Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the statement which I believe you made before, Dr. Schilf, with reference to the examination of this witness page by page for some 120 pages, the Tribunal trusts that you will consolidate and group your questions and will not go to the extent of actually consuming as much time as will be required by your previous suggestion.
The Witness may be sworn.
HANS JOSEF ALTMEYER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Will you hold up your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Rothenberger): Your Honor, may I put one question, please? I intend, when examining witnesses for the defendant Rothenberger, to examine Dr. Altmeyer in direct examination. I would like to know whether I am under obligation to examine Dr. Altmeyer today or whether I may call him when I have reached the personal examination of Dr. Rothenberger. I, myself, would prefer the latter solution because I could then examine Dr. Altmeyer in connection with my examination of Dr. Rothenberger. After all, he is available here quite easily, and able to come here at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecute which we have already adopted will be adhered to in this instance. We expect such defense counsel as desire to make this witness their own to do so during his present period of presence in the Tribunal, so that it will not be necessary, we hope, to recall him.
DR. THIELE*FREDERSDORF: May it please the Tribunal, may I draw the attention of the Tribunal to a fact which I believe due to a misunderstanding: press correspondents have been refused permission to Court No. III, Case No. 3.attend the trial because there are not enough seats for the visit of a commission.
I think that is due to a misunderstanding. I assume the Tribunal will probably be interested in the fact that the public hears of this trial and that the press should have an opportunity to attend this trial. Not only the German press is affected by this but also the American press.
THE PRESIDENT: The question of the seating in the courtroom is a matter for the determination, subject to general review by the Tribunal, of the Marshal. The Tribunal, however, is glad to inform the Marshal that if it is possible, in view of some delegation which proposes to visit the courtroom, to also have the representatives of the press here. Those representatives are at all times welcomed by the Tribunal. We trust that it may be made possible for the representatives of the press to be here.
Proceed with the examination.
I have been advised that it has been arranged that the press may be here. Perhaps we had a tempest in the teapot.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, please tell the Court your full name, the date and place of your birth.
A Hans Josef Altmeyer. I was born on the 24th of August 1899 at Dillingen.
Q Witness, you have prepared an affidavit. That affidavit bears the date 23 April 1947. That is correct, is it not?
A Yes.
Q I now want to put questions to you referring to the details of that affidavit. First of all, a personal question which concerns your person. In the affidavit, you state that in the year of 1936 you had been appointed Landgerichtsdirector, and in 1939 you had been promoted to Ministerialrat.
A Yes.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Can you tell us whether that was a normal promotion or whether you received preferential treatment?
A That was a normal promotion. I did not receive preference.
Q Furthermore, in the affidavit you state that you were a so-called Referent on the matter of death sentences, and that you dealt with socalled unpolitical penal cases. You also state that in your department there were about 15 collaborators. I am asking you now, of those approximately 15 collaborators, were you the one who only dealt with death sentences or did you and the other Referents also deal with other matters in the Ministry?
A No, the 15 collaborators constituted more or less the entire staff of the department. They all had to deal with death sentences.
Q I ask you whether they dealt exclusively with death sentences?
A No, no.
Q You further state, concerning the nature of the reports made to the Minister or the Under-Secretary, that various people in the Ministry, collaborators, Referents, sometimes heads of sub-departments or heads of departments, made such reports. They made such reports to the Minister in the presence of the Under-Secretary; and secondly, when the Minister was absent they made such reports to the Under-Secretary alone. I am now asking you whether there was a third possibility.
A The written reports you mean?
Q No, we are now only speaking about oral reports. I suppose you still remember what you said in your affidavit?
A Yes.
Q In that affidavit, you made extensive remarks about the manner in which reports were made to the Minister.
A Yes.
Q That probably refers to oral reports.
A Yes, oral reports.
Q You say here that there were two ways of submitting such reports; one was for you to make a report to the Minister in the presence of the Court No. III, Case No. 3.Under-Secretary.
Would you please turn to Page 2. You will find the page number is given at the bottom of the page. In the middle, the sentence starts with, "Thereupon..."
A Yes, "Thereupon..."
Q Will you please read the sentence?
