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.
Since that matter was important, of course, it was reported to the minister himself, and that happened on the 1st of July 1943. On the occasion of that report it became evident that the minister was not at all against it, to return the competency of the NN cases again. At first he did not share the misgivings which we in department IV had, and that he did not share them can be understood if one knows his point of view which was not at all against it, to let the police carry out penal measures of all sorts. I have to refer to that matter later. At any rate we only succeeded with Minister Thierack to persuade him also to refuse that suggestion after we told him that if that were done one would have to expect reprisals from abroad. That point of view had a certain impression on him and he decided to share our opinion in order to avoid such measures of reprisals from the other side. Therefore, we received an order which was quite welcome for us to toll the High Command of the Armed Forces that we opposed that suggestion and that also was expressed in a conversation with the High Command of the Armed Forces which took place a short time later. In fact, nothing happened in this matter but one day at the end of August or the beginning of September, 1944, the High Command of the Armed Forces sent an invitation to a conference to request the various departments to send representatives into the offices of the High Command. The topic for discussion was a now Fuehrer Order, a Fuehrer Order which had been issued after the invasion by the British and American troops, and which was to the effect that court proceedings should no longer be carried out in the occupied territories against the inhabitants of these territories, but the culprits should be turned over to the police for use as man power.
That Fuehrer Order was attached to the invitation, as well as a decree by the High Command of the Armed Forces, that also provided that NN prisoners who had already been sentenced should be turned over to the police. Upon this invitation Dr. von Ammon went for the Reich Ministry for Department IV, that is, the pending NN cases, and the witness Hecker, who is also know to this Tribunal, for department V, that is for NN penal prisoners. There was no opportunity before the meeting with the High Command to obtain the decision of our Minister. Consequently, Dr. von Ammon was charged with the mission to state in this meeting that he was there only for the purpose of obtaining information. He had to report on the results of the meeting to the minister and to reserve the rights for a decision in that matter on his part. Then after the meeting when Dr. Von Ammon had returned to the Reich Ministry of Justice he told me of that result and said at the same time that the matter was going to lead to it that the High Command would submit a new draft summarizing the results of the conference, and then there would be an opportunity for the Reich Ministry of Justice to state it's position and make a decision. So we waited for that new draft but it did not come. In it's place sometime later there came a decree signed officially which to our greatest surprise ordered that all NN cases were to be turned over to the police. We had to discontinue our proceeding and turn the prisoners over to the police and that which surprised us the most was the fact that the introduction of that decree rend "in agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice," an agreement which had not been brought about on our part.
By that document we immediately reported to our department chief Vollmer. Vollmer probably had an opportunity before to speak to the Minister and therefore was of the opinion that since the ministry really competent in this case, that is, the High Command of the Armed Forces had decided to turn the prisoners over to the police, we in the Ministry of Justice could not raise any objection to that. We would have to accept that because according to the legal situation and again I have to remind you of article III, Section II which I have mentioned before, the Armed Forces is at any time in a position to renounce the practice hitherto established of turning over all NN cases to the civilian administration of justice. Then we had no alternative than to carry out what we were requested to do. Therefore as far as Department IV was concerned, the pending NN cases, and Department V, where NN cases which already had been sentecned were dealt with, the necessary preparations were made to turn those matters over to the police. However, only in part this matter was really carried out. We have heard frequently that NN prisoners, when the collapse occurred, in large numbers were still in the prisons of the administration of justice. At any rate, now the responsibility for the NN cases which we had to return, was also returned into the hands of the OKW.
Q: Dr. Mettgenberg, now after in great detail you have discussed the handling of these matters, would you please discuss a few matters which are of importance for the period of time while the Ministry of Justice handled the NN cases.
First the question, from what time on were the NN cases transferred by the ordinary courts to the Armed Forces?
