Therefore I was very anxious for these men themselves to go to the occupied territories to have discussions there with the military authorities and to get their own information on the spot. Therefore repeatedly such trips for the purpose of information, if I may Call them that, were carried out, and I did my best to see to it that Dr. von Annon went along on those trips. In affect, these trips resulted in establishing valuable contact, which, in turn, resulted in the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and of the civil judiciary working in the same way along the same lines. The Administration of Justice of the Armed Forces was always keeping the jurisdiction of the civil courts under close observation, and I was pleased that they were doing that. We were altogether desirous of having a certain amount of control, of control which could only be exercised by the authorities of the armed forces. We were particularly anxious to know whether the sentences which were passed by our courts in NN matters were neither too severe nor too lenient, and I was always gratified when I found that the military authorities told us that on this point, too, they were altogether satisfied with us. The authorities of the Armed Forces emphasized again and again that they were not interested in having particularly severe sentences passed. The secrecy as such was a sufficient deterrent. It was not necessary to pass sentences which were a particular deterrent in themselves. To know that and to act accordingly was of great value to our authorities, too. I believe what I have said just now is essentially contained in Exhibits 322 and 335. The documents speak for themselves. I do not think I need give any further explanations.
Q The Prosecution believes that proceedings against these NN prisoners did not prevent the transfer of innocent prisoners to the police. Would you tell us what view you took of those matters at the time?
A I believe that what the Prosecution has to say on that point is correct. The only thing I cannot see is as to what entent that constitutes a reproach to us. We, as is evident from Exhibit 328, saw to it that the Public Prosecutor who conducted investigations in an NN case and who had decided to have proceedings stopped because the evidence was not sufficient to convict the defendant, was to make himself clear as to whether the NN prisoner was to be returned to the occupied territory or not.
We saw, although our opportunities were limited, that in many cases these statements on the part of the prosecutor led to it that the police did allow innocent persons to return to tho occupied territories. On that point, too, by the way, there was complete agreement with the high command of the Armed Forces. May I refer to Exhibit 335, which explains that.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, the Prosecution has introduced another exhibit. It is Exhibit 334, which contains a report by the General Public Prosecutor at Kattowice dated 27 July 1944 to the Ministry. That report contains a suggestion that NN prisoners might be employed in the armament industries. May I ask you to comment on that document and to tell the Tribunal as to what the Ministry ordered to be done after it had received that suggestion.
A That question was put to the Ministry by the General Public Prosecutor at Kattowice. He asked whether NN prisoners who had been employed in the armament industry, and everything was arament industry with us, could remain in custody under the Administration of Justice even if they had been acquitted or even if they had served their term. At the Ministry it was Department V which had to decide on that question, the department, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the department which had to administrate the execution of punishment at the prisons. Department V, which as I said, dealt with this question, approached us and asked our opinion. Department IV replied to the question received from Department V that there was no doubt that it would be in the interest both of the prisoners and of industry if the prisoners were to remain in custody of the Administration of Justice and were not to be transferred to the police. Department 5 did not decide the matter, and current events outmoded the question as such.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, we are now coming to a new question, and this question refers to the clemency pleas, and it refers particularly to the question of death sentences. To start with, I want to ask you whether in NN matters there were discrepancies comparing these NN proceedings with proceedings against German defendants, that is to say, were NN prisoners who had been sentenced to death treated in a different way than Germans who had not been sentenced to death?
A The answer to this question is a clear no. There were no differences in the treatment of clemency pleas, whether they concerned NN prisoners or a German subject. Regarding the pre-examination of the question as to whether a death sentence was to be carried out on an NN prisoner, the same points of view were decisive which were decisive in the cases of German defendants and defendants of other nationalities.
Q Do you know of any case where the clemency plea was treated differently when an NN prisoner was concerned?
A I have stated that I, as subdepartment, chief, generally speaking was not competent to play a part when a decision had to be made as to whether a death sentence was to be carried out. The same was true of NN prisoners, but I believe it would have come to my knowledge if in the case of NN prisoners any special points of view had been applied, therefore I believe I am entitled to answer that question with "no."