A "Thereupon the collaborator, the Referent, and sometimes the head of the sub-division; sometime the head of the division reported on the individual case to the Minister."
Q It says here, "In the presence of the Under-Secretary".
A "In the presence of the Under-Secretary or during the absence of the Minister, these matters were reported to the Under-Secretary, who then made a decision."
Q Was there a third possibility? I mean when the Under-Secretary, too, was absent?
A When the Minister and the Under-Secretary were both absent?
Q No, I mean what happened when the Under-Secretary was not there?
A Well, when the Under-Secretary was not there, then he was omitted.
Q What happened then? Was the report made to the Minister alone?
A Yes, then the report was made to the Minister alone.
Q That is all I wanted to know in regard to that question.
Herr Altmeyer, would you make a comparison? At the bottom of the same page you stated that after Thierack had assumed office the Gauleiters were given a voice in dealing with clemency matters. From that date, so you say, no clemency plea was made before the competent Gauleiter had given his opinion on the matter. If you will turn to the next page, you will come to the following statement of yours: "That innovation was introduced at the time when Klemm was still dealing with legal matters in the Party Chancellery, and it must be assumed that suggestion was made by the Party Chancellery, for otherwise nobody would have thought of allying yet another authority, and a Party authority at that, to deal with these matters as well."
Herr Altmeyer, with reference to the statement which I have just Court No. III, Case No. 3.read to you, I now am going to read another statement to you.
That is a document which has been introduced by the Prosecution in this trial. Afterwards, I would like to ask you to tell us whether after having heard that, you still wish to maintain the statement which you made in your affidavit.
May it please the Court, I am concerned with Document 359, NG-327, Document Book V-D. In the German text, it is on Page 155.
Herr Altmeyer, I am going to read to you now, a letter from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, that was Lammers, of 23 October, 1942, to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack. The letter is entitled Participation of Gauleiters in clemency pleas. This is the text: "The Fuehrer has ordered that in the future in all cases where a clemency plea has been suggested, the competent Gauleiter is to be asked for his opinion as a matter of principle. For particulars, see my attached letter, etc. That enclosure is again a letter from Lammers as Chief of the Reich Chancellery, also dated 23 October, 1942; it is addressed to Herr Meisssner, the Minister of State and Chief of the Presidial Chancellery of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. This is the text: "Re Participation of Gauleiters in clemency matters. "Dear Mr. Meissner: With reference to the discussion of an individual case (Count Stuerck), the Fuehrer has ordered that in future, as a matter of principle in all cases where clemency has been suggested, the opinion of the competent Gauleiter is to be heard. The Gauleiter has to hand in his opinion in person, and has to assure personal responsibility. I am skipping a few lines a few lines and continue to quote: "I am informing of this instruction of the Fuehrer, and I am asking you to discuss details with the Reich Minister of Justice who has received a copy of this letter. A further copy has been sent by me," that is Dr. Meissner, "to the head of the Party Chancellery whom I have asked to inform the Gauleiters accordingly. Signature". Do you still wish to maintain this statement you made in your affidavit to the effect that it was the Party Chancellery who ordered the Gauleiters opinion to be obtained?
AAccording to the document which you have just read out, it appears, of course, that was not so. However it does not contradict the possibility that the idea originated at the Party Chancellery, suggested by the Stuerck case.
Q We don't want to deal with possibilities. I am asking you to tell me clearly whether after I have read out this document, you still wish to say it must be assumed that it was the Party Chancellery which suggested that the Gauleiters' participation?
Can you still maintain that assumption?
AAccording to what you have read out, no. I know nothing about that correspondence.
Q May I ask you to turn to your affidavit again. The next paragraph deals with so-called cases of robbery. I would like to give you the opportunity to glance through that paragraph. I am only referring to that one paragraph.
A Yes.
Q You say that with reference to those cases of robbery, a decision on the clemency plea was obtained by telephone too. You say that with both the Minister and with his under-secretary, that is Klemm, that had been so. Can you tell the Tribunal how this method of execution was called by in the Ministry, in your section?
A Lightening execution.
