A Page 3? Where is that supposed to begin?
Q In the middle of the second paragraph. Can you explain that?
A Mention is made of Stegmann, Sosnowski -- I had nothing to do with that. That is on page 2.
Q. I am referring to page 3.
A Oh, here it is. The paragraph begins with the words, "In the years 1936-1937 -- " Do you want me to read that?
Q No, I am merely asking you if in the middle of that paragraph it appears that you denied the defense any witnesses because they had not been approved by Gauleiter Streicher? Does that appear here?
A Well, I have to read that first if I am to affirm that. I want to say the following in connection with this. The way the facts are described here does not constitute that in this letter. When that trial had started, I had started to work in Nurnberg hardly four weeks before. I had not the least relations with anybody in the Party, and that case Stegmann, which was not tried by the Special Court but by the Penal Chamber, was conducted by me with an extraordinary care and thoroughness, which was also expressed to me by Ludwig at that time. I remember very well that Ludwig made the attempt, which was considered among attorneys to be somewhat clumsy, with the purpose of giving sufficient reasons from the outset for a revision of the sentence, to submit to me 20 to 30 pages of a motion for evidence containing a long list of names of witnesses. The files were very extensive but I had studied them so carefully that I had sufficient knowledge to be in a position, when I received that motion for evidence with the large number of witnesses, to refuse the witnesses, giving the reasons which satisfied the Reich Supreme Court.
It is of importance in that connection to note that against that sentence by the Penal Chamber, a review was ordered, in fact, that the deadline set for reasons to be given for the review was extended. I remember very precisely today that Ludwig wrote to Stegmann that the opinion together with the transcript were submitted by him to a lawyer in Berlin who had a great deal of experience in that field, but he had to inform Stegmann that unfortunately it was not possible to find the least evidence in the sentence or in the opinion which would justify attacking it for the purpose of review.
As for the witnesses which Ludwig mentioned here as not having been heard because some sort of permission had not been given, I have to say that I had nothing to do with these witnesses and did not have to make any decision about them. If Ludwig at the time believed that he had to have these witnesses, then he should have gotten in touch with the officials who had to make these decisions -- but not I. Moreover, the verdict against Stegmann shows beyond doubt that all of these witnesses could not possibly be of any importance and that the sentence was based on very simple facts, and anything beyond that would just have been the usual political ballyhoo. At any rate, in the case Stegmann, concerning the matter of witnesses, I had nothing at all to do with Streicher. I wish that the files of the Stegmann case be submitted and everything else will be seen from the files.
Q The prosecution offers as Exhibit 558, for identification only, the Ludwig affidavit, which has just been discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the NG number?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We will notify you of that, Your Honor, when it's assigned. The number has not been assigned.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification only at this time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Rothaug, in connection with your judicial activity in combatting Anti-Semitism, you gratuitously cited the case Deeg. Deeg had been the author of this Anti-Semitism book appearing shortly before the war and had been a protege of Stretcher.
You described your conducting the trial of Deeg as having been given the broadest publicity. I hand you a file.
(Witness is offered the file.)
DR. KOESSL: One moment, please. May it please the Court, I object to these files being used here. They were approved for me on the 8th of July by the Tribunal. The prosecution refused to give me the files, stating as the reason that they didn't have them. Therefore, the witness could only make his statements concerning the case from memory. At any rate, the files were refused to me and the reason stated was that they were not there, although they were approved for me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, my analyst tells me that this file was found last Thursday afternoon, to his best knowledge and belief In' any event, the case was mentioned on direct testimony and not in the prosecution's case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may examine the file. Thereafter, his counsel may examine it.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Will you describe, Dr. Rothaug, the way you tried Deeg. You said that he, in his trial, had been given the broadest publicity. I ask you to turn to the reverse side of page 85 in that file -85 on the reverse side. Do you find there a declaration that the public was excluded from that trial with the exception of certain high party officials; for example, Kreisleiter Zimmerman, and Elkar, Chief of the Nurnberg SD? Is that true?
