BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Witness, you were speaking about the fact that in the Reich Ministry of Justice you worked as Referent for Interstate Legal Relations in penal cases. Were you also a specialist for international law?
AAs referent for Interstate Legal Relations in penal cases I had to deal with only a very limited field, especially with extradition law; whereas I had nothing to do with general international law, especially, with the International question of law, as for instance, the Hague Convention concerning land warfare, etc. For this field in the Reich Ministry of Justice the General Referat for International Law was competent and this was in quite a different division, and the gentlemen Kriege, Pierre De La Croix, worked in that field. This can be seen from the documents submitted by the Prosecution which showed the division of work in the Reich Ministry of Justice. This is exhibit 510. The assertion made by the Prosecution in it's opening statement, that I was the referent for the Ministry of Justice for international law, is in no way correct.
Q You have stated that you were not a confirmed National Socialist. In view of your attitude, did you not have conflict of conscience sometimes your activity in the ministry of justice?
A To a certain extent I have to answer "yes" to that question. In my official activity I occasionally had to apply laws of other legal regulations or had to follow instructions issued by my superiors with which I was not quite in agreement in my own mind. In such cases I considered it my duty to follow such regulations and provisions which in my opinion though unpleasant were after all effective. Likewise, I considered it my duty to follow the instructions issued by my superiors. However, I would not have consider myself obligated to follow instructions issued by my superiors which were contrary to law.
Such illegal orders, however, were not given to me. In such cases, however, a certain amount was left up to my own discretion and that happened in many cases. When I applied that discretion I tried as far as possible to make my own opinion apply. Of course, the possibility in those directions were not overly large since as a referent I had to obtain the agreement of my superiors, the more important decisions. Because of my lenient attitude I was frequently objected especially by my superior Vollmer and the Minister of Justice Thierack.
Q Did your attitude change when the war broke out?
A Due to the outbreak of the war nothing changed in my basic attitude. I was of the opinion that since the war had broken out, independent of it's consequences for National Socialism, it would bring about the decision "To be or to be" for Germany. Therefore, I believed that every German had to fulfill it's duty in it's official position
Q I now come to the main charge which the Prosecution has raised against you in regard to your dealing with the socalled NN cases. Under what circumstances were you entrusted with this new field of work?
A The Distribution of the Referates (sections) was as a rule made by order of the department chief without asking the referent about it in advance. Thus I too in February, 1942, was assigned by my department chief, Ministerial Director Krohne to work with NN cases, without my knowing for the time being what these NN cases were all about.
Q What tasks and authorization did you have as Referent of Department 4 of the Ministry of Justice for NN cases?
A In order to answer that question I first have to describe the competency of departments 3, 4, and 5, and have to limit briefly.
Department 3 was the department for criminal legislation, department 4 was for the administration of criminal law, department 5 was the department for the administration of penalties. It belonged to the competency, of department 3, the preparations of the laws and regulations similar to laws, the housing of prisoners belonged to the competence of department 5 and the treatment of these prisoners while they were in prison. Department 4, that is my department, dealt in the main with the cases against the defendants until they were sentenced by a court, including the clemency procedure. Furthermore, the issuance of general provisions regarding legal procedure in as far as department 3 was concerned was not competent for this.
Q As far as department 4 was competent, what authorization did you as referent have with regulation to your superiors?
A Kramm and Mettgenberg have already testified to this here on the witness stand. I only have to add some supplementary remarks. As Referent I had to a certain extent the right to give my signature, that is to say, to a certain extent, I could give written or oral statements by order. This right for signature, however, was limited, since due to my being subordinate to the department chief, and for the most part of my activities I was subordinate also to a sub-department chief. During the first month of my activity in the NN cases my section was directly under the department chief, a few months later, however, between me and the department chief Mettgenberg was put in charge as a sub-department chief. My authority in relation to my sub-department chief and department chief were limited through general regulations rather carefully. In the regulations applied which were contained in Exhibit 510 submitted by the Prosecution. May I refer to these regulations? Regarding the letters by the Ministry of Justice that were sent outside the Ministry of Justice which were submitted by the Prosecution, in accordance with the provisions I mentioned I did not sign a single one finally, but all the letters after I had also co-signed them, I submitted to my sub-department chief for signature.
