Court No. III, Case No. 3.
This duty became particularly important when one day, and that very suddenly, we had to depart from the previous method of beheading and suddenly adopt the method of hanging. This was the connection that, according to the law, we were under an obligation to carry out death sentences which had been passed by the Military Courts. That is how it was. We didn't like it but we had to do it. One day we were confronted with the fact that the Military Commander had ordered that instead of beheading the method of hanging was to be adopted. Therefore, we had to make the necessary arrangements at Ploetzansee, where the first cases of this kind occurred. That explains the exhibit which counsel has mentioned, exhibit 294, in which Westphal, in the style of a diary, noted what steps we took to comply with these new military orders, and I would like to say that was the only case where I personally also attended the execution itself and not only had a look at the installations. As regards popular opinion in Germany, beheading is considered the normal way to execute a death sentence. Hanging is considered definitely derogatory, shooting is definitely considered honorable. Therefore, in very very many clemency pleas we met with the plea to be shot and not beheaded. The persons who submitted that plea were hardly aware of the significance of their wish, because from the mere point of view of humaneness there can be no doubt that beheading and hanging are more humane than shooting. In the first two cases the person loses conscious within a matter of seconds, whereas with the method of shooting, that is by no means so. With us, it was mainly due to police methods that shooting became known to the population, because the police put up bulletin boards everywhere in the towns, saying he who plunders will be shot. That went ahead of the facts, but it was right insofar as there was in effect a possibility to have a death sentence carried out by shooting.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, you have told the Court that these matters concerning death sentences were dealt with in your General Section, "Generalreferat". You remember, I assume, that the Prosecution said Court No. III, Case No. 3.when they submitted Exhibit 530, during the Klemm cross examination, that they wanted to establish some connection with the shooting method and the occurrences which took place at the Sonnenburg penitentiary, and as you were the official in charge at the ministry, I would ask you to tell us briefly whether such a connection can be established at all.
A Naturally, there is no such connection. It was here in the courtroom that I heard for the first time of the occurrences at Sonnenburg and what happened at Sonnenburg happened there at a time when I had long since left Berlin. It did not come to my notice before what happened at Sonnenburg, but whatever may have happened at Sonnenburg, naturally that had nothing whatever to do with the execution of the death sentences. The people who were in the Sonnenburg prison were sitting there for their prison terms, they had not been sentenced to death. If I remember rightly the witness Eggensperger explained the matter here in the same way.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, again in connection with the title: "Measures concerned with Death Sentences", the Prosecution has submitted further documents against you which deal with the handing over of the bodies. I am referring to Exhibits 366 and 367. I would ask you because that is not evident from the documents, what were the legal provisions?
A The legal situation was such that the administration of justice had fulfilled its duty as regards the execution of a death sentence, at the moment when the execution had been carried out. As to subsequent events it was not a matter for the administration of justice but for the police. Thereupon, the transfer of the dead body and the funeral arranged for either by the relatives, either by the police was not a matter for the administration of justice but for the police. That hasn't always been very clear and the police did not always realize that. The police was reluctant to have to deal with this unpleasant business, and often long negotiations were required to remind the police that after all it had to take care of public safety and order, and that, therefore, it Court No. III, Case No. 3.could not shirk its duty in this matter.
In fact later on there was no doubt that the police had performed that function. The final regulation which we made, in agreement with the police, is contained in Exhibit 530, which has been mentioned several times, the terms of which cannot possibly be of any interest here.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, finally a number of documents belong to this context, documents which deal with the notification of relatives, that is to say, where relatives had to be notified of the executions. So far the Prosecution has introduced three documents. They are 398, 299, and 361. Please comment on the matter.
A I do not know whether you made a mistake in quoting these figures. I have 298, then 299, then 361.
Q Yes, I made a mistake, 298. Would you first please comment briefly on 298?
