DR. HAENSEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
May I now ask the Tribunal to receive the Schlegelberger affidavit as Exhibit 26 for identification? It is contained in document book II at page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your document 37?
DR. HAENSEL: My document 37.
THE PRESIDENT It will be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Would you now tell us, please, whether you knew of a criminal activity of the SD before the collapse?
A I only knew the SD as an information organization, and all I saw were the situation reports which were passed on the Reich Minister of Justice. That portion of those situation reports which was submitted only to the Reich Minister of Justice, and which bore the headline "Law and Administration", did not contain anything criminal. It constituted a very frank and truthful account of conditions in the Reich.
Q The prosecution, however, has submitted reports about incidents at concentration camps. When they introduced them in evidence on the 9th of May, 1947, the prosecution stated that those documents referred to every defendant in this trial who had been in the SD at any time between the middle of 1942 and 1945. It had been the policy of the Ministry of Justice to transfer of prisons to the concentrations camps. What are your comments on that subject?
A: Well, I remember that passage, as Mr. Wooleyhan read it here, and this is what I have to gay on the matter. The policy of Minister Thierack was unknown to me and, therefore, I was unable to lend it my support. Whether Minister Thierack informed leading officials about his plans is another thing of which I know nothing.. Referents anyhow, I myself were not asked to attend important meetings.
Thierack's agreement with Himmler of 18 September 1942 came to my knowledge for the first time at the court prison in Nurnberg. Neither as a member of the staff at the Reich Ministry of Justice nor as a General Public Prosecutor did I, at orders from the SS, the SD or the Gestapo, at my instructions or with my knowledge, have prisoners transferred from the Administration of Justice. The conditions in the concentration camps, such as the prosecution has described them for the period after 1942, did not come to my knowledge, not via the SD wither.
MR. KING: The Prosecution might raise several questions concerning this document while it is being discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: What document? What exhibit?
MR. KING: Document 37, Exhibit 26 which is on Page 69 of Document Book II. It is the last one which Dr. Haensel referred to. I would like to inquire of Dr. Haensel who Karl Hoffmann is who appears to have taken the certification on that. Karl Hoffmann is unknown to us. Likewise, the affidavit appears deficient in that the affiant Schellenberg is listed, and I quote, "At present in the Palace of Justice".
There is no other identifying home address, no birthday, no way of identifying the individual. If Dr. Haensel can make these things clear to us we will not object to its admission later oh.
If not, however, I think that an objection will be in order.
DR. HAENSEL: Karl Hoffmann is an attorney and represents defendants here in Case I and Case IV. I had asked him at the time when the Schellenberg affidavit was being signed to deputize for me because I was absent, and as an attorney who is admitted here, he has certified the affidavit. As concerns the person of Schellenberg, he has been in Nurnberg for some time and there can be no doubt about his person and his identity.
MR. KING: Is Dr. Haensel saying that the affiant in this case is at present a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail? Is that what you mean by "at present in Nurnberg"?
DR. HAENSEL: I have to admit that I cannot answer the question at the moment, but I shall make inquiries immediately whether Schellenberg is still here. My assistant can find that out at once. The question will be answered within ten minutes. Perhaps we can put back that question until a reply has been received.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Well then, if I may proceed, let us return to your work at the Reich Ministry of Justice. What was your work at your section after the outbreak of the war?
A: When in 1939 Herr von Haacke, at the end of the year, was called up to the armed forces, I worked in the section for military penal matters and I had to deal with that in accordance with certain ordinances concerning military penal law. Minister Guertner continued to give me special commissions. He also used me when Hitler had interfered with the competency of the Administration of Justice. During the days of the outbreak of the war there happened those events which have been described here as Hitler having corrected sentences and where the Administration of Justice was by-passed.
Minister Guertner in many cases made use of my services to have changes made.
Q: What was your connection with Hitler's orders to the police? I am now talking about the document which you have before you, Exhibit 284, Volume 7-A, Page 116.
A: Minister Guertner saw in the press that people had been shot dead while trying to escape or offering resistance. At the orders of Minister Guertner I found out that the penal authorities of the Administration of Justice did not have any cases pending with them. Guertner, therefore, requested me to find out from the chief of the German police what happened. I was told that Hitler had given orders and that the reports in the press had been formulated by Hitler in person. The police did carry out all orders from Hitler unconditionally. The Minister of Justice could make further representations with Hitler. More reports of that nature appeared in the press. Guertner requested the chief of the penal department to collect those cases. He passed on that order to me and I did as I had been told.