A Yes.
Q Then I assume by Kreisleiter Zimmerman and SD man Elkar, with all the rest of the public excluded, you conceive that to be the broadest publicity of trial, do you?
A Yes, that was an error on my part. That is correct. I see it here, from the decision, that the public was excluded at that time. I had stated that the public was admitted and was present, and based myself -- many years have passed since that case -- on the assumption that we had no reason why Deep or the people around "The Stuermar", in any way, should be protected. In fact, that in itself was not the reason why the public was excluded, but as I remember now after having had a look at the files, we were concerned to protect the interests of the Red Cross as can be seen clearly from the judgment....
Q (Interrupting) Yes, Dr. Rothaug, let's not go over that again. You explained that in detail last week.
I merely asked you if you found the material in the file, and you said that you did. Now.....
A (interrupting) But that was a new element.
Q If that was a new element, Dr. Rothaug, I'm sure your defense counsel can bring it out. Will you please answer my questions.
You further said that Deeg had been sentenced, for fraud, to a considerable prison term of one and a half to two years of prison and that nothing was done later to alter the sentence. Please turn to page 95 and the reverse side of 95 in the file. Do you find there that fraud was not prov en and that Deeg was sentenced to five months of prison, with the deduction of one month of detention and that he was fined 10,000 Reichsmarks of which installments were granted later by way of clemency? Do you find that there?
A Yes.
Q All right, that's all.
Now, with regard to your going to Berlin as a member of the Defendant Lautz' office in the prosecution at the People's Court, you stated that you first took office in Berlin on the 1st of May, 1943, and that, as the defendant Lautz has already stated, you were placed in charge of the prosecution section for high treason.
You further said that your territory was extended to the Altreich, together with Austria. I assume then that you investigated and prepared indictments for the prosecution of Austrians who were charged with high treason against the German Reich. Is that correct?
A Yes, if Austria was part of my department. Yes, if that was so. I can't say that with absolute certainty.
Q Now, on the 19th of August you stated that the foreigners working here in Germany were, to the German state, not in any relationship of loyalty. Moreover, you stated, as far as those foreigners' views were concerned, they came from another world and. were subject to an opposite propaganda. May I ask you if you felt the same way as I have just stated about Austrians? Does that statement of yours about loyalty, in your opinion, apply equally to Austrians?
A The Austrian was a German, and not a foreigner. One also has to take into consideration the period when these cases were pending. As far as we were concerned, at the Special Court, at any rate, it was an accepted principle that all Foreigners, and an Austrian was not a foreigner after Austria had been reincorporated, had to be dealt with more leniently than citizens because that relation of loyalty did not exist and the man came from another world. However, there was no cause to assume that same point of view toward, the Austrian who, if one considered the time of 1943, had already been inside the Reich for five years.
Q May it please the Court, I invite the Tribunal's attention, by way of judicial notice, to pages 16831 and 16832 of the Final Judgment of the International Military Tribunal which finds, in substance, that Austria was added to the Reich pursuant to open acts of aggression?
Now, on the 1st of January, 1944, Dr. Rothaug, you transferred, as you say, to the division in Lautz' office concerned with undermining defensive morale (Wehrkraftzersetzung). You were entrusted with these cases from 1944, in January, until the end of the war.
Did those cases likewise include prosecution of Austrian nationals for undermining the power of the German people to fight?
A Yes.
Q Now, Dr. Rothaug, in discussing the affidavit and testimony of the witness Kern, Exhibit 232. Kern had charged that you rejected notions of the defense for evidence and often relied solely upon Gestapo interrogations pre-trial. You repudiated that, and you denied that, in your court, Gestapo or police reports were used to the exclusion of testimony. I am quoting from your statement the other day when you said that "Only testimony of witnesses and experts was used by the Special Court to support a decision."
I show you a file. Does it appear that that is the official case file of the Nurnberg Special Court involving the defendant Rose Heubeck and her son?