He then for the most referred them to the sub-department chief or even to the Under-Secretary or to the Ministre. If the Prosecution, contrary to this, in this submission of several documents, stated that the letters of the Ministry of Justice were signed by me, that is an error. These are throughout letters for which I did give a co-signature, that is in the right hand lower corner, that they bear my initials, but one of my superiors gave the final signature.
Q In that connection exhibit 327 is of interest. When the document was submitted the Prosecution stated that this was a letter which you had addressed to Reich Leiter Bormann. That is obviously incorrect. Please explain the document and explain now the whole course of the events went.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number is that?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No. 327.
WITNESS.
A In order to explain the actual content of the document I would just like to make the following preliminary remarks, as it is also evident from another document, that is Exhibit 282, that Hitler had reserved the right to himself to make decisions of clemency in the case of death sentences which had been pronounced against women in the occupied western territory. In these cases Hitler always at the beginning with out exception did not want execution. Later on, however, he changed this practice due to some exceptions. Hitler did not pardon these women expressly. To that extent I have to correct the explanations made by the defendant Lautz somewhat. He merely suspended the execution and ordered that the condemned person should be kept in a penitentiary and treated like penitentiary.
After the end of the war a final decision was to be made. The decision about the carrying out of the death sentence, was, according to Hitler's instructions, to be made known to the condemned women. This was a very severe measure that the women who had been condemned might for years remain in uncertainty as to whether the death sentence should be executed. Or the suggestion of the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, that is defendant Lautz, which was referred to me by Reich Public Prosecutor, Parrisius I tried to achieve it that the condemned women could be informed at least until further notice that they would not be executed.
Of course, since the decision by Hitler was necessary, the matter had to be reported to Minister Thierack. I could not report the matter directly to Minister Thierack but first had to tell it to my sub-department chief, then to the department chief and then finally I could report it to Minister Thierack. This report, according to the note on the top of the document, took place on the 8 June 1944. Thierack, in the course of this report, agreed with having a letter written to Reichsleiter Bormann in that direction to the effect that he should bring about a decision by Hitler as to whether misgivings existed against the suggested information be given to the condemned women.
However, it was quited impossible that I, as a mere referent, should address a letter to such an important man as Reichsleiter Bormann. If the prosecution assumed so, then they overestimated my importance quite considerably. The letter to Bormann could be signed only by the Minister. I could only draft the letter and that is what I did and the draft I then sent via my subdepartment chief and the Under Secretary. All of them put their agreeing signature on it and I submitted it to the Minister.
Minister Thierack, however, did not sign the letter. He objected to the somewhat clumsy first sentence. He wrote in the margin: "I do not like such long worms." And then he returned the draft to me. But this cannot be seen from the document. I can still remember it very clearly. I drafted a new letter in which I divided the first sentence that was objected to into several and I submitted the new draft to Thierack. Thierack then, however, got misgivings against sending the entire letter. He did not dare to ask Hitler whether he wanted to change his former decision and thus nothing happened in this whole affair.
However, from my description it should be apparent with what difficulties I was confronted as a referent and I had to fight against and to what extent I had any possibility of influencing anybody at all.
Q. As referent for NN cases did you have a large staff of assistants?
A. No. I never had more than one assistant and he worked only part of the time in NN cases, and that also only at the beginning of my activity with NN cases. From the beginning of 1943 on I worked entirely without any assistance. From that time on, due to the hightened drafting for the Wermacht, younger gentlemen who could be assistants, were available only to a very limited extent in the Ministry of Justice. From that time on I had only a socalled "Mittlerer Beamter", a civil servant in a medium position for registration and filing.
There was a special provision only for preparation of clemency pleas in death sentence cases. For that work I had assistance from time to time.
Q. I refer to that extent to Exhibit 501, the plan of distribution of work which shows further facts. Witness, please give us a survey over the periods when the general Administration of Justice participated in the NN cases.
A. We can distinguish between two periods during which the General Administration of Justice was concerned with NN cases. The first period extends from February 1942 until October 1942; the second from October 1942 until September 1944, and to some extent until the end of the war. During the first period the executive regulations of the Reich Ministry of Justice of 6 February 1942 were decisive in their original form as they had been issued by Schlegelberger and Freisler. Two factors characterized this period. First, the police were involved in the NN cases only to the extent that the transportation of the NN prisoners from the occupied territories was carried out by the police; and, secondly, for the sentencing of NN cases only some special courts were competent. The competency of the People's Court did not exist at that time, for those cases.