Boon reports came in that people had been shot dead, people who had been sentenced to prison terms which Hitler considered too lenient. At the immediate order of Hitler these persons who had been sentenced to prison terms had been transferred to the Gestapo. Minister Guertner registered complaints with Himmler and Hitler. As a result he was informed whenever Hitler issued orders of that kind to the police. The procedure adopted by the Ministry of Justice and its efforts through Minister Meissner and Minister Lammers to have such orders by Hitler cancelled have been discussed here in detail.
My work was to extend with the police, the 24-hour limit which was set every time, to procure the necessary documents of a complaint of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and to make contact with various agencies on order of the Minister. I also made reports which contained complaints to Hitler via the RSHA to the field command post of the chief of the German police.
Q: How was it that Schaub, Hitler's Adjutant, rang you up?
A: When at the end of 1939, I heard of an order to transfer a juvenile sexual offender and when I heard that Hitler was in Berlin, I went to see Adjutant Schaub to ask him to make Hitler change his mind. Schaub refused to do so. I wrote him a letter explaining the facts. I went to see him for a second time and handed him my letter. Hitler did not insist on his order being carried out. The juvenile sexual criminal was saved. That visit to Schaub may have been the reason for Schaub, in the subsequent period, ringing me up a few times when he could not get on to anybody at the Ministry at night. I made use of all opportunities to support Guertner's and Schlegelberger's efforts to have Hitler's orders cancelled. The exact notes as is evident from Document NG-190, were made at the express wish of Minister Guertner.
Perhaps I may tell you roughly what Minister Guertner told me at the time. He said: "I do not wish to take responsibility before Germany and the world public if Hitler issues such orders."
Q. In the course of my efforts to procure documents I came across the chief of an office at the Ministry of Justice, Herr Girod, who still lives in Berlin now. He is not able to go on a trip because he has suffered a stroke. I am submitting an affidavit by Girod for identification as Exhibit 27. It appears on page 55 in my document book. It's my document 33.
Do you still remember Girod?
A. Yes, I do. He was the Chief of an office at the Reich Ministry of Justice who had this very portion of the files in his custory.
Q. Did Girod got only discuss these matters with you, but was he also able to have insight into these files?
A. Girod knows the files and he formed his opinion about the steps which the Reich Ministry of Justice took in these matters by reading the files.
Q. Is your recollection the same as that of Herr Girod who says that in the files there are contained complaints by the Gestapo and admonitions which concern the non-execution of transfer orders to the Gestapo?
A. Yes, I remember that. Those complaints by the Gestapo came about in this manner. The immediate order went from Hitler to the Chief of the German Police. The notification was passed on to the Minister of Justice. It happened very frequently that the police received such an order considerably earlier from the headquarters than it reached the Ministry of Justice. In such cases, inquiries and complaints from the police were made because they felt themselves impeded in carrying out Hilter's orders.
Before I proceed, I should like to tell the Tribunal, in answer to its question, that Schellenberg is still in the prison here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has indicated previously that, where a witness is presently available in Nurnberg, that it's very much more desirable to have his verbal examination than to receive the affidavit. That's particularly true in view of the fact that, if the affidavit is used, the opposing side is entitled to call him for crossexamination. Consequently, it aids the court much more to have the entire examination in open court.
I was referring to the Schellenberg affidavit.
You may proceed.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. You have mentioned the Elias case which occurred at Prague, and you said that on account of that you caused Heydrich's displeasure I will show you Exhibit 480 which is contained in the Prosecution's volume 3, Supplement A, and I ask you to comment on it. 480.
A. That matter has been discussed here several times. Undersecretary Freisler had sent me to Prague in connection with Hitler's order that court files were to be handed over to the Reich Protector, when a State of emergency had been declared. Heydrich had persuaded Hitler when an emergency state was declared in Bohemia and Moravia to have all penal cases pending with the Reich Prosecution and other cases pending with the Prosecution offices dealt with by the Summary Police Courts (Polizeistandgerichte). I considered it my duty to see to it that these cases were left with the Prosecution of the administration of justice. I succeeded in doing so as far as cases of the Reich Prosecution were concerned with the exception of the two penal cases - the Elias and Klapka cases. Concerning those two cases, Heydrich and Thierack, behind the back of the Minister of Justice, had entered into agreements which were binding. The majority of the eases pending before the Public Prosecution, too, could be obtained again and they were not submitted to the Summary Police Courts (Polizeistandgerichte).
