of punishment. The witness was the head of the division concerned with the execution of punishment in the Reich Ministry of Justice, he must be the witness who is best fitted to give testimony on that subject. There I do not understand that objection.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If he is qualified as an expert, I withdraw the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he should be allowed to answer.
A The execution of punishment dealt with the problem as to what punishment was to be executed and how long that punishment was to be. It contained the instruction to the prison concerned to house the prisoner for a certain period and to execute on him the sentence which had been passed, prison, penitentiary, etc., whatever the case may be, whereas the administration of punishment had to deal with all questions concerning the carrying out of the prison sentence. The administration of punishment, therefore, decided as to how within the prison the punishment was to be executed.
Q And, witness, what authority carried out the supervision over the practical part, that is to say, the supervision over the execution of punishment?
A The supreme authority for the execution of punishment was the Reich Ministry of Justice. Under the Ministry there were as supervising authorities for all prisons in their district the prosecutors concerned, the general prosecutors concerned.
Q As you told us before when you were examined by my colleague, Dr. Grube, the Oberreichsanwalt in the People's Court had nothing to do with the penal administration. Did I understand you right there, witness?
A Yes, yes.
Q May I ask you in addition, did the Oberreichsanwalt with the People's Court and his agency have anything to do with the prisons or the penitentiary or with the camps? Did he have a practical contact with them?
A No, he had no authority to issue orders, nor did. he have any other opportunities for exercising influence.
Q Witness, can you tell us what organ within the Prosecution authority, for example, within the Oberreichsanwalt's office at the People's Court, who was the person who dealt with the affairs of the Prosecution?
A The execution of punishment, unless an exception had been laid down, was in the hands of the Rechtspfleger. In the case of the Oberreichsanwalt they were the heads of offices. The Reichsanwalt himself did only in particular cases, for example, clemency cases, the execution of death sentences, or a total of sentences, only then did he himself have to play a part, whereas for normal affairs of the execution of punishment the Rechtspfleger acted on their own initiative.
Q Witness, concerning this point, this point of the execution of punishment by the Rechtspfleger I would like to put a document to you, and I would ask you to give us your viewpoint on it. This is document 614, Exhibit 267, which has been submitted by the Prosecution. This is contained in the Prosecution document Volume 4-A on page 74 of the German text and page 50 of the English text. Witness, the document I have given you just now is a letter. The heading says "Oberreichsanwalt of the People's Court, and the signature is Dr. Barnickel's". May I ask you to tell us, witness, whether that ordinance which you have before you is the transfer of three Poles who had been sentenced to a penitentiary sentence to a sentence at a severe camp, will you tell us whether that is a compulsory ordinance, an automatic ordinance of the execution of sentence, or whether it is an ordinance which was made at the initiative of the expert concerned?
A This is the change of a penitentiary sentence which had been passed to a sentence to be spent at a penal camp in pursuance of the law against Poles and the pertinent executary order. According to that law and that order all sentences which had been passed prior to the promulgation of the law against Poles were to be transferred. Concerning the discrimination between penal camp and more severe penal camp it has been decided that sentences in excess of three years were always to be commuted to a sentence to be passed at a severe camp. Consequently the Rechtspfleger simply could draft such an ordinance because in view of the higher sentence passed by the People's Court that was a matter of course, any how.
Q May I interrupt you briefly, witness? Document 614 on the first page reveals that the three Poles whom we have been dismissing had been sentenced to penitentiary terms of six years.
A Six years, yes.
Q May I ask you to continue?
A In this ordinance it says in excess of three years. Since the sentence exceeds three years, the prisoner is to be transferred automatically to the severe camp. The decision lies with the official in change of the administration of justice. That is to say, the public prosecutor. That is to say, in cases where there was no doubt the matter is submitted immediately to the prosecutor without previous consultation of any other authority.
Q Did I understand you correctly, witness, to say that this was an automatic ordinance?
A It was an ordinance which was prescribed which had to be followed as a matter of course and only in very special circumstances changes could have been made, that is to say the prisoner in exceptional cases could have been sent to an ordinary camp and not to an especially severe camp, but as a rule the provision said that the prisoners in these circumstances had to go to a more severe camp.