THE PRESIDENT: How do you spell that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: H E U B E C K, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
A This is the file against Heubeck, yes. That came to us. It has the file mark SG 224/41.
Q Does it appear on the first page that a seventy-year old former nurse denounced Mrs. Heubeck to the Gestapo for having said the following: "That her son, on his arrival at Dachau concentration camp, received twenty--five strokes with a sharpened cudgel at the buttocks so that he had lost blood. Once he had also been hanged on a pole. In the camp yard, a machine gun was placed from which he had received a shot in the leg while passing by. Further, his teeth had been knocked out. Frequently, he had received so hard blows that he had lost blood and his whole body had been bruised.
That the two hundred Jews, located, in the Camp, had to stand in the open in great cold until their feet had turned rotten."?
A Yes, yes, that is so.
Q Does it further appear, on page 13v, that, before indicting the mother and her son for spreading this story, that the prosecutor a.t the Nurnberg Special Court requested the Gestapo to secure more evidence on this matter?
A Yes, there is an order to the Secret State Police, the Gestapo, of the 23rd of May, 1941, to the effect: "Since, for the conviction of the defendant, the proof of the incorrectness of these statements is required, I ask for thorough investigations concerning the question as to whether the statements made by the defendant are untrue."
Q And does it further appear from that, Dr. Rothaug, that, aside from an interrogation of the boy Heubeck in Mauthausen concentration camp by the Gestapo, that, up until the time that this prosecutor made that request, there was no other evidence?
A No. What I have here, on page 14, says that the Gestapo had transferred, the files to the management of the concentration camp Dachau for the purpose of receiving a report from there, and on 16 June 1941 it is reported that the statements made by Keubeck are untrue as far as they concerned the concentration camp of Dachau and that was proved by the statements he had made during the interrogation in Mauthausen. Now, the files are passed on to the concentration camp Mauthausen on the 16th of June 1941.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Rothaug, on that 16th of June, 1941, the statement you just read to the effect that the boy's allegations were untrue about camp conditions because they were proven otherwise by his interrogation at Mauthausen, it appears therefrom that there was no other evidence in the case thus far, doesn't it?
A Yes, on the 21st of June, 1941, the statement is made, as we see here:
"My interrogation on the 17th of June 1941 is according to the truth of the statements made during that interrogation, and I stand today to the statements which I have made. Neither today, nor at the time I was first interrogated, I was put under any duress and I have said everything which I said according to the truth and on my own free will."
Q And that interrogation was made by the Gestapo, is that correct?
A Yes, that was carried out by the Gestapo because it says here: "Krininaloderassistent (Senior Criminal Inspector) Lauenstein."
Q Now, Dr. Rothaug, on the back side of page 15 of the file do you find an answering letter to the prosecution at the Nurnberg Special Count from the concentration camp Dachau, dated 5 July 1941?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A There is a communication of the 5th of July, 1941.
Q What does it say?
AAnd it says that "the files were returned to the Gestapo at Nurnberg as Heubeck says himself that during the first stay in this camp he was punished for violating the rules of the camp and he was punished twice. Further statements about mistreatments are untrue. Such ill treatments did not occur in this camp."
Q Does it appear, on page 60 to 62, that you, as presiding judge, convicted this woman and sentenced her to two years' imprisonment?
A On what Page is that supposed to be found?
Q 60 to 62.
A I want to state that not I was the presiding judge in that case, but Director of the District Court Oeschey, on the 24th........
Q (Interrupting) On the 26th of January, 1942, on page 62........
A (interrupting) That is a transcript of the 24th of September, 1941. A session took place then which ended with the sentencing of Heubeck, George. There is a sentence here and an opinion and you wanted to refer to another........
Q (interrupting) Which one did you sentence? The son or the mother?
A That's what I'm looking for. Maybe you could tell me the page again. Oh, yes, here it is, here it is. That is the second sentence on the 26th of January, 1942, when I was presiding judge, and that was two years in prison.