The second period begins with the changes which were introduced soon after Thierack assumed office. The police now also became competent to the extent that the NN prisoners, for the detention of whom no legal reason existed any more, were transferred to the police for protective custody for the duration of the war.
And in the sentencing of NN cases, in addition to the individual special courts, the People's Court now is involved too. This second period ends with the order that the NN prisoners should generally be returned to the police. This order was issued in September 1944. The return, however, was carried out until the end of the war only partly so that at the end of the war numerous NN prisoners were still in the detention of the Administration of Justice.
Q. We shall now turn to the first period for which the executive regulations of 6 February 1942 were decisive. Witness, were you involved in the drafting of these regulations and the discussions with the OKW which preceded this decree and which the witness Lehmann reported about?
A. No. I neither participated in the formulation of the regulations not in the preceding negotiations. The regulations worked out in the departments for Penal Legislation, first Department 2 and later 3, and at that time I did not belong to one of them. About the regulations and the preceding negotiations, I heard only on the day when the regulations were issued. On that day -- that was the 6 February 1942, the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and the General Public Prosecutors of those districts in which the NN cases would in the future be sentenced, had ordered for discussion to a meeting with the Ministry of Justice.
Immediately preceding the beginning of the meeting my then department chief, Ministerial Director Krohne, had the message sent to me that I should come to the meeting because in future I would have to work with the penal cases which would result from the newly issued regulations.
I then attended that meeting and for the first time out of the mouth of Undersecretary Freisler, who was in charge of the meeting, I heard about the Night and Fog Decree and the executive regulations issued pursuant to it.
Q. In the executive regulations of 6 February 1942 there are provisions about the limitation of foreign evidence. Item 5 of the executive regulations, Exhibit 306, which, however, are here only in draft form gives this regulation:
The use of foreign evidence material requires the prior agreement of the public prosecutor. Furthermore, Item 4 of the same regulation provides that the senior public prosecutor has to obtain the decision of the Reich Minister of Justice before he can use foreign evidence material or can agree to the use of foreign evidence material by the court. This latter regulation is contained in Exhibit 308. In consideration of these regulations the indictment asserts that it was one of the purposes of the NN procedure to prevent that the defendants should have access to witness or any other evidence. What do you have to say about this?
A. First, I would like to correct you, counsel. You quoted No.4 of the circular decree of the 6 February 1942 and by mistake you said that this was the same provision as No. 5 which you mentioned before. These are two different regulations. First is No. 5 of the executive order of 6 February 1942. That is Exhibit 306, and the second regulation is No. 4 of the circular decree of the same day, and that is Exhibit 308.
In answer to the question what I have to say about the allegation in the indictment, that it was one of the purposes of the NN procedure to make it impossible for the defendants to have access to witnesses or any other evidence, I have to say that assumption is entirely wrong. The limitations on foreign evidence material was not one of the purposes of the NN procedure but the absolutely undesired result which resulted from the necessity of keeping the matter secret.
It could never result in a disadvantage of the defendant but would, of necessity, result in favor of the defendants. The German criminal procedure is based on the assumption that the defendant has no duty or no authority to prove anything. Therefore, any doubt had to work in favor of the defendant. In the same way, doubts which arose out of the limitation of foreign evidence. Moreover, foreign evidence material was in no way excluded altogether but it should only be procured and used in such a way that the secrecy of the proceeding and the keeping incommunicado of the defendant would not be endangered.
Q: What was the effect of the regulations about the limitation of foreign evidence material - in practice?
A: According to my observation, in the majority of cases these regulations did not lead to any difficulties. In many cases the clarification of the facts was accomplished by the statements of the defendants or co-defendants or on the basis of German evidence material. This was the case, especially in the numerous cases in which simple facts were the basis. Thus, for instance, in most of the cases, because of illegal possession of weapons, where a weapon was found in the possession of the defendant. Beyond this, the use of foreign evidence material was admissible to the extent that his maintaining of secrecy of the proceeding was not endangered by this. Thus, the Ministry of Justice in any case permitted it that a foreign witness, not before the court trying the case, but in the occupied territories, could be examined by an investigating judge. If this, however, did not bring about the desired result, if there still existed some doubt as to the guilt, the defendant had to be acquitted and was acquitted. According to my observation, probably in all courts which had to deal with NN cases, a large number of acquittals were pronounced, because of the limitation of foreign evidence, sentencing of the defendants was not possible.