Q Witness, you said that as far as the practical penal administration, the execution of a sentence at a prison and at a camp, there was no actual difference; did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q In that case the ordinance before us constitutes merely a theoretical change of a sentence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to that. It clearly calls for a conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained. It is now three o'clock. The court will take its afternoon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, you said before that in practice there was no difference between a punishment camp and a penitentiary but I think the Court will be interested to find out why that change of terms took place at all. Could you tell the Court the reason for that fact?
A. It was intended that these camps should be distinguished from prisons and penitentiaries so that a difference be made between German and other foreigners as well as Poles. It was intended that Poles should be kept in different institutions separate from the Germans and other foreigners. A complete separation was intended. Therefore, in these institutions in the Eastern territories subsequent by, only Poles were housed and for Germans only several individual cells were kept reserved in case such Germans had to be put into those institutions pending trial.
Q. I think that is sufficient on this point. May I ask you in conclusion, witness. Were these Poles under the competence of the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court?
A. No.
Q. Then I may ask you, witness, referring to the same document, NG 614, Exhibit 267, to look at another page which I will show to you. It is a letter from the Office of the Penal Camp Schiratz of 15 January 1943, to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court. In this letter he is informed that the execution of punishment against a Pole who had boon sentenced had been interrupted upon the instructions from the Reich Ministry of Justice and that he was turned over to the Gestapo and by the Gestapo on the 15th of January 1943 was transferred to the camp Auschwitz. May I ask you a question in this connection, witness. That name Auschwitz after the collapse of Germany has gained a rather sad reputation.
At that time did you know anything about the camp at Auschwitz or the name Auschwitz at all? Was that a fact you knew?
A. No, at that time, in January, 1943, the camp was in upper Silesia, and it was not known to me, it was not a concept to me. Everyone had hoard about the camp Dachau but Auschwitz itself as a concentration camp was not known to me in 1943. Apparently it was established at that time. Later on, of course, I found out about it.
Q. Witness, may I ask you now, according to that photostatic copy which you have before you, was the department chief, Dr. Barnickel, informed about that letter? Can you tell us that on the basis of your knowledge of matters?
A. This is a letter from the office of the Camp to the Prosecution, the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court, that is to say, a letter which was sent from the office of the camp to the Rechtspfleger. It is quite obvious, as can been seem from the disposition in the letter, that it was sent from the Rechtspfleger to the office of the camp and it says something about the lists of executions, a date, a notation, but it cannot be seen from that letter that it had to be submitted to the Prosecutor.
Q. In order to make that clear, witness, you said, therefore, that the document, according to your knowledge of the letter and according to what you see from the document, was not submitted to the Chief of the Department?
A. No.
Q. Witness, was your department in the Reich Ministry of Justice aware of the fact that the transfer of prisoners to the Gestapo was carried out for the purpose of extermination through work. But only as it is stated in one of the documents?
A. No, when the decree of October, 1942, was published, we were told that the transfer of the prisoners was to be carried out for the purpose of work in the camps of the Secret State Police, tho Gestapo, and the Chief of Department 5, when he wont to the RSHA with me, was told explicitly that the prisoners were to be transferred for the purpose of labor and that there was no intention to exterminate them.
Q. Who in the RSHA, witness, who gave you and your superior that assurance?
A. That was a Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach. Those were the three gruppenfuehrers with whom my department chief and I had spoken at that time.
Q. Could you tell the Tribunal, witness, what were the positions of the three gruppenfuehrers whom you have mentioned.
A. Gruppenfuehrer Mueller was in charge of the supervision of the Gestapo. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe was in charge of the Reich Criminal Police office and Streckenbach was in charge, if I remember correctly, of the personnel office in the RSHA.
Q. Those, therefore, were the three offices who would have been entitled to give information about the plans of the secret state police of Gestapo?
A. Yes.
Q. How can you explain then that knowledge of such plans was only reserved to some gentlemen in the Reich Ministry of Justice whereas from others it was kept strictly secret?