Q. You say the same that Lautz said in his testimony on the 24th of July.
We have spoken of special missions and of special treatment with which you dealt after the outbreak of war. Now, we have to discuss the section in which you worked - your referat. I'm showing you Exhibit 99 of the prosecution. It is contained in Document Book I-B. The scope of your section is evident from this document. Did that arrangement remain in force?
A. Document #99 contains the arrangement as it was made at the outbreak of war. It shows that a number of new facts concerning the war time penal laws were to be dealt with by a special section.
Q. Documents will best give information on this subject. For purposes of identification I submit Exhibit 28 which contains extracts from the Reich Legal Gazette, in volume 2, Page 23 and following pages. It is my Document 26. It contains a copy of the Reich War Economic Decree and also a copy of the law against public enemies.
THE PRESIDENT: That's your Document 28, is it?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it is 28. It also contains the executive orders and the decree against violent criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 28 and it's your Document 28, is that not correct?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, Your Honor. It just happens to be like that -- the two figures are identical.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Following, I submit for identification as Exhibit 29 on page 30 in document book 2, extracts from a German Legal Periodical "- Deutsche Rechtszeitschrift". This document supplements the former documents and speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Identify it first. Your identification number, book and page.
DR. HAENSEL: 29, book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the decision of the District Court.
DR. HAENSEL: Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Document 29 appears to be a decision of the District Court of Appeals.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're talking about your Document 39, then.
DR. HAENSEL: No, no, Your Honor. 29. The heading is "Extracts from "Deutsche Rechtszeitschrift" - German Legal Periodical." Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: So far, we don't find it yet. 29 is the decision of the District Court. It looks like page 50 to me.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it's a verdict passed by the District Court of Appeals at Kiel. It was passed by the Penal Senate of the District Court of Appeals at Kiel.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I was inquiring. Then, your Document 29 is to be marked for identification Exhibit 29.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 30 BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Yes.
What functions and what authority did you have as a referent?
A. The duty of the referent was to supervise a uniform application of the law and, if necessary, to make suggestions for rectifying errors and to pass on orders by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Public Prosecution.
Q. Do you remember , concerning the responsibility and the authority of a referent, were the provisions regulating that laid down in the law?
A. Yes, I do remember that. The authority of a referent is laid down in Article 52 of the Reich Ministry of Justice regulations.
Q. It seems advisable for me to submit these regulations as a, document. They are contained in Document Book 1, my Document 1, The text is contained on page 2, the exhibit number is 30. This document contains the provisions, according to which the referent is to work and it also contains the provisions which says:
"If a unanimous opinion does not prevail among the officials designated in Paragraph 1, their responsibility is restricted to the correct wording of the draft. At the most they arc free to note on the documents that they are of a different opinion."
This is evident from the Exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Let is be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: I also submit, in connection with the position of a Referent, an explanatorz affidavit. This is given by Albert Huppersckwiller. It is Exhibit 31 and it appears on page 51 of my Document book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The Exhibit will be marked for indentification.
DR. HAENSEL: Would you please tell us briefly the difference in the case of a Refernt between the right ti sign and to make decisions. The Referent was entitled to make a suggestion. It was the duty of a Referent to draft such decisions also which did not correspond with his point of view, bu which were contradictory to his suggestion. Therefore, he had no right to make a decision; is that the way things were actually handled in your section?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. The Prosecution has submitted several documents against you documents of which you have taken note. Were you under any obligation to dear with those matters or did you exorcise any function in connection with those matters? I will show you Prosecution Exhibit 376 from Volume 5-B and 377 from Volume 5-B?
A. These are to documents where I merely took note of the matters concerned.
I the one case, Exhibit 376, 64 officials who within the Reich Ministry of Justice dealt with penal matters saw the documents and my initials appear among them. The next document NO. 377 shows that I, with a few other officials had that document submitted to me for information. When I had such documents passed to for my information, I did not exercise any work function, nor was I under any obligation to do so. I merely took note and any other section was competent for dealing with the matter.