Q Now, can you show or find anything in that file, other than the self-serving letter from Dachau concentration camp and the Gestapo interrogation, which contradicts the truth of the brutalities alleged by the defendant and his mother?
A Well, without studying that file carefully, today, years after the affair, I could not answer that so easily. That is quite impossible.
Q Do you find, on page 65, twelfth line from the bottom, the following excerpt from your opinion: "With her tales, the defendant stated Court No, III, Case No. 3.untrue facts.
She wanted, with them, to impair the concentration camp as an institution of the National Socialist Reich by stating then would be carried out cruel and sadistic maltreatments."? Do you find that sentence in there?
A "With her tales the defendant made untrue statements of facts."
Q Yes, I see you find that there apparently. Now, so far as you remember, was any evidence introduced to convict that woman or her sen ether than the Gestapo interrogation and the letter from the commandant at the concentration camp?
A You are overlooking that the case against the son had been before that, and that the findings of that case against the son, of course, could be and were permitted to be taken into consideration in this case.
Q Did you think, at the time, that the case against the son was founded on any more evidence than we have just described?
A I am telling you that the case against the son had been before this case and that it was possible to come to these conclusions. I don't know what the son stated in the previous case. Maybe he admitted that his first statements were wrong. Then, I don't have to put any weight on the Gestapo report in matters of that kind. Quite apart from that - but that is only a theoretical statement on my part by which I do not want to state anything by way of facts - these camp commands were considered establishments of the state from which information could be received just as one would make inquiries to the personnel administration or the ........
Q (Interrupting) May I ask you a hypothetical question? If you assume that you are trying a man for making malicious remarks about the state and Party and for having spread stories of how he was mistreated in a concentration camp, if you were trying such a man, would you consider it competent evidence alone to convict him that the camp commander had told you, by letter, that no abuses occurred in his camp?
A In general, and that, I believe, is what really counts, we that is, the people in our sphere of work - never even thought it possible Court No. III, Cese No. 3.that, in these camps, sadistic acts or tortures were carried out.
This is not the only case which was important in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rothaug, your answer doesn't touch the question which was asked you at all. Your answer doesn't affect the question which was asked you at all.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Quite apart from what you thought........
THE WITNESS: It does touch the question because there are also facts which are considered public knowledge or convictions which can be considered as known to the courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the question again.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Dr. Pothaug, did you consider a letter written to you by the commander of a concentration camp, denying that any abuses took place in his camp, as competent evidence, barring any other showing, to convict a man of stating that there were such abuses?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what counts. What counts is how the...
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting) Just a minute. The question is, would you consider such a letter competent evidence on the trial of the person who had made charges that abuses occurred? I don't understand your answer yet. Would it be competent evidence, in your view? This letter from the camp commander.
THE WITNESS: That question cannot be answered by "yes" or "no". It depends on the circumstances of the case. I cannot say that I considered information which I received true or untrue, but I do not believe that that letter was at all introduced in evidence in that trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is not whether it was introduced. The question is, whether such a letter would be considered by you, in your procedure and your practice, to be evidence which should be considered by the court? Now, if you can't answer that "yes" or "no" the Tribunal would be very much surprised in view of your high degree of mentality.
THE WITNESS: That letter could not be used in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. There is your answer.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q That being the case, Dr. Rothaug, how do you explain how either Mrs. Heubeck or her son was convicted by the Nurnberg special court ?
A For me, it was decisive in this case what the son, during the first trial, his trial, had stated himself before the special court in Nurnberg. I am referring to the judgment of the 24th of September, 1941. That verdict was legally admissible in evidence in the new trial and that sentence was introduced in the new trial, as can be seen from the transcript of the 26th of January, 1942, by being read.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it was a new trial? Was the first trial of the son only?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the second trial of the mother only?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President. There were two separate trials and the result of the first trial, as far as it was contained in the opinion, could be used in evidence in the other trial, and that apparently was done.