I remember, in particular, extensive trials before the special court of Oppeln against numerous defendants who were charged with participation in dangerous resistance movements in Belgium. According to the indictment I was under the impression that heavy sentences would be pronounced here. In effect, however, the result of the trial was quite different. The defendants maintained that it was not a dangerous resistance movement, but a harmless club. In view of the limitation of foreign evidence material it was impossible to disprove this allegation. Thus, the defendants had to be acquitted or they could be given only slight penalties because of participation in a club which was not authorized by the military commander.
Q: #6 of the executive orders of 6 February 1942 which have already been mentioned - that is, Exhibit 306 - makes the following provision: "The Public Prosecutor can, until the sentence is pronounced, withdraw the indictment or ask that the trial be postponed. The Court has to agree to the application of the Prosecutor for suspension. If the court wants to deviate from the application made by the Public Prosecution, it has first of all, to afford them an opportunity to state their opinion."
Witness, what can you say about this regulation?
A: Dr. Schlegelberger, when he was examined, commented extensively on these regulations. I only have to add the following: The procedure described is, as Dr. Schlegelberger stated, introduced in order to prevent that NN prisoners be transferred to the police. For the court itself, in view of the prestige of the court, it probably was not very pleasant.
The authors of that regulation realized that too. As I said already in my affidavit of 17 December 1946, that is Exhibit 337, even Freisler in this meeting of 6 February 1942, said that with this regulation one had reached the utmost limit of what one could expect of the court. The authors of this regulations, however, believed that they had to put up with that regulation in the interest of the NN prisoners.
Q: Regulation #6 of the executive orders which we just discussed - was it ever applied in practice?
A: I don't believe so. The regulation was in effect only for a brief period. Thierack, in October, 1942, soon after he became Minister, again rescinded it. During the time that that regulation was in effect, as far as I remember, only very few NN cases were tried. These were clear cases in which the court had no misgivings against agreeing to the application of the Prosecutor. If that regulation would have been applied, the Ministry certainly would have been informed about it and I certainly would still remember it.
Q: In regard to the changes which Thierack ordered in October, 1942, Dr. Mettgenberg commented. Did you have misgivings against these changes, especially also against the transfer of NN prisoners to the police?
A: The changes which Thierack made without doubt also had a favorable side. The unpleasant regulation of #6 of the executive order of 6 February 1942 was removed. Even Freisler, as I mentioned before, stated about it that with this regulation the outside limit had been reached of what could be expected of the courts. Now, this bad condition was removed, that the authorities of the administration of Justice had to detain persons in whose cases the reason for detention had to be maintained by the procedure discussed by Dr. Schlegelberger.
On the other hand, the transfer of the NN prisoners to the Gestapo was without doubt unpleasant. Since the competency of the general administration of Justice for the detention of NN prisoners who were acquitted or whose time of arrest had expired - after this had been removed again was returned to the Wehrmacht. According to the provision of the NN decree, however, the Wehrmacht, as a rule at least, was not allowed to return these NN prisoners to the occupied territories. Also for the reason of keeping this matter secret, they could not be set free in Germany. The only way out that Thierack saw was their detention by the Gestapo, and the OKW who, in the last analysis, had to decide about this affair, agreed to the suggestion by Thierack. If now I am asked if, in regard to the treatment of the prisoners by the police, I had misgivings, I can answer that in the following way: The prisoners were handed over to the police with the express provision that the detention was carried out only for reason of secrecy and in the interest of keeping the whole affair secret. Therefore, the Gestapo merely had to detain them and not to carry out a penalty. As far as I know, in the negotiations between Crohne and the Gestapo, the representatives of the Gestapo stated that, in the case of detention of NN prisoners, they would take into consideration the fact that against the prisoners personally there was no longer any charge. Later on, the Reich Leader SS also ordered expressly that the NN prisoners, who were handed over to the police, always should be put on the level of Custody #1 which was the most lenient level.