A: As far as I am informed that must have been in the late summer of 1943. At any rate I was able to find out that the first NN trial took place at the end of 1943.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q How was it about the provisions for secrecy in the field of the Administration of Justice? In principle you have already referred to the concept of military interests, and I ask you now to tell the Tribunal briefly how that duty for secrecy actually worked out.
A Quite generally, that duty for maintaining secrecy is provided by the Fuehrer decree of 7 December 1942. It was unavoidable, however, that in the course of time, again and again, questions would arise which had to be answered concerning the carrying out of these provisions for secrecy. We always had the tendency to reduce the provisions for secrecy to the minimum which was absolutely required.
From all these individual discussions a regulation finally evolved which summarized the original provisions; that is the circular decree of 6 March 1943, Exhibit 319. No less than four departments contributed to the draft of that circular decree: Departments II, IV, V, and VI. And if one counts the initials and signatures under that decree, one finds altogether not less than 15 high officials of the Ministry who signed it. I believe that shows with what extreme care that matter had been examined. The final signature on this decree is that of Ministerial Director Vollmer. I do not think I have to repeat its contents.
Q That is Exhibit 319, and it contains all the provisions.
One further question. What substantial penal law was the basis for the decisions of the Courts in such NN cases?
A That question can easily be answered. It was the same law which have been applied if these penal cases had been tried, according to Paragraph 161 of the Military Penal Code, by the military courts in the occupied territories. That is to say, then, in these NN cases, these same legal provisions against espionage, bands, partisan activities, prohibited possession of firearms, and so on, were applied.
JUDGE HARDING: What were the other two?
THE WITNESS: Espionage, and banding together. That is the same as partisans.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
JUDGE HARDING: What were the others?
THE WITNESS: Forbidden possession of firearms. Those were the three I mentioned.
JUDGE HARDING: Aren't there two more?
THE WITNESS: I only mentioned three.
I do not believe, from the point of view of international law, that any objection can be raised through that legal application.
DR. SCHILF: That was the substantial law. Now, may I say to the Tribunal that I shall also submit these provisions concerning substantial law in my document book.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Now I want to ask you as to the legal basis for the procedure in these NN cases.
AAs to these provisions, in principle the same provisions applied which were also applicable, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, to Germans. Deviations of these provisions only occurred due to the obligation to maintain secrecy. As far as deviations were ordered, they can be understood from that point of view, and they are understandable.
Q These two circular decrees which are decisive for the evaluation of that question--that is to say, of 6 February 1942, and 28 October 1942--did they contain important provisions which represent a deviation of the existing law of procedure in Germany?
A Yes; those are the differences which result from the duty to maintain secrecy.
Q Now I should like to ask you this. In the provisions referred to, matters are also mentioned which concern means of evidence, that is, witnesses, documents, and so on. How was that matter of means of evidence connected with that duty to maintain secrecy?
A That restriction, for instance, that means of evidence could not be brought in from abroad, is expressed in paragraph 75 of the carrying out decree and under paragraph 4 of the circular decree of 6 February Court No. III, Case No. 3.1942.
The authorities of the armed forces in the occupied territories had been ordered at first to carry out investigations in the occupied territories and only to turn over these cases if it was clear that the circumstances were not in favor of the defendant.
The witness Lehmann has discussed that, and it can also be seen from the Canaris document--I don't have the exhibit number.
DR. SCHILF: That so-called Canaris document will be in my document books.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection, Dr. Schilf, there have been many references not only to the Keitel document on NN but also to the original Fuehrer Decree of 7 December 1941. It is my recollection, and I may be in error, that that decree is not in evidence as a document, though we have had some reference to it. Can that be clarified for us?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, I believe that that so-called Fuehrer Decree was submitted as Exhibit 305, Exhibit 305 is a part of the so-called Fuehrer Decree.
THE PRESIDENT: But that is the letter by Keitel, according to my notes. I am seeking the original order signed by Hitler himself, if you can help me.