Q Can you remember whether the defendant Klemm ever accepted a telephone report about such a lightening execution?
A Those telephone conversations were accepted by the referent on duty, or by the adjutant, or by the minister, or by the under-secretary, or by the referent himself.
Q Would you talk into the microphone, Herr Altmeyer.
A Telephone calls from the general prosecutor's office were accepted either by the referent on duty, the referent himself, the adjutant of the under secretary, or the minsiter, or the under secretary in person.
Q Herr Altmeyer, I asked you whether you know whether Klemm himself ever received and himself accepted such report by a general public prosecutor.
A I would assume so for the referent on duty in many cases took those calls and then passed them on to the under secretary or the minister.
Q I am only asking you about your personal experiences. Please don't talk of assumptions; you have just said I would assume so. Please be clear and precise, and tell me whether you personally know that Klemm ever received such a personal telephone inquiry.
A I don't know. I cannot cite an individual case, counsel.
Q Thank you. I would now like to put to you another document, and I would ask you to look at it beside with your affidavit. As you have not seen the document before, I will explain you briefly what this document is concerned with. It contains so-called report lists; they are report lists from the year 1944 until the year 1945. Your name frequently appears in those lists. I don't want you to turn to every page where your name appears, but I would like you to name a few examples to the Tribunal. Please turn to page 9; you will find the pagination at the bottom of the page.
Q Is your name on page 9 as the referent who made the report? You need only glance through it to see whether your name is there.
A Yes.
Q Now, please turn to page 17. May I add that this is on page 19 in the English. Do you find your name there?
A On page 19?
Q I beg your pardon; on page 17 in the German text; 19 is the English.
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the Court what the designation is?
A Referat Ministerialrat Altmeyer.
Q Will you please turn to page 20 in the German text.
A What number.
Q Page 20.
A Page 20.
Q Do you find your name there?
A Yes
Q Please turn to, page 22,26,29,32,35,40 -- you need only glance through them.
A Well, yes, of course, these are the report lists.
Q Those are the report lists for the year 1944.
A Yes.
Q If you were to go through them, but we are not going to do that now, you would find that your name appears on about thirty days; do you think that is correct?
A Yes, every time I made a report.
Q Do you think that the number thirty, thirty days would be about right?
A Yes, it might be right.
Q We have discussed the lightening executions, and I would now ask you to turn again to the report lists, and to open them on page 92. May it please the Court, the page in the German text is 92, in the English text it is 104 and 105.
A Page 92 in the German text?
Q Page 92 in the German text. Would you please read out to the Tribunal the very first two lines.
A The first two lines?
Q No, I mean the heading, the two lines of the heading.
A Report List for the 31st May, 1944 on Death Sentences.
Q And the next...
A General death sentences.
Q Please continue....
A Ministerial Councillor Altmeyer, clear cases.
Q Clear cases?
A Yes.
Q What does the word "clear" mean here?
A It means that the subordinate authorities, that is to say the courts, the senior prosecutor, the presiding judge, the general prosecutor, and the persons who dealt with the case of the ministry had recognized the sentence as justified.
Q You mean the death sentences?
A It means that they considered the death sentence compatible with the law.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal how many persons had to describe those cases of death sentences, that is, describe the sentences as compatible with the law? You just mentioned the names of some offices.
AAll of them, that is to say twenty-two.
Q No, you misunderstood my question. You said just now that the presiding judge, the Court itself, the Chief Public Prosecutor, and then you said those who dealt with the case in the house; what do you mean when you say, those who dealt with it in the house?
A I meant the collaborators, the referent and the ministerial director in the Ministry of Justice.
Q The four agencies outside the Ministry, and the three agencies inside the Ministry, all seven of them unanimously declared that this was a clear case?
A Yes.
Q And, of the seven, who were you?
A I was the referent.
Q And, when did you cast your vote?
A I don't know.
Q I am asking you whether you had already cast your vote when the matter was reported to the Minister? I mean your personal vote?
A Certainly. I do not understand your question.
Q I will try to express myself quite clearly. This case has been described as clear here; you have read out the headlines here it says general death sentences, then in parenthesis, Ministerial Director Altmeyer, and then it says, clear. How is it that word clear was put on the list; was that word contained in the list before the report was made to the Minister or was it entered there during the course of the report?