A. That was an application of a general principle, that all matters knowledge of which was not immediately necessary, were not to be divulged to subordinate offices. To carry out the transfer of prisoners it was sufficient that we be informed that the police just wanted to have the prisoners as laborers and I do not know whether and to what extent that was not the intention, that is, to use these prisoners just to work. At any rate about any conferences among the Chiefs of the individual offices, such as the conference between the Minister and the Reich Fuehrer SS, about these conferences, we were never informed, so that about the background and the underlying reasons and intentions for these directives we were not informed.
Q. Witness, then I should like to discuss another document With you. It is document NG 598, Exhibit 266. It is in the document book 4-A on page 63 in the German book and 68 in the English book. May I describe the document briefly to you. It is a letter with the heading, Chief Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples' Court of March 1943, and it is directed to the Commander of the camp Eich, camp Rothaug in Rhine-Hesse.
THE PRESIDENT: It was signed by Barnickel, was it? Was it signed by Barnickel?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. May I ask you, witness, to look at this document and then to answer the following question, This document mentions a number of directives, among others, a directive by the Reich Minister of Justice, and I want to ask you, therefore, whether this decision on the part of the department for the Execution binding of Punishment was a decision made by the Reich Minister or was there any possibility for any initiative on the part of the department for the execution of punishment?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: At this time, I object, your Honor, for the reason that the answer as given to the question will produce evidence which is purely irrelevant and immaterial because whether or not he was bound is not pertinent as a defense. If it is offered as mitigation, I shall withdraw the objection.
DR. TIPP: May I briefly reply, I have put two questions and asked the witness -- I mentioned two possibilities and asked the witness to decide to answer in one or the other sense. It is no leading question. That it is important I believe I do not have to emphasize. The letter incriminated the defendant Dr. Barnickel and there is a great difference whether the man who signs the letter ever makes a decision he has to make because the law provides he does do so or whether he makes a decision on the basis of his own initiative because he considers it the thing to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't the law speak for itself as to whether it is mandatory or not?
DR. TIPP: If the Tribunal is of the opinion that that document speaks for itself, then I can only answer, I understand the question to mean that the Court agrees with me that it was mandatory; if I understand you correctly, Mr. President, then, of course, the question is unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion was that the document speaks for itself. There was no suggestion as to what it says when it speaks. If you want to go into the matter of mitigation, the witness may answer.
A This shows that the institution, penal institution, in various cases asked for decisions as to whether the time during the war should be counted. The Chief Reich prosecutor said that that decision which was mandatory as such would not serve the purpose in the case of Poles because these Poles, if they had sentences over three years, had to be transferred. Therefore, he suggests not to make a decision of that kind, and to postpone that decision until a later date because for the time being an interruption of the serving of the sentence and a transfer had to be carried out.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, you mention an interruption of the term. May I ask you still, can you see from this document whether the authority for the execution of punishment anticipated that the sentenced Poles later would be brought back into the Administration of Justice?
A Well, this letter by the Chief Reich Prosecutor states: "In the case of Poles who will have to undergo more than three years, it seems to me appropriate to postpone the considering of the term of punishment, which is also stated in a circular decree issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice. That shows that the Chief Reich Prosecutor believed that at a later date such a reconsidering of the term was necessary but that could only be done if after the war, the Poles were actually brought back to the Administration of Justice.
Q Thank you witness. Then I have no further questions, Mr. Hecker.
A May it please the court, may I make just one more remark concerning one statement made by the defense counsel? He said that I was the Chief of the Department for Execution of Punishment. That is not correct in this form. I was in that department. I was one referant in the Department of Penal Administration and had to deal with cases concerning Polish prisoners but I was not the chief of the department or the sub-department.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Interpreter, there has been reference to an official by a name which we find it difficult to understand. It sounds like "Rechtspfleser." What was that title?
A Your Honor, it was a Rechtspfleger. That was an inspector, or a senior inspector, who is in charge of the office and has certain functions concerning the execution of punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: You explained that. I want to ask you, who was his immediate superior?