Q. Concerning the war economic section, we will refer to that later, The Prosecution has submitted a document exhibit 353 volume 5-A according to which on 22 February 1940 you had voted in favour of exercising clemency in the case of person who had been sentenced to death and who evidently was an American citizen.
Please Comment on that.
A. The document concerns opinion given by experts of the penal department of the Reich Ministry of Justice and on the Chief of that Department, Which with an ordinance of 30 April, 1940 signed by Public Prosecutor Dr. Gugler, were submitted to under Secretary Freisler. In the case of a person, who had been convicted and who was a citizen of the United States, I, on page 12 of the document, in consideration of that fact suggested that clemency be exercised.
Temporarily I was employed on preparing clemency pleas in connection with death sentences to lend support to section which normally dealt with clemency pleas in death sentences. If I regarded the deed as deserving the death sentence, as a matter of principle, I did so because it was in connection with the killing of thousands of Germans who in the former German provinces which under the Versailles Treaty had been given to Poland, had been killed at the beginning of the war. I am referring to the incidents which are will known to the Public as the Bromberg bloody Sunday. The date was 3 September 1939,
Q. The Prosecution ha.s submitted a report list according to which you dealt with death sentences from the incorporated eastern territories during the tine from 10 September, 1942 until 17 April, 1943, and made reports on them.
I am referring to Exhibit 280, Volume VII-A. Please comment on this.
A. These are death sentences which were passed on Germans whose crimes had been dealt with in my section and where I, as in the case I described before, dealt with the clemency in order to receive the two section which normally dealt with these clemency pleas.
Q. There were no Poles among the persons who has been convicted; were there?
A. There couldn't be any Poles among them because by the decree of 28 May 1942. Hitler had instructed the Minister of Justice concerning the clemency right in cases of Poles and Jews to transfer them to the Reichsstatthalter, and the presidents of the provinces of East Prussia, West Prussia, Varsig and upper Silesia.
Q. Please will you tell us whether this decree, it is Exhibit No. 356, Volume V-B, submitted by the Prosecution, page 148- please will you tell whether that is the decree of which you have spolen.
A.. Yes, it is; that is the decree of the Feich Minister of Justice of 26 May 1942. It concerns the transfer of the clemency right over Poles and Jews.
Q. After March, 1943 did you further deal with matters concerning death sentences?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, DR. Haensel. It will be necessary for us to take our fifteen minutes recess at this time. The film is running out.
(A recess was takes)
(After recess)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. he were just discussing the Work distribution plan of the year 1943. Exhibit 510. You have the document before you?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in a position to give an instruction independently to a general public prosecutor to have the demand made for the death penalty?
A. Counsel you first asked me whether after 1943 I had anything to do with the matter of death sentences. To that question, I answer "No", and I believe that first I have to refer to page 25 of the document where we can see the name cf the referents who from March 1943 on, had exclusively to handle matters of death sentences.
I come now to your question as to whether a referent in the Ministry could give instructions to a genera prosecutor to ask for the death sentence. He could not do that.
THE PRESIDENT: May we interrupt you? has your reference to exhibit 510?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 510.
THE WITNESS: The exhibit 510 is the Work Distribution plan.
DR. HAENSEL: That is the large document, your Honor, and from that work distribution plan we can draw conclusions for cur case, those conclusions which the witness has just come to.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Now the witness also answered the question, that he could not give any instructions to demand the death sentence, but who alone could give it, witness?
A. Such instructions could only come from the Chief of the Penal Department, the under-secretary or the Minister, because in case the death sentence would be passed, that Base, through the same channels, had to be referred back to the Ministry cf Justice for the decision on the clemency question.
Q. The Prosecution submitted the report cf the Senior Public Prosecutor cf Stuttgart of the 3rd cf May '41, which was received at the Ministry cf Justice and which hears the remark and I quote, "Attention Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Joel." It is Exhibit 191, from Document Book cf the Prosecution Book No. III.
What did you have to do in such a case?