A 298 is concerned with a letter which was not known to me up to now. It was as follows: notification of the relatives originally was a matter for the prison where the person who had been executed had been housed. However, it was found that the prisons frequently had failed to notify the relatives. Consequently, it was considered to be a better method if the Prosecution offices dealt with notifying the relatives. That was the last solution which was adopted and following instructions by the defendant Klemm it was incorporated in Exhibit 530. No doubt it was the best solution because the Prosecution had the documents available as to where the residence of the relatives might be. Those are exhibits 298 and 299. Exhibit 361 refers to a special case. That is a case where the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court had worked on matters relating to Alsace. In Alsace, there was a judiciary which was completely separate from the administration of justice of the Reich. The Chief of the Judiciary in Alsace, the chief of the civil administration there could not immediately issue instructions to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court because he was not immediately subordinate to him.
Therefore, he had to use the Reich Minister of Justice as an intermediary. That is what happened in Exhibit 361. I have no further comments on the matter.
Q: Herr Mettgenberg, outside of NN cases, the Prosecution has submitted no further documents against you, with one exception, and that is Exhibit 362. That exhibit deals with the suggestion for a ruling as to how the population was to be informed by a public notice that a number of executions had taken place. When introducing that document, the Prosecution mentioned your name and alleged that you signed that statement. Would you comment on that please, 362?
A: I believe that this is a matter of very moderate importance. That the execution of death sentences was announced to the population by way of placards, that is probably a general custom; at any rate, it was the custom in Germany. The letter with which we are concerned here is, in effect, of technical importance only. With us in Germany, a letter like this would no doubt have been signed by the Referent, unless the person to whom the letter was addressed had been the Reich Protector; and only that circumstance led to the fact that the letter was submitted to the subdepartment chief for his signature to be affixed.
Q: Herr Mettgenberg, we have now discussed all documents which refer to the first group of charges against you which the Prosecution has filed. I would now like to discuss, in brief, Counts I and III of the Indictment. Under those Counts you are charged with having contributed to passing exceptional laws against foreign peoples. Those are Counts 10 and 22.
As far as I can tell, the Prosecution has not submitted any proof, neither by documents nor by witnesses, and I would ask you now whether you have any comments to make on that matter.
A: I can really not say anything more about it. I played no part in such matters. I have already explained today that as regards legislative work - - and such legislative work is referred to here -- that with such work, as opposed to administrative work, I only dealt in the field of international penal law and I was only competent for it in that field. I did not possess competence for the matters which are mentioned here.
Q: Dr. Mettgenberg, Counts II and 23 of the Indictment were also mentioned, and it is stated there that you extended and distorted existing legal provisions. No proof has been submitted. Have you anything to say to that?
A: That is a matter which does fall into the field of penal law, but, again, I do not know how I could have played a part. I know that I never exercised influence on penal legislation.
Q: And finally, would you refer to Counts 12 and 24 of the Indictment? Because there it is stated, too, that you played a part in illegal annexation.
A: I can only repeat the same thing here that I have already said about my competence.
Q: We are now coming to the last Count, and that refers to the so-called NN cases. In reference to this, the Prosecution has submitted against you document books VI and VI Supplement, and Exhibit 80, NG-482, NG-720, that is the Roemer affidavit; and finally, Exhibit 469, NG-380. 6268 I want to ask you, first, do you remember that Dr. Lehmann, a witness for the prosecution, her in the witness stand, spoke about the developments of the NN decree?
Do you further recollect that the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger too has spoken about the developments and has explained the reasons?
A: Yes, I remember that.
Q: Do you have anything important to add to the testimony of those two witnesses? I am referring to the history, the development, and I would like to know whether you possess any knowledge of your own as to when these developments occurred.
A: No, from my own knowledge I can say nothing about the origin of the NN legislation. I only began to deal with NN matters in the autumn of 1942. At that time NN matters were transferred to my subdepartment. Yet complete knowledge of these matters relating to NN cases -- that is to say, their origin and the reasons for the transfer of NN cases to the Administration of Justice -- of all that I heard only here in the courtroom. Nor is that very surprising, for Exhibit 313 contains a note by Undersecretary Freisler according to which NN matters were sometimes never laid down in documents. Therefore, a person who had not attended the original discussions hardly had any way of gaining a complete survey of these matters.