A The immediate superior of the Rechtspfleger was the prosecutor but the Rechtspfleger in this capacity had the right to act independently within his sphere.
THE PRESIDENT: Who desires to "cross examine" this witness next -to conduct a direct examination next? Dr. Marx.
BY DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Engert):
Q Witness, what can you tell us about the organization of Department V of the Reich Ministry of Justice? Did you understand my question?
A Yes, Division V, Penal Administration, was subdivided......
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Just a moment. Your Honors, please, I am advised that this witness has already testified completely as to the organization of Department V and that also there is a chart which shows the organization of that department. For that reason, I think it is purely cumulative and objective.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be necessary. It may be necessary to have reference to tho transcript but my recollection is that this witness who has been on the stand now for the third time has already testified concerning the organization of that department. Am I in error, gentlemen? This is the third time he has been examined.
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. I have a definite purpose with that introduction because the connections between Department V and Department XV are to be explained and also the connection with Department IV. That is why I chose this introductory question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at the risk of unnecessary repetition, you may proceed. I think that has also been covered, however, so do it briefly, please.
A Division V was subdivided into various general referats, operations, penal administration regulations, budget, payroll and the local referats dealing with matters of the various districts of the Courts of Appeal.
Q What can you tell us about the delimitation of Division V, Penal Execution, and Division IV, Penal Administration?
A In Division IV execution of punishment was dealt with as against penal administration; that is to say, supervision and the carrying out of all measures during imprisonment, which were dealt with in Department V.
Q Thank you. At what time Mr. President, was Department Division XV established?
A Division XV was established in the Fall of 1942.
Q Are you not in a position to give us the exact date?
A It was established on the occasion of the circular decree concerning it's establishment. At what time it was -- it may nave been in October or the beginning of November 1942.
Q The decree was issued on the 22nd, October, wasn't it, Doctor, and when was it distributed?
A It was signed finally on the 22nd of October.
Q Yes, it was signed and when did it come into force?
A It was in force immediately.
Q Now, what were, briefly stated, the tasks of Department XV?
A Department or Division XV had to select those individual prisoners who had to be transferred and where that transfer could not be established on general lines but the cases had to be dealt with individually.
Q To what extent was the decree of the 22nd of October 1942 carried out, in Department XV and to what extent in Department V?
A Department V had to handle the transfer of those in safety custody, security detainees, unless individual cases had to be investigated; in addition the transfer of Poles, Jews, Russians and Gypsies; whereas Division XV had to deal with the security detainees, where doubt existed as to whether they should be considered as a-socials, in addition to cases of prisoners who had terms over eight years and had been designated as a-socials by the people in charge of the penal institution.
Q Mr. Senate President, what do you know about an agreement between Himmler and Thierack on the basis of which Thierack agreed with the point of view of the police and ordered the transfer of all asocials to the police. When was that arrangement made, and was the defendant Engert at that time already in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
AArrangements between Minister Thierack and Himmler must have been made before that circular decree of 22 October 1942 was drafted. That circular decree was submitted to us by the Department IV which had first worked on it, to supplement it regarding those provisions which were of importance for the department of penal administration, our department. Ministerialdirector Engert came into the Ministry when that decree was drafted, whether he had taken over Department XV before the decree was finally signed, I could not tell. At any rate he participated in the preliminary conferences, as can be seen from the decree itself where reference is made to discussions concerning the transfer of prisoners.
Q What is the specific point upon which you base these conclusions, Mr. President?
A In the circular decree itself it is stated, concerning prisoners with terms of over eight years, we referred to discussions we have had. Therefrom I conclude that discussions had been held in which he participated; whether he himself co-signed the decree I could not tell you; I no longer remember that.
Q Department V and XV, which were under Engert, did they deal with Night and Fog prisoners, if so, to what extent?
A Only Department V had to do with that. Department V dealt with Nacht und Nebel cases already in the year 1941; and XV had nothing to do with them.
Q Can you still recall the meeting in the fall of 1945 in the armed forces legal office of the OKW?