Q The Prosecution in this connection introduced Exh. 312. That exhibit contains a remark by Dr. von Ammon made on the 26th of September, 1942. The undersecretary is to make a decision. That office at the time was held by Dr. Rothenberger -- about the competency in clemency matters. The literal expression is the competency in clemency matters. Would you comment on that please?
A The question was whether the competence for clemency matters lay with the High Command of the Armed Forces or with the Reich Minister of Justice. According to the general legal view the High Command of Armed Forces retained its competence for clemency matters even in those cases where civil courts had deputized for military courts and had passed their sentences, deputized for the military authorities.
A transfer of penal proceedings from the military courts to the civilian courts existed also outside of NN matters. And concerning those other cases in effect the high command exercised a careful control to see to it that the competence for clemency matters remained with it. even when the civil court had passed the sentence. Therefore in NN cases, too, the High Command of the Armed Forces might easily have had the competence for deciding on the clemency plea. Minister Thierack, however, believed that that competence on clemency matters was his own prerogative and he had negotiations conducted on that subject with the High Command of the Armed Forces.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The result was that the High Command and the Chief of the legal department, Dr. Lehmann, as well as the Chief of the Counter Intelligence Department, Admiral Canaris, complied with Dr. Thierack's wish. The High Command waived its well-founded competence for clemency matters and ceded it to us. That the High Command had to be asked beforehand whether we were to be allowed to exercise clemency, that was obvious not only on account of the legal situation but also on account of the obvious military interests which, in certain circumstances, might have spoken in favor of a different arrangement.
Q One more exhibit in this context. It is Exhibit 326. That contains an inquiry from the General Public Prosecutor at Breslau at the Ministry. A few doubtful cases are mentioned and among others there is a question as to whether the reports on clemency matters in NN Cases were to be abbreviated just as they were now abbreviated in German cases. Would you briefly comment on that, please?
A This is a doubtful point which the German Public Prosecutor at Breslau broached. Dr. von Ammon discussed the matter personally with the General Public Prosecutor and cleared up this point to the effect that in NN matters, as far as their routine treatment was concerned too, no difference was to be made as compared with the reports on clemency cases concerning other defendants. Here, as elsewhere, in NN matters no deviating rulings were to apply.
Q In conclusion I must mention this: The Prosecution introduced Exhibit 80 and Exhibit 329 and Exhibit 469. Would you tell the Tribunal briefly what those three exhibits are about?
A it seems to me that these three exhibits can be dealt with in one word. All three are concerned with the discussion of legal questions. The documents speak for themselves and hardly need any explanation.
Q We have now dealt with all documents which the Prosecution has submitted against you. In concluding the problem of NN cases I would ask you a few personal questions. To begin with, did the NN cases mean a great deal of work for you in your sphere of work at the Ministry?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A I never obtained any statistics on the matter. Therefore, I have to depend on rather crude estimates according to my recollection. At a rough estimate I think that the NN cases occupied five percent of my working potential. Naturally that is not true of the referents. Dr. von Ammon, I think, will himself be able to estimate the amount of time which he spent on NN cases. As far as I can judge I think NN cases must have occupied half his time.
Cases were treated in this way: The referent himself dealt with the ordinary cases that came in, with the cases of ordinary importance. That explains why the referent and the sub-department chief had to spend varying amounts of time on dealing with this question. The referent, concerning every case which had an importance that exceeded the normal, had to report on it to the sub-department chief. If the case was of basic importance, the sub-department chief did not decide on it but a report was made to the department chief and usually a further report was made on a higher level. In effect, the documents gave a complete picture on this subject. Concerning all these basic questions which we have discussed here, the draft was hardly ever signed in its complete version by either Dr. von Ammon or myself. It was always the Minister in person who made the decision.
Q I believe that is sufficient, Dr. Mettgenberg. Now I am coming to the personal questions I want to put to you. After the capitulation of Germany were you taken under automatic arrest and where?
A When Germany capitulated I was in Upper Bavaria because I had been ordered to go there from Berlin. I was immediately taken under automatic arrest and on the third of May, 1945, my arrest took place.
Q How long were you under such automatic arrest?
A I remained under automatic arrest until the fifth of February 1946. Then I was discharged because I had not been a party member and because examination of my personal datashowed that I did not constitute a danger to public safety.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, during the time from May, 1945, until February, 1946, were you allowed to write to your relatives?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No, I was not. For a full seven months I was under a fog Vernebelt. My relatives did not know where I was. They did not know whether I was alive, and vice versa, I did not know whether and who of my relatives was alive and where they were.