A That was put there when the list was submitted to the Minister.
Q Who caused that word clear to be entered in the report list?
A The referent who dealt with it, that is, myself.
Q And, who was the referent who dealt with it?
AAccording to this list, I.
Q You, yourself?
A Yes.
Q You, yourself, therefore, reported to the Minister on cases which previously you had described as clear?
A No, whom the ministerial director had described as clear; a case was only described as clear within this moaning if everybody had described it as clear.
Q When all unanimously said that the death sentence was justified?
A Yes.
Q You just said, and I do not know whether you wanted to correct yourself, you said that the Referent said that there were so many clear cases on which he wanted to report; is that correct?
A No, the things were handed over to the secretary and she was told that so many things were to be reported on -Q (Interposing) Who told the Secretary so and so many clear cases will be reported on?
A The Referent; in every case.
Q And, in this case, you were the Referent, and you said that those were clear cases?
A Yes, according to this document.
Q May I ask you now on page 92, may I repeat in the English text it is Pages 104 and 105, and I ask you to look at numeral 24. I would ask you to read out to the Tribunal the text of number 24?
A It says Mattei first reported no lightning execution.
Q Would you tell the Tribunal what that remark means?
A Yes, this is the explanation: On that day there were reports being made and then there was a call or letter or telephone message was handed by the Referent on duty to the Referent, which said that the public Prosecutor had reported that a death sentence had been pronounced for robbery, probably and that the public prosecutor asked the Ministry to inform it, the prosecution immediately about the decision. I frequently used to do so when that remark was not clear enough to base one's decision on it; that is to say, one could not get the Minister to decide on it, on the basis of that remark. Therefore, it happened very often that the Minister as well as the Under-Secretary in reply to such a telephone report said, no, first of all we must see the opinion on which the sentence is based. That is probably what happened in this case here.
Q Herr Altmeyer, I am now going back. You, yourself, had said that, that is, your report list, you were the Referent. It is headed clear and then 24 cases are listed which, in your opinion, were clear before they were ever reported on. But evidently this Mattei, No. 24, was rejected by the Minister. Contrary to you, he said, therefore, no lightning execution is to take place, we want to hear a report first?
A No, that addition was properly entered because the list already existed; it was just amended afterwards. However, it was certainly as follows:
that I said on the basis of that telephone report without a submission of the opinion of the court, and because the remarks were not full enough to give a clear indication of all details, for that reason we had to wait until we could see the opinion, or, at least, we had to wait for a further telephone report. I consider it out of the question that the request would have been made on the part of the Minister or the Under-Secretary without the Referent having made the suggestion, that lightning executions should be put off. I am firmly convinced that if that order had been made by the Minister or the Under-Secretary it was due to the Referent, that is to me, in this case.
Q May I point out to you, that in my conviction, that is a contradiction? Why did you describe the case as clear, then?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to this form of questioning because he is continually arguing with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
Q Do you remember the Mattei case altogether?
A No, I do not. However, I do know that in no case did the Minister of the Under-Secretary give such an order. I do know that I, myself, went down to see the Minister and the Under-Secretary with such a telephone report, and told them that the telephone report was not precise enough to come to a decision as to whether the sentence was to be carried out.
Q To clarify the matter, you are referring to a telephone conversation; did that telephone report come in after you had already entered the word clear, or not?
A I do not know. The name which appears last was added because it happened to be a day on which the reports were being made and on that occasion, that case was to be dealt with as one of the cases of that day -- although, no decision on that question was to be made on that day.
Q That is enough, thank you. I would now like to ask you to turn your attention to your affidavit once again. The next paragraph contains a general opinion of the clemency practice on Thierack's part. You say here Thierack said, that if a court decided to pronounce a death sentence it also assumes responsibility for the execution, and that only in very unusual cases he would use his right of clemency; did you hear that from Thierack, yourself, and when did you hear that?