Today I am still of the view which I expressed in my affidavit. My view is that it was regrettable to have to burden the courts with the NN cases, and it was regrettable because the courts, in these matters, could not completely do justice to their foremost task, the finding of the truth. Now that I believe I have heard everything and believe myself to be able to survey the whole matter, I have to say that as concerns the various evils between which one had to choose, a transfer of the NN cases to the Administration of Justice was, after all, the lesser evil, so that this emergency solution which was made was probably the only possible solution.
Q: Dr. Mettgenberg, who was your collaborator in NN cases in your subdepartment?
A: When hese cases were allocated to my subdepartment, Dr. von Ammon, the previous Referent for these case, was also allocated to my office. I had every reason to be pleased with that assignment, for I had known von Ammon for many years of cooperation in the field of international penal law and I bad worked towards the end that von Ammon, who had been at the Ministry for some time and then had left, would be recalled to the Ministry to collaborate with me on cases concerning international penal law. I always hold him in high esteem, as a reliable worker with excellent qualifications. He remained by Referent in these matters until the end.
Q: Dr. Mettgenberg, you mentioned that it was only later on that you were put in charge of NN matters. When these cases came to you for you to deal with, were you able to form a picture of the legal basis which was decisive for work on those NN cases?
A: Yes. AS soon as these matters were assigned to my subdepartment, and I therefore assumed responsibility for NN cases, I formed a picture for myself of the legal basis. I will try now to pierce through the fog which has formed around the NN cases. I believe that has not yet been properly done in this courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be an appropriate time for our recess, then.
Fifteen minutes' recess.
(A recess was taken)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DP. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. May it please the Tribunal, I am forced to discuss a question which, for plausible reasons, I really do not like to discuss here. The Court repeatedly admonished the defense to do everything for expediency. I have taken into account these admonishments as far as I could. Every day I worked until the late hours of the night and my client did the same thing, who still is under medical care. But by circumstances which were beyond our power and for which nobody really can be blamed, the defense was handicapped.
I have already pointed out in my opening speech what tremendous amount of detailed work has to be done on account of the charges brought in the indictment and that, therefore, a large amount of files has to be studied. Several weeks ago, at any rate before the time limit of 17 days which existed to prepare the defense, I tried to obtain that material, these files. The files which were promised to me for today, however, were again not given to me for the reasons stated, that the president of the District Court of Appeals would still have to look through them.
In spite of the written approval which was submitted, further telephone conversations were conducted with an office -- but also after the files are given to me, nothing has been achieved as the material still has to be screened and brought into the required shape so that it can be introduced in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be very helpful if you would follow the unual procedure of stating your motion first and then supporting it with your reasons so that we may know what you are getting at. Will you state to us specifically what your motion is?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor. My motion is the following: The Tribunal should kindly consider the following. After the defendants who have been members of the Ministry have been heard to make a recess for several days so that the defense in the case of the judges can be Court No. III, Case No. 3.prepared.
In this connection it must be pointed out in particular that as far as the defense of the former members of the Ministry of Justice are concerned, there are hardly any documents available with the exception of a part of the Schlegenberger documents. The documentary material for the defendants Klemm and Rothenberger has not been received. That material also, in preparation of the defense for the judges, has to be screened and taken into consideration because it will contribute to a very decisive role.
In the course of the defense, points of view have evolved according to which the point of view of the Ministry of Justice and the point of view of the judges and prosecutors, who are defendants here, in certain basic questions, were at variance. In the course of the procedure this contrast was made somewhat deeper and we were forced to make considerable changes in the line of our defense. Therefore, it is extraordinarily important to know the material which was submitted by the members of the Ministry of Justice.
By the manner in which the defense material is submitted now, frequent delays and interruptions occur in the presentation of documents which offer a great disadvantage to the defense. I am of the opinion that a thorough preparation of the defense will have a beneficial effect later because it will make the individual cases of the defense shorter, and that again will make it possible to make up for the loss of time.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand the nature of your motion. The Tribunal had not anticipated mentioning the previous complaint which was made by Dr. Koessl or the statement of the Tribunal that every assistance would be given in attempting to get the documents to him; but it should be mentioned now that we did make a request upon the various organizations whose duty it is to aid in securing the documents; that we had a report from them and that they have, in view of very great difficulties, apparently done the very best that they can in overcoming the tremendous congestion which has resulted from the trial of so many cases and the great burden which is imposed upon them in translation and similar labors.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
This new petition for a continuance is certainly premature. The Tribunal will continue to do what it can to assist in the efforts of defense counsel to get their documents on time. This is certainly not the time to grant a continuance when it may be a considerable number of days before your case even is called.