Q Thank you. That is enough. Dr. Mettgenberg, now one more final question. Did you have anything to do with the so-called euthanasia program?
A Naturally the rumors that come to my ears, the rumors concerning euthanasia, I remember that I went to see my department chief, Dr. Crohne, and asked him what these rumors were all about. Dr. Crohne said to me, "The euthanasia matter is completely secret. I would not like to give you any information about it. If, for official reasons, you require information, then that is a different matter."
I must admit that I was rather disappointed at that information for the euthanasia problem, as a problem, would have interested me greatly. I am convinced that the problem as a problem would be discussed a great deal in the future. The witness, Dr. Suchomel, who came to the witness stand here, mentioned my name as one of the persons who attended a conference on euthanasia questions. He did that in an affidavit which has been submitted here. When the witness was asked here in the courtroom whether he might have made a mistake concerning my presence he replied that was possible. I should like to add to that expressly that I did not attend that conference, which Dr. Suchomel mentioned.
DP. SCHILF: Way it please the Court, I have concluded my examination of this witness in his own case.
THF PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess at this time.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DP. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, it has been pointed out to me that I put a question in a way that might be misunderstood, this concerned Exhibit 312, "Clemency Questions in the Case of NNPrisoners." I put the question as to whether a decision of the undersecretary at that time, Dr. Rothenberger, was to be asked for, according to a note by Dr. von Ammon. Exhibit 312, page 2, however, shows this was a subsequent report of the 26 of September 1942 about a decision made by the Minister, that is Thierack, two days before on 24 September 1942. In order to correct the record, I would like to state this.
May it please the Tribunal, I have a few more questions to put to the witness, Dr. Mettgenberg, in my capacity as defense counsel for the defendant Klemm. With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall put a few questions to you, Dr. Mettgenberg.
You were present when the defendant Klemm discussed his activities at the Reich Ministry of Justice during the years from 1937 to 1939, at that time Dr. Klemm was in charge of the so-called general political department. First, I want to ask you was Herr Klemm a subordinate to you as sub-division chief or in his capacity as in charge of the general political department in the years from 1937 to 1939?
A The defendant Klemm later as under-secretary became my superior. In the years you mentioned he worked for sometime as Referent for the general political department, that was a sub-division of my department, to that effect I was in a certain sense at that time his superior.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q What was the subject with which the general political department worked with, and what was Klemm's activity at the time when you were his superior?
A During that time Klemm was referent for the general political department, the task of that referat was above all the regulations of those problems which arose out of the so-called malicious acts law. In the malicious acts law, it was provided that a Prosecution because of malicious acts could be made out only if the Raich Minister of Justice and the chief of the Party Chancellery unanimously were of the opinion that it was necessary to prosecute under the law. In innumerable cases Prosecution was refrained from, but in order to maintain the contact between the chief of the Party Chancellery, that is Munich, and the Reich Minister of Justice, that is Berlin, in order to bring it about and to clarify the question whether both offices were in agreement, and to make the determination of this as simple as possible, first of all a great deal of administrative work had to be done. Already at that time when Klemm was charged with that task, we were faced with difficulties in regard to mail. As a result, the decision as to whether such a Prosecution should be undertaken or not consumed a considerable amount of time -- more than was necessary. At that time a large number of discussions took place and extensive correspondence was conducted. Samples were worked out and everything was done for the purpose of solving these questions as simply as possible. This was the main activity of the general referat, the general department, which we are discussing here.
Q Another question -- and this concerns the time when the defendant Klemm was undersecretary in the Ministry. You repeatedly were present, and you confirm this by your own testimony, in discussions between the officials of the Ministry and Thierack. And I now ask you how did Thierack act toward Klemm on principle, also in the presence of other officials.
A I could form a picture in my mind of the relationship between Thierack and Klemm only on the basis of occasional reports or discussions which were made to the Minister at which under secretary Klemm as well as Court No. III, Case No. 3.I were present.