MP. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the prosecution, without further discussion, offers extracts from the Heubeck Case, for identification only, as Exhibit 559, NG number to be assigned when offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Pothaug, if a German national committed the same acts as that Pole, Lopata, did, he would be tried under the German Code of Criminal Procedure for simple assault by act, under Section 185, would he not?
A No, one could not say that. It depends on the circumstances of the case.
Q I'm giving you the circumstances of the case. They are precisely the same as the Lopata case, except the defendant is a German national. Would he or would he not be tried for simple assault, under Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No, if he took advantage of the war time conditions, then, also in this case, the more severe regulation could be applied.
Q Could be applied, you say. That is personal conviction, because is it not true that, at the first trial of Lopata, he was tried for simple assault and sentenced to two years like any other German national, and that you later made up your mind that that had some relation to the war effort and you tried him over again and you sentenced him to death? In brief, isn't that the situation?
A Well, it is overlooked that that opinion was not mine, but it was based on a principle which the Reich Supreme Court had evolved and which gave pause for the new trial.
Q Now, are you saying then that what the Reich Supreme Court said was binding upon you in this case?
A The legal principle, as such, was binding, yes.
Q Well, if that is the case, apparently the Reich Supreme Court was in a more authoritative position than the Reich administration of Justice because, in the Grasser Case, you ignored a directive of the Reich Ministry of Justice to try Grasser for malicious acts, and sentenced him to death as a public enemy. Now, if you ignore a directive of the Ministry of Justice, why then are you bound by the findings of a court which is under the jurisdiction of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A: That is quite clear. The Reich Ministry of Justice, according to paragraph 1 of the Judicar Act, cannot give any instructions to me as a judge; whereas the Supreme Court of the German Reich, that is according to the law -- I could not quote the article at the moment -- specifically had authority to instruct me that in this case the following legal principle has to be applied, and too in evaluating the facts I had to apply it. I was not forced to establish different facts or different circumstances, but I was only directed to examine the question to apply certain legal principles which myself I could not modify.
Q: What did the Reich Supreme Court direct you to do, did they direct you to try that case over and sentence the man to death, or did they direct you to try that case over and find a heavier sentence, which one was it?
A: It was very simple. Of course, the Reich Supreme Court could not pass the decision to the effect that in case that legal principle had to be applied. If that had been doen, the man had to be sentenced to death. If the Reich Supreme Court would have had that in mind, it would not have been necessary to transfer the case to us, but as in every other case, it could have made the decision itself. Because it was rather like this: The Supreme Court stated according to the findings of the local court certain circumstances had made it rather advisable to examine the question as to whether the defendant had taken advantage of extraordinary circumstances by the war, and the Reich Supreme Court mentions as circumstances of that nature that the number of men in the country was reduced that it also was publicly known that the transgressions which occurred were frequently based on the fact that the Poles considered themselves indispensible and that they therefore took liberties to the extreme.
THE PRESIDENT: I should -
A: As far as I remember another point of view was finished.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like your professional opinion. Was the nullity plea involved in the Lopata case. I don't remember at the moment.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your best, Honest judgment as to whether or not if Lopata had been a racial German there would have been a nullity plea and a direction from the Supreme Court to re-try the case? What is your honest opinion about that?
A: Mr. President, both cases cannot be compared with each other because the Reich Supreme Court in this case stated its opinion on the basis that it was a Pole.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I am asking if Lopata had been a racial German, all other facts being the same as they were in the Lopata case, is it your judgment that the nullity pica would have been invoked and that the Supreme Court would have ordered the case sent back to you for another trial? I should like your opinion on that.
A: Mr. President, this question is very interesting, but I cannot even imagine that possibility, even theoretically, because the very elements which are of the greatest importance could not be applied to a German.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all I wanted to know.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, at the present juncture, I strike a natural point of cleavage in my question, may I ask an adjournment?
THE PRESIDENT: In a moment. I should like to ask another question or two which comes to mind.