A I did not hear that once but several times from Thierack. He said if the court pronounces a death sentence -- in particular, if it is a case where the death sentence is not mandatory -- in such a case the court also assumes responsibility for the execution. He even rejected the old principle that normally sentences are not carried out in the case of circumstantial evidence because that creates a completed deed; such cases too, he said, in spite of our contradiction and in spite of the fact that we held an opposing view, that the court must bear the responsibility, if on the basis of circumstantial evidence it pronounces a death sentence. Circumstantial evidence, in his opinion, provided better proof than a statement by a witness. In any case, Minister Thierack said, more than once, that the court in such a case has to bear also the responsibility for the execution and that only if unusual circumstances obtained, he would make use of the clemency provisions.
Q Herr Altmeyer, did you have a complete insight into Thierack's clemency practice?
A Generally speaking, yes, as far as non-political death sentences are concerned.
Q Only in general or only as far as non-political death sentences are concerned?
A Yes, I said as far as non-political cases are concerned. In respect to political cases, I am not in a position to give a definite opinion. I can only base my opinion on what I heard every now and then during reports. In my opinion, these cases went very far.
Q Were you present when political cases were reported on, when a death sentence had been passed; we agree that political cases means cases of high treason, treason, undermining of fighting strength, etc. Were you present when a report was made to the Minister on such sentences, and when the question was whether the sentence was to be carried out?
A Yes, occasionally I was present. I was present sometimes when the next person on that report had already entered the room, or when those who reported before me were still in the room.
Q Do you mean to say, however, that you only got an insight into non-political penal cases?
A Yes, mainly.
Q The document which you have before you, that report list, would you turn to it again. This has been looked through and it has been found that 2390 were issued for the execution of death sentences. In 230 cases, the sentences were commuted. Do you mean to say that this was in accordance with Thierack's statement; that only in very rare cases clemency ought to be exercised -- that would only be ten percent.
AAs far as I know in times of peace the cases where the death sentences were commuted amounted to about 20 percent.
Q I only want to make sure what you meant by quite unusual circumstances -- you mean about ten per cent, do you?
A That is a considerably less than in peace times, anyhow.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last remark of Counsel, I object to. If Counsel is trying to elicit answers, that is all right, but to put answers into his mouth is something the Prosecution objects to. Either the witness says ten percent or he does not.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination. The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
Q Dr., only one more question. I shall ask you now on the reports which, according to the Prosecution, are complete; they have been examined, and it has been seen that the total of 361 cases were reported which were doubtful cases. Will you tell the Tribunal, please, briefly what constituted doubtful cases within the meaning of the report list. Please turn to page 47 of the German text; in the English text it is pages 52 and 53; at the beginning, after the heading, you will find the small letter "a", and then it says, "Doubtful"; then you will find the letter "b"; where it says "clear". Would you tell the Tribunal what your own view is on the meaning of the word doubtful?
A I said, that cases where were described as "clear" which were sent up to the Ministry with a report attached, that is to say, cases which concerned a death sentence, which by the presiding judge, the court, the senior public prosecutor, and the general public prosecutor, had been described as in order, and which, by the collaborator, the referent, the head of the Department, and the Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Justice had also been described as in order, and where execution was considered advisable. That concerned, above all, a category of cases which recording to repeated statements by Thierack, could be considered only in very unusual circumstances for clemency. I mean a category in respect of both the offender and the offense. In speaking of offenders, I mean habitual criminals, with many previous convictions, and speaking of the offense, referring to robberies committed immediately during an air raid --
Q Let me interrupt you. I would like to know only what doubtful is?
A I am telling you what clear is. Doubtful is the opposite. Furthermore, serious sexual crimes committed by a person who exploited the black-out. He also ordered on the basis of this statement that only in very unusual cases would he exercise clemency; therefore, only those cases were listed in the category of doubtful where one of the authorities I mentioned just now, said that the sentence was not in accordance with the law, or where a case of lesser gravity was concerned, where even on the basis of this order by Thierack clemency could be considered.
Q That is clear enough. I will ask you now to have a lock at page 47. It states at the top there, "A doubtful." Three cases are shown there, and by the side of each of those cases the word "collaborator" appears. I am referring to page 47.
A Page 47? What are you referring to, counsel?