On these occasions I could find out that Minister Thierack was just as tactless toward under secretary Klemm as I had experienced him to be toward me, and as other persons have described it here already in this courtroom. I may add that in my innermost self I was enraged about it that one day the Minister on the occasion of such a report, in the presence of a large group of officials who were waiting to make their reports, called under secretary Klemm a "poor rabbit". I may emphasize that moreover the general tone of conversations in the Ministry of Justice was extraordinarily polite and moderate, so that remarks of that nature were entirely outside the usual manner.
Q You quoted a remark that Thierack made to Klemm literally. Did you ever hear that Thierack called Klemm, or vice versa, Klemm addressed Thierack with the familiar "DU"?
A I never heard that.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, you probably remember that when Klemm was in the witness box he spoke about a case of lynching fliers; that was the case in which allied fliers were lynched by the German population -or were supposed to have been lynched by the German population. The case is supposed to have occurred in Duesseldorf, that is to say in the area of the District Court of Appeals of Duesseldorf. Do you know about this affair; are you familiar with that affair?
A Yes, I know that case. I did no longer have an opportunity to examine the files on this case. Thus, I have to rely on my memory; however, I do remember the case for two reasons. First, it occurred near my home town, and for that reason it aroused my special interest already at that time. The second reason is that in this case each German was ashamed of the cowardly action of the other German, and to such an extent that I have not forgotten to this very day. The facts were as follows: At the Dutch border, near Kleve, a customs official brought two Canadian parachutists prisoners, that is as prisoners of war, to the market place of a small border town. The name of this town was Kranenburg. In this market place there was a lot of traffic. Numerous workers were working there in building some kind of border fortifications. They were Court No. III, Case No. 3.working under the supervision of an SA leader.
I do not know what rank he had, but he was not a high leader. This SA leader saw that these two prisoners of war were brought over, and without further ado he pulled his pistol and approached the two prisoners of war; he shot one of them to death, and right after that shot the other one.
This case was brought to the attention of the Prosecuting authorities and by the General Public Prosecutor of Duesseldorf was reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice and since the area Duesseldorf belonged to my subdivision, it was also called to my attention. I considered the facts so outrageous that I got in touch with the General Public Prosecutor Hagemann in Duesseldorf by telephone in order to assure myself that this matter would be followed up with all emphasis. To my joy General Public Prosecutor Hagemann had a full understanding for my conception that such a cowardly act was not excuseable. General Public Prosecutor Hagemann, who immediately suspected that difficulties would be put in the way of the Prosecution decided to have one of his Duesseldorf referants sent to Kleve because he assumed already at that time that the local public prosecuting authorities of Kleve would not be able to succeed. In fact, the referent from Duesseldorf went to the place of action where he encountered the greatest difficulty in the prosecution. The following interfered in the Prosecution: The Local Kreisleiter and also the Higher offices of the SA, both of these authorities stated that they had the fullest understanding for the action of the offender. The result was that the police was not at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor as is the case usually. The result was further that the offender was transferred from Kleve to quite a different district, and contrary to all efforts it was not possible, as long as I could follow up the case to put the offender before a Court. The events of war buried this affair.
Q. Will you now tell the Tribunal from your memory approximately when this event occurred?
A. It must have been before Minister Thierack assumed office. This is the only memory I have of the time when it might have occured because I know -
Q. Excuse me if I interrupt you. You are speaking about Thierack assuming office?
A. Thierack, yes.
Q. That would have been before August 1942?
A. Yes, August , 1942. Thus it must have been before August, 1942, because I do know that the referent and I informed Minister Thierack about this case as a special incident which we would have prosecuted especially.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal I have no further questions on behalf of the defendant Klemm.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I have one question as defense counsel for the defendant, Schlegelberger.
Q. The defendant, Lautz, testified on the witness stand that all indictments filed before the People's Court were submitted to the Ministry of Justice. How were these indictments handled in the Ministry of Justice?
A. In the Ministry of Justice I was not competent for the People's Court, but, of course, I know the official channels in the Ministry. Therefore, I know that the indictment and sentences which were submitted to the Ministry by the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor to the People's Court went via the official channel in the Ministry to the Referent. If the Referent had to discuss any special factor in regard to these things he received he had to report this to the division chief and the division chief then decided what had to be done in this case. Those documents did not occupy any special position.