I have before me Exhibit 478, a progress report of the attorney general of the District Court of Appeals at Nurnberg to the Reich Ministry of Justice.
That report mentions cases A to G inclusive in which the Special Court of Nurnberg condemned certain persons to death. All but two of those were sentenced on the 26th of June 1942. What I am interested in knowing is whether you took part in those trials on that date. The defendants' names, I can't pronounce probably. (Spelling) M-i-l-c-e, Eugen; Valerian Dombrowny; Antoni Janas; do you remember any of those cases? Johann Dareis?
A No, I do not remember them -- one moment, are these cases connected?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no separate cases, all sentenced to death on the 26th of June.
A I have tried to recall that, but I do not remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you trying cases in the Special Court at that time, 26 June 1942?
A It is possible, maybe. All these questions could be answered if the session diary could be found.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand they are not to be found. Do you remember the case of (spelling) P-i-o-t-r Skalka, sentence to death on the 26th of June?
A No, I don't.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not. The record shows that he was sentenced for a crime according to the ordinanceeconcerning Poles and Jews as amended. You don't know anything about that case?
A No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: The other question relates to one which I propounded to your counsel. Another progress report, Exhibit 478, shows that persons were sentenced by the Special Court of Nurnberg to death because of a crime according to Article 2 of the Ordinance for the protection of the people. Now, which of the ordinance or statutes with which we have been dealing does that refer to?
There are quite a number of them. The only report is that they were sentenced according to the ordinance for the protection of the people. Katzenberger was also sentenced according to that.
A Mr. President, I believe that this is concerned with the so-called decree against public enemies, not the decree for the protection of law and order; and that decree, Article 2, 4, and also 3, are of certain importance, also Article 1, which deals with looting, as far as I remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it is your idea that those sentences were pursuant to the public enemy law, commonly called the Parasite Law, the 5/7/1939?
A Yes, if it says paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Decree, then it can only refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it says that ordinance for the protection of the people. I am merely trying to identify what law was meant by that short description.
A The decree for the protection of the people?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The men were sentenced to death under that statute.
A That can only refer to a different decree than the Public Enemy Decree. There is a law for the protection -
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be the German Blood and Honor?
A But, this afternoon, I can go back and explain that question. I have all these laws.
THE PRESIDENT: You understand my problem is merely to identify what statute was meant by this peculiar description here in the progress report.
A Yes, I understand that, Your Honor.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I make a suggestion?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please do.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My analyst states in his opinion he has also picked that up, it is an error in translation for the Public Enemy Law, or the Parasite Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, we will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1330 hours, 25 August 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 August 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
OSWALD ROTHAUG - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, in Exhibit 478 there are among the cases which were tried before the Special Court at Nurnberg, on page 6 the case of Stock and Milce are mentioned. In those two cases, the law against Public Enemies was applied. It is on page 6 of Exhibit 478. Those are the two cases which Your Honor mentioned. They are the Stock nad Milce cases, and in those two cases the law against Public Enemies was applied. In the case of Dombrowny the law against violent criminals was applied.
THE PRESIDENT: How about Skalka, the next one?
DR. KOESSL: In the Skalka case the law against Poles and Jews was was applied.
THE PRESIDENT: And who was the judge in that case?
DR. KOESSL: I was not able to dinf out, Your Honor. In the Janas case the law against violent criminals was applied, and in the Gareis case, it was the economic war-time law which was applied.
THE PRESIDENT: Everything you have told us appears on the fact of the Exhibit.
DR. KOESSL: But, Your Honor, you were in doubt as to whether a translation mistake might not have occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: My question with reference to that matter relates to page 11, "Special Court of Nurnberg condemned to death the following persons", and then it refers to the law for the protection of the people Among the defendants named was Katzenberger, Kastl, Hupperts, Copilek.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And others. I understand that refers to the law with reference to the Malicious Acts -- the Public Enemies, I mean to say, the Public Enemy Law.