Q: I refer to Exhibit 328 in regard to the last statements made by the witness.
Witness, as Mettgenberg testified, in September, 1944 the general authorities of the administration of Justice again were deprived of the competency for NN cases. It was ordered that NN prisoners generally had to be handed back to the police. What can you say about this?
A: I can confirm the statements made by Dr. Mettgenberg to their fullest extent and only have to make a few supplementary remarks. As Mettgenberg already testified, in the discussions at the OKW, which took place in the beginning of September 1944, the witness Hecker and I represented the Ministry of Justice. Since the matter could not be reported to Minister Thierack in advance, my department chief Vollmer had given me the instruction to reserve the right for the Minister to state his opinion. I acted accordingly during the negotiations. The representatives of the OKW then also agreed that the OKW would forward a draft of the intended draft of the OKW to the Ministry of Justice and that the Ministry of Justice could then state its opinion on the draft, in writing.
In place of that the O.K.W. then sent us an already filed decree, which ordered the discontinuance of the NN-procedures and the transfer of NN-prisoners to the police. When I reported this to Mettgenberg and together with him to Vollmer was very much displeased about the manner of handling used by the Wehrmacht. Vollmer said the OKW by-played us in that manner and he instructed me to tell the referent of the O.K.W. by telephone and protests against this manner of conducting this business. He said the decisive thing, however, was that the regulation made by the O.K.W. had to be accepted according to the division of business as the O.K.W. was competent for NN-cases.
In accordance with the instructions given by Vollmer, I then telephoned the referent of the O.K.W. and expressed our surprise at this manner of handling this. The referent replied this was a misunderstanding and he regretted it very much, in any case I can testify that on the part of the department 4 of the Ministry of Justice no agreement of that regulations was given but that department 4 only through force submitted to the regulation, which was made without it's agreement.
Q The meeting in the building in the Supreme Military Court in the beginning of September, 1944 was presided over by Dr. Werner Huelle and at that time he was supreme judge. I submit an affidavit by Dr. Huelle that was taken on 17 July 1947. Following the usual introduction formula, it reads as follows:
"By order of the chief of the Legal Department of the Wehrmacht I presided over the discussion in the beginning of September 44 in the building of the Reich Military Supreme Court in Berlin. In this meeting the question of the transfer of the NN-prisoners was dealt with. The basis of this discussion was a Fuehrer order, which had ordered to return of the NN- prisoners to the police.
"The representative of the R.S.H.A. insisted on the giving back of the prisoners who had already been sentenced, since the will of the Fuehrer referred also to those and by saying so he referred to a classification which Himmler had wrote about to Hitler.
"Although in view of this the discussion could have only the value of a technical discussion. I consider it absolutely possible that the referents of the Reich Ministry of Justice reserved to themselves the right of obtaining the opinion of their Minister Since they had not received instructions from him. More exact statements I can no longer make from memory. In what manner and by whom my office then received a statement by the Ministry of Justice, I do not know since I was not the referent. With absolute certainty, however, I can say that only the transfer to the police for the purpose of commitment for labor for urgent armament work was considered for which the manpower of the prisoners was needed. My superior Generaloberstabs Richter D. Lehmann, who himself had formerly been a member of the Ministry of Justice, always attached importance to relations without frictions with the Administration of Justice, and therefore, he had the questions which interested both offices discussed in common.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell me the author of that affidavit, I did not catch the name.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: HUELLE. I submit this affidavit and ask to reserve the number von Ammon Exhibit No. 2 for this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q The witness Hecker in his affidavit of 10 March 1947, exhibit 416, stated what considerations he had about the fate of the NN-prisoners which were transferred to the police, did you share these misgivings of Hecker?
A No, the witness Hecker stated during the course of his cross-examination of 12 May 1947, stated that he did not discuss these misgivings with me. How Hecker reached his point of view, I do not know. Even from the point of view and from the knowledge I have today, I consider the considerations that Hecker had wrong. The police offices technically were not in a position to examine the cases of the many prisoners that were to be transferred to them, the police did not have the sufficient machinery. The first prerequisite for such an examination would have been the transferring of the files to the police, however, even in those cases where NN-prisoners were transferred to the police as far as I know the files were not given to the police.