A. In a case cf this kind, where the report from the Senior Prosecutor of Stuttgart, of the 3rd of May '41, was directed to the Reich Minister of Justice, but marked for my attention, that was apparently done in order to speed it up. In the same manner as every other prosecutor I had to examine whether I was competent to deal with the case whether the law permitted the demand for the death sentence in this case, and whether the facts as described in the report justified such a demand.
If I had to answer these questions in the affirmative, then it was my duty to submit that report to the Chief of the Department, and to the referent, who had to deal with the clemency question in case the anticipated death sentence was passed.
If I answered these questions in the negative, that is to say if I thought that the Senior Public Prosecutor could not suggest that the death sentence be asked for then I had to report to the Chief cf the department, because in that case, contrary to the suggestion made by the Senior Public Prosecutor, a directive had to be issued that the demand as intended was not approved.
Q. In Document Book I, supplement, which you have before you, in addition to the document we just discussed, 510, you also find Exhibit 464. Did you find it?
A. Yes.
Q. It concerns only routine matters. Can you say anything about that briefly?
A. That document was already discussed by Ministerialdirigent Mettgenberg, and I believe I do not have anything to add to that. It goes without saying that when the referent who had nothing to do with the matter was called into the matter, he informed the referent who was really competent about it.
Q. Now I should like to put some questions to you concerning your activity in the section for War Economy. Did all cases, from all over the Reich, come to your attention?
A. No, of course it was not possible that all cases from all Over the Reich came to me. The local prosecutions reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice only on such cases where there was any doubt from the legal point of view, or in cases that were significant from any other point of view and these again outside in carrying them out.
Q. Would you please mention some cases to me which have aroused the attention of the general public throughout the whole world?
A. I do not know whether there are any cases which were significant enough or not to arouse the attention of the entire world, but I know of some cases which aroused considerable attention in Germany, and I should like to mention three of these. The case of Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener, which was tried before the Special Court at Cologne; then the penal case against the Chief of the NSV, SS Standartenfuehrer Janowski which was tried at Kiel, and the criminal case against the Gau officer Machler in Berlin, which was tried in Berlin. These cases presented in my recollection the greatest difficulties, and on account of the two last mentioned cases I had to justify myself before Minister Goebbels.
Q. How was that matter concerning Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener?
A. Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener of the NSDAP was in his profession the chief of a consumer cooperative, in the district of Aachen. He had diverted carloads of rationed foodstuffs to friends Of his within the Party.
The Gauleiter at Cologne tried to prevent the proceedings. I intervened personally. Schoener was sentenced to death, and the sentence was executed.
DR. HAENSEL: I endeavored to get the files of the prosecution at Cologne against the last mentioned Schoener, but it was not possible. Therefore I have to apply the same method that I have previously applied in cases where I am unable to submit original documents although I have tried and I have to submit affidavits instead. Concerning the Janowski case, I refer to the affidavit by Hoeller, for which exhibit number 21 was reserved.
Furthermore, I submit for identification from my Document Book No 3, my Document No. 54 as Exhibit 32. It is to be found on page 30. Affidavit of former General Public Prosecutor Kranberg. It deals, among other matters also, with the Janowski case.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: And for another case, the case of Maehler, I submit for identification the affidavit by Ried, for exhibit No. 33. It is to be found in my Document Book No. 2, on page 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Your document 34?
DR. HANESEL: Yes, 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 33.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 33. Concerning the Maehler case, in particular witness, do you still remember whether the serious embezzlement of Maehler's was concerned mainly with the property of a French citizen in the occupied territory?
A Yes. Maehler was the Chief of the Gauamt at the Gauleitung of Berlin, and he had committed serious cases of embezzlement also to the disadvantage of a French citizen.
DR. HAENSEL: I believe that these examples will suffice to afford the Tribunal an impression of the work of Joel at the section concerning war economy.
Q I should now like to ask you to comment on various other documents concerning your term of office at the Ministry of Justice. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 444, which is in Volume IV, Supplement. It is schedule for reports. According to the listing in the index it charges you in connection with the transfer of prisoners to the Gestapo. Would you please comment on the various notes concerning the reports? Exhibit 444.
A Yes. First I want to comment on two notes on the reports which belong together. It is here in the German book on page 2. There is a remarks "Transfer of Poles to the gestapo; cases of Partisinski and Marschiniak." That is a report of 19 November 1942. Then another remark: "Partisinski, a Pole, is to be transferred to the Gestapo from his prison where he is serving a term; Marschiniak, a Pole, wanted to marry in France, etc. of 17 December 1942." That is on page 5. These cases go together.