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that does not exist at all. Hitler did not sign a decree in the case; Hitler ordered Keitel to do so, and only the name and signature of Keitel is under it. That can be seen from Exhibit 305 and Exhibit 303.
In addition, may I say that Exhibit 303 has a signature and it states "in Auftrag", that is to say "on order of Hitler", signed by Keitel, if I remember correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no document showing the original order that Hitler made?
DR. SCHILF: There is no signature of Hitler, there is only the signature of Keitel. Therefore, there is no original which could be designated a Fuehrerlass, that is, a Fuehrer decree, or a decree by Hitler. But Keitel, in this letter which he signed, referred to Hitler Court No. III, Case No. 3.and said:
"It is the intention of the Fuehrer...." And then he sets forth what the intention of the Fuehrer was. However, the Fuehrer doesn't say it himself, it was signed by Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this may help us out. That Keitel letter is not the first occasion on which the phrase "night and fog" was used, as I recall the testimony. Have you any document which shows when Hitler first used that phrase which was adopted in the Keitel papers?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that expression, "night and fog" does not come from Hitler. In the first document--that is, of 12 December 1941-Keitel says what was supposed to be Hitler's opinion, and mention is made of the fact that the population should be kept ignorant of the fate of these culprits. Because of that remark, the other offices called it the "Keitel Decree", or "Fuehrer Decree", or "Night and Fog Decree." The official designation "Night and Fog Decree" does not exist. Later, in various documents, in order to agree on one expression, on principle this decree was called "Night and Fog Decree"; officially, however, this designation cannot be found.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have indicated our interest, which I am sure one side or the other of the case will enlighten us on, if there is any light that can be obtained.
It is now time for us to recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 31 July 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 1 August 1947.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal 111 in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 1 August 1947. The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused; let the proper notation be made.
You may proceed Dr. Schilf.
WOLFGANG METTGENBERG (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. May it please the Court, it is necessary to correct the transcript. The witness yesterday stated a date which requires correction. The point is the date when for the first time the courts inside Germany dealt with NN-matters. The witness Mettgenberg said that the year for that was 1943. Herr Mettgenberg will you please yourself correct that date?
A. I stated that in the late summer of 1943 for the first time NN-case were taken over by the Administration of Justice and that the first trials took place at the end of August, 1943; that statement must be correct to the effect that that occured in the year of 1942.
Q. I would like now to draw the attention of the Tribunal again to the question which the Presiding Judge put yesterday as to whether an exhibit was not missing in submitting evidence on the part of the defense, that is to say as to whether the Fuehrer decree as such was not missing.
I already point out that Exhibit 303, that Fuehrer decree, does represent the Fuehrer decree, however on this there does not appear the signature of Hitler, but that of Keitel. But the heading of that decree shows that it is a Fuehrer decree, the heading of Exhibit 303 says: "The Fuehrer and Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht, signed on instructions, Keitel." To make it altogether comprehensible, I want to point out that Exhibit 305 is a letter from Keitel and a distribution list is attached to Exhibit 305. In that decree of 12 December it says that, in reference to the offices and officials enumerated in the list, this Fuehrer decree is handed to them. The introductory mark is "one enclosure" and that enclosure, which in the document book appears as Exhibit 303, is the enclosure to Exhibit 305, the last paragraph of Exhibit 305, it says, "The attached directives for the procedure, etc., are in accord with the views of the Fuehrer. The directives were examined and approved by him." That is to say within the technical meaning of the law these directives of 7 December 1941 were regarded as a Fuehrer decree.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, it was not my intention to indicate the insufficiency of the exhibits, which are here at all. I was simply seeing if there was any earlier documentary matter to suggest it and be presented to us. That is all.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Dr. Mettgenberg, I can now continue with the examination. Yesterday evening we stopped at the question as to what laws or procedure were applied in the cases of the so-called NN-prisoners when they were sentenced by German courts inside Germany. The last question we discussed was that of evidence, may I ask you to continue your comments?