A In 1944.
Q Yes, 1944.
A In 1944, a confenrence took place to discuss the transfer of cases which were pending before a civilian court concerning NN matters. Hitler had ordered at that time that the cases then pending concerning NN prisoners should no longer be handled by the armed forces or the Administration of Justice, but that in the future the police, the Gestapo, had to handle them.
Q Was it also discussed as to how evacuation of penal institutions should take place?
AAt the same time it was provided that the prisoners were to be transferred, after the cases had been transferred, since they were no longer prisoners of the Administration of Justice; they became prisoners in protective custody; it was no longer a regular court procedure. Therefore, in the same manner as the cases were transferred from the Administration of Justice, they became police cases of some form, and so had to be handled by some office of the police.
Q May I ask you, witness, who attended that meeting, on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A That meeting was attended by von Ammon and myself.
Q For that department were you there?
A I was there for department V.
Q Had you been sent there just as an observer, or did you have any right to take part in the decisions?
A Both of us had gone first to find out what it was all about. We could not see from the invitation we had received what it was about. We could not make any decisions; only the minister could do that later, but as far as the basic question was concerned, Department IV was the one that was supposed to act.
Q Do you have any knowledge about the evacuation of penal institutions in case of danger from the enemy?
A For the transfer of institutions, for the purpose of evacuation, the general principle was to be applied that prisoners, just as free people, foreigners or others, that any person that should not fall into the hands of the enemy, should be evacuated in time before occupation by the enemy would occur.
That was a general principle, which, in the form of a directive, had been brought to the attention of all ministries.
Q Towards the end of the war, was a specific decisions reached in that question?
A No, such questions were discussed if and when in individual cases the threat of the enemy became imminent, but in general the evacuation took place before, as for instance, in the east when a general withdrawel took place, the institutions were evacuated, and the prisoners were transported either by rail or by foot marches and were brought into the interior. In the same manner it was done in the western territories, and for that purpose the districts which were under imminent threat received appropriate instructions.
Q On the part of the Prosecution it has been asserted that a directive was sent out that under certain circumstances such prisoners were to be shot or liquidated if it was no longer possible to evacuate them in time. Do you happen to know anything about that?
A The Prosecution showed me -- actually showed me a directive of that kind which was sent to the general public prosecutor in Linz. Before that I had not known about it.
A It was also unknown to you that Engert may have been connected with it?
A Yes. I did not know about any such directive. I did not know any such directive had been sent to the general public prosecutor.
DR. MARX: I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel for a defendant desire to examine upon direct examination? It appears that the direct examination is closed you may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Witness, will you tell the court when you left the Nuernberg prison and went over to the witness house?
A On the 13th of May.
Q Will you test the English channel.
A That was on the 13th of May.
Q 1947?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. This prosecutor Hansen in Berlin about whom you said you had a conversation with the defendant Klemm. Do you know how long he had known the defendant Klemm -- do you know anything about that?
A Both of them had worked in the Party Chancery together; I could not tell you for how long they were there together.
Q Yes, that is the same man that worked at Munich in the Party Chancery during part of the time that Klemm was there; is that your understanding? Is that right?
A Yes. He was in charge of a department there at the same time when Klemm was in charge of the Justice Department of the Party Chancery.
Q Now, I think you said that the difference between the ordinary prisons and the camps which were provided for Poles, was a difference in name only. Then, you also, in discussing Exhibit 267, I believe stated that had to do with the case of transfer of three Poles and that it was a compulsory transfer. Can you tell me why, then it was necessary to make a compulsory transfer and to send a special order though in the case of the Poles, if there was no difference between the prison sentences or the treatment which Poles received in prison and that which Germans received in prison?
A That change from penitentiary and prison to penal camps did not only have a technical importance, but was also important concerning the further consequences of a sentence--the additional consequence of the verdict; it was the type of the punishment that was pronounced by the verdict. Therefore, Figure 7 of the penal administration regulations concerning Poles provides that all prisoners who heretofore had been in prisons or penitentiaries should be called penal camp prisoners from now on.