Q. Thank you.
DR. ORTH: (For the Defendant, Altstoetter):
Q. Witness, did you ever officially or unofficially speak about NN cases with the defendant Altstoetter?
A. No, I do not recall any conversation with Altstoetter about NN cases, neither during the course of my official duties nor outside of it.
Q. Did you ever inform Altstoetter about NN cases officially in writing?
A. I writing I did not give Altstoetter any information either.
Q. During your examination, witness, you repeatedly speak about civil courts or civil administration of Justice. By these terms do you mean those civil courts and civil legal institutions which deal with civil legal cases?
A. May I make an explanation? I used the terms "Civil administration of justice " and "civil courts " in order to point out the difference in the military administration of justice and the military courts, the courts martial. Our technical expression is a different one. We speak of general courts, courts martial. If I was speaking of civil courts and civil administration of Justice I was referring to those criminal courts of the general administration of justice which took over the NN cases from the military courts martial. Those courts which had to deal with civilian cases are not those understood by the term civil counts in that connection.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for any other defendant desire to conduct direct examination of this witness? It appears that there is no other. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Mettgenberg, you joined the National Socialist Lawyers League on the 14th September, 1933, didn't you?
A. Whether the date is correct, I do not know, but the fact is true in any case.
Q. Is the fact of 1933 true in your memory?
A. It is possible, yes.
Q. Was Hans Frank head of the National Socialist Lawyers League at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me, Dr. Mettgenberg why was it that not being a Nazi party member you joined the affiliated Nazi party organization of the National Socialist Lawyers League three years before you joined the Association of Civil Servants, which was also a Reich Association, why was that?
A. I believe that the latter part you made an error.
Q. One moment please, Dr. Mettgenberg.
A. Please, as far at least as I know the joining of the National Socialist Lawyers' League automatically also resulted in membership in the German Civil Servants Association, so that, therefore, if in September 1933, which presumably is correct, I joined the National Socialist Lawyers' League I automatically at the same time became a member of the German Civil Servants Association.
Q. Well, Dr. Mettenberg, if that is true, why it is on your official personnel file from the ministry of Justice, a copy of which I now hand you, the date of your membership in the National Socialist Lawyers' league is as we said, September, 1933, and the date of your entry into the Civil Servants Association of the Reich is 1936. You will find that on the first page of your personnel file.
Q. The explanation for this may be that the agreements made between the National Socialist Lawyers' League and the Civil Servants' Association were not concluded as early as 1933, but only later on .
In any case it was like this: That membership in the National Socialist Lawyers' League automatically without any special application, therefore, brought about the membership in the German Civil Servants Association.
Q.- But so far as the personnel file which you hold in your hand is concerned, on the face of it and as it appeared in that same form in the official personnel files of the Ministry of Justice you joined the National Socialist Lawyers' League three years before the Civil Servants League, isn't that correct on the face of it?
A.- That the time of the entry into the NS Lawyers' League and the date -- from the date from which on I was carried as a member of the Civil Servants League are different dates, that cannot be denied.
Q.- And the NS National Socialist Lawyers' League is an affiliated Nazi Party organization, and the Civil Servants' League is not, is that correct?
A.- I think that is impossible. They were both of the same nature. During the time of the National Socialists there were no organizations or associations of that nature who were not affiliated with the Nazis.
Q.- With the Party. Now you also were a member of the National Socialist Leaders Corps since 1937. What sort of an organization was that?
A.- May I ask what was supposed to be the name of this organization?
Q.- You will find it under the notation 8-b in the first page of your personnel file.
A.- Oh, I can explain that. That is an error. This is not the National Socialist Leader Corps, Fuehrer Corps, but the thing was that I was a supporting member of the NS Flieger Corps, that is, the Flier Corps.
Q.- What did you do there? You are a flier, are you?
A.- I paid one mark a month.
Q.- What for?
A.- In order to support flying in Germany.
Q.- That was in the period 1937-1939 before the war?
A.- Yes, I believe it extended into the war also.
Q.- Now on page 4 of the original there, under Item 24, there is the heading "Support and emergency relief." And your personnel file credits you with contributions of 220 RM in 1927 and 259 RM in 1934.
To what causes did you contribute that money?