These are individual cases where, for reasons of conflict which had arisen with the police, I became active as the liaison man with the police. In both cases the notes show that we had succeeded in retaining the competency of the Administration of Justice over these cases.
Partisinski had a three-year prison term; Marschiniak had been brought into the prison for investigation pending trial. During the first report to the Minister, the Department Chief, as well as myself, refused to turn these people over, and we were successful.
The notation on page 3 of that list states, and I quote: "JoelMielke: Negotiations concerning Poles and Jews; as well as Russians internal directive by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Result: The General Referat is dealing with a general directive by the Reichsfuehrer SS which goes beyond the individual case and which probably provided for transfer."
Also, the note of 17 December on page 4 of my German Document Book, under the figure "1", and I quote: "Mielke-Grau, negotiations dealing with foreign workers."
That seems to indicate that the general handling of such matters was in the hands of the General Referent and the Department for Legislation. Apparently, because of the fact that a general directive was expected, a second report was made. That was on the 19th of December. Also on the occasion of that second report, I together with the Department Chief, opposed the turning over of the prisoners who were in the hands of the Administration of Justice, because punishable acts had been committed and the Administration of Justice was doubtlessly competent. As far as I can remember, Thierack did not make any decision bout these cases. Whether later on, in individual cases of that kind, shortly before the criminal prosecution of the Eastern workers was turned over to the police entirely, he ceded the competency of the Administration of Justice, I cannot tell. The Penal Department and I, as long as we had to deal with individual cases of that nature, always refused to turn them over.
In the case of Marschiniak, who wanted to marry a German servant girl in France, that fact was entered on the list in order to distinguish the case. There were certain rules of behavior which were in force for the Poles within the area of the Reich, they had taken notice of them and had signed for the fact that they had taken notice of these rules.
If it was explained here that the marriage was in fact to come about, one would not have considered the sexual relations as illegal or punishable.
In general, I have to say this about the work that I did as a liaison man with the police: Under Guertner and Schlegelberger, the prosecutions were directed, in every case where a punishable act was committed, to refuse to turn over such individuals to the gestapo and to make a report to the Ministry. That was how such individual cases were brought to my attention, via the individual competent Referents. I was included in the process ay a liaison man, and until 1942 I always succeed with the RSHA that they refrained from demanding the turning over of these individuals. After Thierack came into office I was no longer handling such assignments, because, as I know today, as early as 18 December 1942 Thierack had turned over to the police the criminal prosecution of such individuals.
Q I refer to document Exhibit 40, which is to be found in Volume I-B of the documents submitted by the Prosecution. You have it before you now. It contains the minutes of a conference of the Senior Prosecutors of the area of the District Court of Appeal at Cologne from 18 July 1942. That was after a meeting at Berlin of the chief officials of the 30th of June and the 1st of July 1942. Reference is made to a directive from the Ministry of Justice to the effect that Russians and Poles who had committed a criminal offense were to be sentenced by the courts. Would you please continue commenting on the notations on that report list concerning clemency matters in connection with death sentences because of illegal possession of firearms?
A On page 5 of that report list there is a notation concerning a report, which reads as follows:
"Is it necessary, during the war, to report concerning clemency questions in cases of Poles who had been sentenced to death for illegal possession of arms and whose sentence has been commuted to five years in a penitentiary, with the possibility of a revision after 2-3 years?"
In connection with that I wish to say the following:
Most of the death sentences for illegal possession of arms were not executed during the time of Minister Guertner and Undersecretary Schlegelberger, but, by way of clemency pleas, were commuted to five years in the penitentiary. Beyond that, Guertner was of the opinion that serving a term of two to three years was sufficient. However, he did not want to reduce the value of the deterrent inherent in the death sentence right away by commuting to penitentiary sentences too extensively. Therefore, he commuted the death sentences to sentences of five years in the penitentiary, and had a notation made by the Penal Department that after two to three years were served, pardon should be granted. At the end of 1942, therefore, I submitted cases of that kind, because the terms had been served. Since the Chief of the Penal Department was not willing to decide these matters on his own, a report was scheduled for the newly appointed Minister Thierack.