The motion at this time is denied. You will have to prepare yourself as best you can. Let us proceed with Dr. Mettgenberg.
BY DB. SCHILF:
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, before the recess you discussed the legal principle underlying the NN cases. Would you please continue?
A The legal foundation for the NN cases is three-fold. First, there is Article 161 of the Military Penal Code. That is a code which dates back to the 1870's. In that article 161 it is stated, Heading: "Foreigners or Germans in Occupied Territory," and the text: "A foreigne or a German who, in a foreign territory occupied by German troops, acts against German troops or their members or against an authority established by order of the Fuehrer and thereby commits an act which is punishable according to the laws of the Reich, is to be punished, just as if that act would have been committed by him within the territory of the Reich."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of that?
THE WITNESS: The military penal code is of the 1870's, I do not know the year, but I think 1870.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought it referred to the Fuehrer.
THE WITNESS: That is only the word, which was replaced for the head of the state as it was at that time. Nothing was changed in the text otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
THE WITNESS: This provision under the military penal law is to be found as in complete accord with the Hague Convention on Land Warfare It has remained valid until this day also apart from the new military penal law which was established by the High Command for the Amred Forces From this new military law, which I have just mentioned, one can see the second legal basis for the NN-proceedings.
That is Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Military Penal Procedure of 17 August 1938. That Article 3, Section 2, reads, and I quote:
"The judicial authorities, however, are to prosecute criminal acts according to paragraph 1, only according to paragraph 1..."
That means criminal acts committed in the area of military opera tions by foreigners or Germans. I continue to quote:
"If a requirement of warfare demands it. They may turn over the Prosecution to the ordinary courts in the rear army area."
This possibility, which existed for the military authorities in the occupied territory, to transfer the cases to the rear army area has assumed the significance, according to the developments of the recent war, that the military commanders could transfer these cases to the courts of the entire home country. It was always clear, according to developments of the war, that the rear area was not only a narrow band behind the front, but the entire territory of Germany.
That Article 3, Section 2 presents the second essential basis for an NN-proceedings to be carried out before an ordinary court.
The third legal basis is presented by the well-known Fuehrer Court No. III, Case No. 3.decree of 7 December 1941, that Fuehrer decree was considered and carried out by the High Command of the Armed Forces as a legal regulation.
This is Exhibit 303. From that Exhibit, one can gather that the High Command is the one authority which was authorized to carry out, to interpret or even to change. As far as the Reich Ministry of Justice was concerned into whose sphere these cases were to come, it is stated that that ministry for its sphere has to carry out that Fuehrer decree.
From the letter by General Field Marshal Keitel of 12 December 1941 to the Reich Ministry of Justice, that is a letter which was mentioned here also by the witness Lehmann in the witness box, it can be seen that the High Command of the Armed Forces at all times wanted to be kept posted as to what happened to NN cases in the sphere of the administration of justice of the Reich.
DR. SCHILF: The last document mentioned by the witness is Exhibit 304. May I also say that I regret that my document books are not yet available for Dr. Mettgenberg. The passages which he quoted are from the Military Penal Code and from the Code of Military Penal Procedure and will appear as part of my document book.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Dr. Mettgenberg that legal basis which you have explained, is that in accordance with your conviction at that time and of today in accordance with international law?
A It is in accord with my opinion as well as at that time and today. It is the same in all countries and it cannot be any different. If foreign territory is occupied, the jurisdiction of the occupying country has to take steps when criminal acts are committed against the occupying forces or occupying power and after all paragraph 161 of the Military Penal Code does not indicate anything else. Likewise, nobody has ever doubted that Article 3, Section 2, which I have quoted, of the Military Code of Penal Procedure is in accord with International law. As long as it is guaranteed that the accused are put before a court, the Court No. III, Case No. 3.matter is alright.