A.- May I ask you to repeat where this is written?
Q.- Item No. 24 which is page 6 of the English, page 4 of the original.
A.- Under Item 24 there is a space entitled "Support and Emergency Relief" Under this there is a notation that on 19 April, 1927, 220; and on the 15th of September 1934, 250, apparently Reichmarks, had been handed out. Mr. Prosecutor, these amounts I did not pay, but I received them.
Q.- You say you received them?
A.- That is what I said.
Q.- Was the Party supporting you after 1933?
A.- The Reich supported me.
Q.- After 1933 was the Reich the Party, or wasn't it, in that context?
A.- Not at all. That was an emergency which existed in my family which was supposed to be relieved by this amount, which was paid to me by the Reich. I never was a wealthy man.
Q.- And so even after 1933, and even though you were not a Party Member you continued to receive financial benefits in the form of charity from the government, is that correct?
A.- These two amounts that were paid out here I received without doubt. I don't know anything about any other amounts.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is enough on that, I think. If it please the Court, the Prosecution offers as Exhibit 538 the official personnel file of the defendant Mettgenberg, from which we have just been reading.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already had marked for identification an Exhibit 538, I believe.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, Your Honor. We will make that 539.
THE PRESIDENT: 539. NG-602 is marked for identification 539.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q.- Dr. Mettgenberg, you and your counsel discussed Document NG-1066. That document was not heretofore in evidence, but since you bring up the matter, let's discuss it a little further. The essence of that document was that far from denoting any anti-Semitic activity on your part you merely requested that that document be shown to you unofficially for your personal interest so that you could give legal advice to private Jewish friends of yours, in particular a Jewish couple who wanted to know their rights. Tell me, on Page 3 of that document, which I assume you have before you -- do you?
A.- No, I don't.
Q.- On Page 3 of that document 1066 at the bottom the distribution under your name -- your name being No. 2 on the list with the request for attention, we find five other -- I mean three other people on that list, Senior Government Counsellor Mielke, Ministerial Counsellor Ruppert, judge of the District Court of Appeal Massfeller, and another judge of a District Court of Appeal whose name we cannot read, and State Secretary Freisler, all in there in the same form with the official request for their attention. Now I ask you, Dr. Mettgenberg, if all these other addresses on this document, including Freisler, also merely wanted to know unofficially the contents thereof so they could advise their friends privately? Is that the situation, or are you in a special case?
A.- It seems to me that you are referring to Page 4 and not Page 3 of the document, is that not correct?
Q.- I am referring to the enumeration 2, 3, 4, and 5, of which your name is No. 2.
A.- Yes. Mr. Prosecutor, the matter lies as follows: you can see already that I am listed under No. 2, while the other gentlemen whom you mentioned are listed under No. 3. Thus if the submission to me and to the other gentlemen would have the same purpose, it would not be clear why I am listed under No. 2 and the other gentlemen under No. 3 separately.
I believe that this in particular proves that my name being listed in this connection was something special, and why the document was shown to me, especially, that I explained under oath.
Q.- That being so, Dr. Mettgenberg, why does the official notation state the same directive in each case, namely with the request for attention? It is official attention, is it not?
A.- No, that is just what it is not. I have told you that in my case it was not official attention but personal attention.
Q.- Is there any doubt in your mind, Dr. Mettgenberg, that Dr. Freisler under No. 4 saw this document officially?
A.- No doubt.
Q.- Then why is there any doubt in your case? It appears the same.
A.- No, Mr. Prosecutor, it is not the same, because I belong to the same level as -
THE PRESIDENT: Now just a moment. The Tribunal suggests that you should not go any further with that inquiry. It is not meriting attention sufficiently.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I don't intend to, Your Honor. I don't intend to. The Prosecution offers for identification only Document 1066 as Exhibit 540. We will make former offer at a later time when the exhibit is available, if that please the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification 540.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q.- Now, Dr. Mettgenberg, with regard to these execution orders which passed from Division 4, Department 4, of the Ministry to the Public Prosecution directing the execution of defendants condemned to death, of which a number now in evidence were signed by you, you stated yesterday that those execution orders were only a form of passing on to the Public Prosecution decisions as to execution already made by the Ministry of Justice and/or the State Secretary, as the case might be.