Q Do you know to what extent the return of the NN-prisoners to the police was carried out?
AAs far as I know the return was carried out only to a small extent. The reason was probably that the police did not have sufficient room to house the prisoners. Later on during the last months of the war possibly the congestion in the traffic system was added complication. More exact statements, however, I cannot make because I had nothing to do with the execution of the return.
This was a matter under the competence of Division V. However, at the time Herr Hecker in Berlin, already in 1944-45 informed me that the police were hesitating very much about taking over the NN prisoners. From the statements of Ludwig Schirmer and Josef Brei, who testified here before the Tribunal on the 4th of June of this year, it is apparent that of the numerous NN prisoners in the two orisons at Ebrahc and Amberg none were returned to the police. I myself made other similar observations during the last week before the collapse in Southern Germany.
Q From the documents submitted by the Prosecution it is apparent that keeping NN prisoners incommunicado was one of the main peculiarities of the NN procedure which was applied from the very beginning. In the opening statement by the Prosecution, among others, you, too, are being charged with having systematically carried out and approved these regulations about keeping the procedure secret. In this connection exhibit 319 is of interest. It contains a circular decree by the Reich Minister of Justice in which several directives are given as to how agencies of the Ministry of Justice are to handle NN cases in order not to endanger the cutting off of NN prisoners from the outside world. What can you say about the origin of this circular decree?
A The circular decree was initialed by reports of the senior public prosecutor in Cologne and Essen. These senior public prosecutors had reported about the difficulties which resulted from the strict regulations about keeping the NN prisoners separate from the put side world, especially when NN prisoners died, and they had made suggestions for overcoming these difficulties. The report of the senior public prosecutor in Cologne is contained in Exhibit 314. In this report the decisive questions arc dealt with under Roman numero III. The report of the senior public prosecutor in Essen was not submitted in this trial here.
THE PRESIDENT: The morning recess --fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q: Before the recess, you answered the question as to the origin of the circular decree which we discussed. Please continue.
A: The circular decree, Exhibit 319, referred to the reports from the Senior Public Prosecutor at Cologne and Essen which he issued for regulating the questions which arose. Herr Mettgenberg has already stated here that decree was worked out by both Referates of departments 3 and 4. I participated in the work on that particular decree, insofar as the competence of my department was affected by drafting the provisions contained in it. Various questions that were settled, in that circular decree, did not affect the competence of department 4 at all. Thus, for example, the question of funerals of NN prisoners who died a natural death while there cases were pending and the question of treating the possessions they left behind was a matter for department 5 to deal with. To that extent only department 5 was responsible for the provisions which had been worked out. As a consequence, apart from my section, there were other sections partly in department 4, and partly in other departments which were competent. The questions which emerged, therefore, had to be dealt with by these various sections cooperating.
Q: What are your comments about the contents of the circular decree in general?
A: By that circular decree the existing provisions concerning secrecy were not made more severe in any way.
The stringent provisions concerning the seclusion of the NN prisoners from the outside world had applied since an NN decree as such had been issued. As far as we were concerned it was a shock from the very beginning that in the case of the death an NN prisoner, the relatives could not be informed. That was true in the case of a natural death, as well as in the case of a death sentence being carried out. We, naturally, were aware of the severity of such a provision, but we did not see any possibility of avoiding it, but as far as that was possible within the scope of the severe provisions we wished to take into account the principles of humanity. We did want to make sure that persons who had been sentenced to death would have spiritual care. We did wish to afford them a possibility not only to leave a private testament but also to make a real testament before a notary or judge. We also wished that NN prisoners who had died should have a proper funeral. That was the purpose of the provisions in the circular decree of the 6 of March 1943.
Q: Please comment on the more important details of that circular decree?
A: The provisions under figures 1, 3 and 5 of the circular decree, I believe speak for themselves. Concerning the other provisions I would like to say this: No. 4 said that farewell letters by NN prisoners were not to be sent out. That was not a new provision but that was the unavoidable consequence of the NN decree. Since the general administration of justice had to deal with NN cases. As early as the first day when the NN provisions had come into force, the department 5, the administration of punishment had issued a provision to the effect that NN prisoners were not allowed any correspondence.