Here I can say that the witness Lehmann and the witness Roeder expressed the very same point of view. On principle there cannot be a disadvantage for the defendants out of the fact that instead of being put before the military courts of the occupying forces they were put before the civilian courts of the home land.
Q To clarify the question as to whether it was in accord with International law, did you consider the term of military interests, in accordance with the Hague convention -- that term is mentioned in the basic treaty of the Hague Convention, paragraph 6 -- did you consider that term, that concept of military interests, at that time?
A Yes, there is no doubt that the military interests came first and overshadowed all this. The Hague Convention on Land-Warfare which set the standard as to whether these matters were in accordance with international law already in the introduction which you have quoted Counsel provided that all further provisions were to be assured with the absolute guarantee that military interests came first. It is not surprising that in view of these provisions and the manner in which NN proceedings had to be carried out military interests came first at all times.
JUDGE HARDING: Is that word military interests or military necessities?
THE WITNESS: Military interests and military necessities are very much alike. The difference is not a very great one.
DP. SCHILF: May I say the following in this connection? Your Honors, the Hague Convention was written in the French language and the term used there is --
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for your argument and not for your discussion at this time. We are quite familiar with the wording of the convention.
THE WITNESS: May I continue? Then, I should like to point out that the first regulation already issued by the High Command of the Armed Forces of 12 December 1941, that is Exhibit 305, not only carried Court No. III Case No. 3.the reference to paragraph 3 section 2 of the Military Code of Penal Procedure, but at the same time refers to the military interests.
The whole matter of secrecy, which is a peculiarity of the NN cases really goes back to the military interests, the requirements for the safety and security of the state.
That these points of view had to be taken into consideration is not only recognized by the Hague Convention but it can also be seen from domestic German law, the judicature get of 1877, we know already of the exclusion of the public from procedures if there is a danger that the security of the state might be impaired. Also if I remember correctly this was mentioned by the witness Lehmann. That conditions in the occupied territories such as they were -- resistance movements, acts of sabotage, etc,. theoretically could lead to it that special measures of secrecy had to be applied in taking measures against these things, that cf course is clear. As to how far in the individual cases and also generally military interests required such secrecy could not be judged or evaluated by the civilians. That could only be done by the competent military commanders who shared the responsibility in that locality. I believe it would be useful counsel, if the introduction to the Hague convention, specifically Article 6, which you have just mentioned here should be read here. I do not know whether you want me to read it.
Q Here again I have included the text in my document books. Without wanting to enter into an argument, your Honors, I want to state that the expression 'military interests' is official German translation of the Hague Convention; the official translation which in the year 1910 was published in the Reich Legal Gazette, the decisive sentence of that official translation I am going to read now. It is a question of the so-called basic treaty which in its annexes has the detailed regulations cf the customs and conduct of war. Article VI of that basic treaty reads, according to that official German translation -- "In the opinion of the parties entering into agreement, these provisions which wore brought about by the wish to reduce the sufferings of war, "-- and then there is the decisive clause--" as far as military interests permit shall serve as general standards for the belligerents in their relations to each other and the populations."
End of that most decisive Paragraph 6. Dr. Mettgenberg, may I add one question concerning this subject. From the documents which have been submitted by the Prosecution, could you also and possibly in various places find the expression military interests?
A Yes.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal where these passages are to be found?
A I have already referred to Exhibit 305, and I have to refer further to Exhibit 321, also to exhibit 34 and 331. From all the exhibits quoted can be seen that and why military authorities insisted that the provisions for secrecy be applied, and I have to repeat that military interests could not be anything arbitrary, but had tobe purposeful; that had to be determined by the military authorities and was not subject to any revision by civilian authorities, to whom the NN cases were turned over; that this secrecy should be applied in a very small circle can be seen from Exhibit 321 which explains that these severe provisions concerning secrecy should be applied only to members of occupied territories, but not to other foreigners.
Q Would you please explain Exhibit 34 which you have also quoted and which deals with the concept of military interests
A Exhibit 34 deals with cases of espionage committed by Germans which had to be treated with special secrecy, and that dates back to the year 1935. At that time already military authorities in dealing with these cases considered strict secrecy for counterintelligence reasons absolutely necessary. This is a parallel case to the matter which we discussed here.
Q And finally Exhibit 331.
A That is a letter by the OKW to the foreign office, where the OKW explains the special circumstances in occupied territories, emphasizing the difficulties which again lead to the order that to overcome those difficulties these special secrecy provisions are required.
Time and time again concerning these questions, the OKW, that is to say the military offices, takes the first step.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, that concept of military interests which you have explained now to be the main, is the very important fudamental concept concerning NN cases. I should like to refer to one thing which you explained to the Tribunal. That according to Exhibit 303, which contains principles stated by the high Command of the Armed Forces, as the main party concerned that at the end of Exhibit 303 which you mentioned it says the Reich Minister of Justice for his sphere issues carrying out decrees. Were these decrees actually issued?
A Yes. Carrying out regulations were already issued on the 16 February, 1942, by the Minister of Justice for his sphere. At that time NN cases had not yet been within my competence. The department dealing with penal law, department III, had drafted that carrying out decree. It is exhibit 306. The supplementary circular decree which was issued on these me day is to be found submitted as Exhibit 308. Both decrees as you can see were announced in a conference to the presidents of the district courts of appeal concerned, and at that time during that conference Dr. von Ammon was appointed the referent for those matters. All of that can be seen from Exhibit 337.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, you mentioned Article III, Section II subparagraphe 2 of the Military Code of Procedure of which you said that it can be traced going through all the NN cases. According to this regulation, the courts of the ordinary administration of justice had to be ordered by the armed forces offices. The form mentioned their transfer, turn-over-(abgeben)-. The judicial authorities can transfer, can turn over these cases to the civilian judicial aithorities. That word -(abgeben)-- transfer or turn over, which is mentioned in this article II is that to be understood as an order to the administration cf justice?
A Yes. It means that cases were deded who really had to be carried cut before the military courts to the civilian courts, that is to say to the civilian courts within Germany. The expression used to turn over (abgeben, and turn over abgabe) is to characterize the manner in which this procedure was always mentioned in the decree, and that holds true for the entire correspondence in that field. It can be seen time and again that civilian administration of justice only got the order from the Armed Forces to carry out what they had to do, and that in the background the Armed Forces remained the very responsible authority for anything that happened. I don't want to bring here a large number of quotations, were these words abgeben and Abgabe appear. May I only mention a list of exhibits confirming what I have just said. They are exhibits 305, 308, 313, 325, and that seems to be end of the list. But it can be seen further more from these exhibits that the military authorities did not only turn over NN prisoners to the administration of justice, but also the police. I will refer later to that special case, but here it will suffice to refer to Exhibit 313 where we find the information that on order of the OKW, defendants have been turned over to the police. I may also point to Exhibit 315, which refers ct the so-called porto prisoners, and where it is stated that the prisoners gave to be put at the disposal of the Stapo agnecy Duesecldorf.
From Exhibit 318 you can see the same. All of these quotations are only characterizing the relations of the military administration of justice and the civilian administration of justice in NN cases. Therefore, it is well worth while to compile them in this manner.
Q: How long did the Reich Administration of Justice deal with NN cases all together and how did it come that NN cases later were taken away from the Reich Administration of Justice?
A: The first question as to how long the Reich Administration of Justice had handled the cases has to be answered by saying that in September 1944 they were taken away from it. As for the question, why the NN cases were taken away from the Reich Administration of Justice, more or less in the final analysis the Armed Forces could only give that information. From the events as I could see the, however, the following could be seen. We in the Reich Administration of Justice in dealing with the question as to whether the NN cases were to be taken out of our competency were concerned with this for the first time by a letter from Ministerialrat Huelle who was Referent with the Armed Forces for such matter to the Referent of the Reich Minister of Justice, that was Dr. Von Ammon of the 23rd of June 1943. That is Exhibit 38. That letter as far as department IV was concerned made us think whether we shouldn't be satisfied to return the jurisdiction of the NN cases. Our discussions, however, lead to the opposite point of view and we assumed that position because in the interest of the accused we considered it important that the NN cases should be treated in the manner of the administration of justice because we had to see it clearly that if we would return the handling of the NN cases that then in all probability the High Command of the Armed Forces would charge the police with the handling of NN cases.