Q On top cf the first page which says "Report on death sentences," and then the date, and then capital 'A' high treason cases, and then the small "a", doubtful, and then the figures 1,2,3 and opposite these three numerals the word "collaborator" appears three times. What does that mean?
A That refers to the collaborator who in every case was in fact the collaborator.
Q When you look at B on the same page, it states, "clear", but there it does not show the collaborator.
A Concerning; the report. But the collaborator dealt with it. He was not present when the report was made.
Q I am now asking you to have another look at it. In the list there is a difference. Under small "a", doubtful cases, the collaborators name occurs, but under small "b" clear cases, the name is not there.
A The collaborator went into action every time. He was merely not present when the report was made in clear bases.
Q That is what I mean.
A When the cases were reported on, it was the referent who made the report on the clear cases, and, in doubtful cases it was the collaborator himself who made the report, and, therefore, the name of the collaborator only appears in doubtful cases.
Q That is what I wanted to hear from you. You said the collaborator reported on the doubtful cases, but what was the position of the referent in doubtful cases, I mean?
A In doubtful cases, the referent was present, and he also cast his vote just as the Ministerial Director, the head of the Department; and the Under-Secretary.
Q In doubtful cases then, there were discussions; if I understood you rightly. You said a vote was taken.
A Well, there were discussions in all cases.
Q That is in clear cases too?
A With clear cases too, unless the case was so clear in the actual meaning of the word that discussion was not necessary, since the person to whom the report was made said, that was sufficient.
Q Herr Atmeyer; according to my information, you personally when you reported on clear cases are supposed to have introduced the socalled "telegram style". Will you toll us about it?
A Naturally when those reports were made, sofar as the personalities and the particulars were concerned; naturally as far as possible one had to be brief; telegram style in that meaning that would be going a little too far.
Q Now according to the list through which we have gone, we find that during one year and three months, 361 doubtful cases were listed; that is to say, they were in the category of doubtful, and then we found that in the document there were 391 such cases. Can you tell us whether that was right?
A 391 cases?
Q 361.
A 361 doubtful cases. That may be right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If Your Honor please; these compilations and totals which have been put to the witness by counsel do not appear on the face of the document. Those are additions and subtractions made by counsel; he had just stated them as a fact. I object to those totals; if not elicited by the witness as answers, they are inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may state as a hypothetical question the statistics to which he refers, to have the opinion of the witness on the basis of the hypothesis. The Court will consider the answer; if upon examination of the statistics the hypothetical question is found to comform to the fact.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, I have declared myself prepared to make my cross-examination as brief as possible. If Mr. Wooleyhan Remands that the witness is to re-examine the figures, which are put to him, then I would have to ask you to allow me to interrupt the crossexamination, because I would have to hand the document to him.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor I am not demanding any such thing. I merely state that the question would be phrased hypothetically according to the totals because they do not appear on the face of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understood the totals do not appear. However, we can determine the totals by examining the document, and, on the assumption that your compilation is correct, for the purposes of asking the question, you may have the answer of the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q If I understand your answer correctly, you said that might be correct?
A You said that in one year and three months, 361 doubtful cases had been decided. I did not count them. I did not check up. It may be right.
Q We furthermore found out that of these 361 cases, 191 had their sentences commuted. That is to say, more than half were commuted to a lower sentence. Do you think that figure likely to be correct?
A It may be.
Q It may be. Now I will ask you again, you stated that only in higher unusual cases Thierack exercised clemency. Will you maintain your assertion if I put it to you, that of 391 doubtful cases, more than half, that is to say, 191, had their sentences commuted?
A Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I trust the witness understands the question, which was, that he had put to him a hypothetical question.
DR. SCHILF: I did not hear the ruling of the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court made no ruling.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Would you answer that please. I asked you whether you wished to maintain the statement made in your affidavit to the effect that Thierack only exercised clemency in very rare cases, if you say yourself that more than half of the sentences in doubtful cases were commuted?
A Yes, the fact that a case was described as doubtful in itself shows that clemency was being aimed at. If you take off half, that constitutes a considerable curtailment, and I am of the view that that represents a very low figure.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess)