A There was no difference.
Q Now, may I ask you, witness, in these investigations, due to the nature of the camp and secrecy which prevailed in the camp, were there any special difficulties which had an effect upon the investigations?
AAs such, I cannot recall that in the cases about which we were informed difficulties were put in our way.
Q All right, witness, Perhaps we can then go over to the practical part, if I may say so, and by referring to the copy which you have before you, demonstrate these principles as they took effect in practice. I beg your pardon if difficulties should arise, but unfortunately we only have an English translation, but not a German one. I believe, Dr. Barnickel that you understand enough English in order to be able to comment on these individual incidents. Perhaps you will look at the last page of the document submitted to you. The passage I am referring to concerns pages 574 to 575, No. 5. That is the case of the prisoner in detention, in protective custody, Riesenfeld. According to this entry the investigations concerning the death of the prisoner in protective custody, Riesenfeld, were suspended. It says here that Riesenfeld was in protective custody for suspicion of race pollution since 6th November, 1937. During the course of the cross examination you were asked whether cases of that kind where there was a suspicion of race pollution were not subject to trial by a court, and that this might create the impression that there were prisoners pending trial in the Dachau camp; that, therefore, the administration of justice had a duty of supervision over the Dachau camp. I believe that this point was not made quite clear by your testimony this morning, witness. Therefore, I would like to ask you again on that point were prisoners in detention, pending trial, against whom a proper judicial investigation was being carried out, were they ever in a concentration camp?
A I believe one can say the following. If against a man who was in protective custody in a camp, in Dachau, a judicial proceeding was started, this man was not left in the camp, but on the basis of the warrant of arrest which in such cases was then issued, he was taken out of the camp and was detained in the manner which was provided for prisoners pending trial.
Q Just a moment, witness. This doesn't answer my question. It says here Riesenfeld was in Dachau for suspicion of race pollution; the case which you mentioned is probably somewhat different; I think somewhat different. According to what you say that if a prisoner in protective custom who was for another reason in protective custody, and then if after his arrest an investigation is begun against him, then he is removed from the protective custody, that is a police custody into the custody of the administration of justice pending trial; but here, according to the wording of the document, at least that is how I understand it, this Riesenfeld was put into the concentration camp because of suspicion of race pollution. Therefore, I am asking you could this have been a judicial proceeding in the course of which Riesenfeld was put in the concentration camp; and that was the meaning of my question.
A Yes, and according to what I said before, for the case in question, it is apparent, quite obviously, that there was no judicial proceeding against Riesenfeld.
Q Therefore, you think, witness, Riesenfeld -- in order to express it crudely, was not because of a judicial proceeding but because of race pollution put into a concentration camp.
AAs far as my opinion is concerned, Riesenfeld was in Dachau camp as a prisoner in protective custody.
Q And who put people into concentration camps under protective custody.
A That was -- as everybody knows here -- the Gestapo.
Q So then I may understand your answer to mean that the Gestapo put Riesenfeld into Dachau camp as a prisoner and in protective custody because of suspicion of race pollution; is that correct?
AAs far as I can judge this brief excerpt, I would like to answer your question affirmatively.
Q But now, witness, and this was already pointed out in the cross examination here, race pollution was a criminal offense, and had to be tried by a court. Can you now explain, witness, how it happened that the Gestapo, that is the police office, put somebody into a concentration camp because of a criminal offense -- in this case race pollution -- even though merely, at least according to the wording, court proceedings should have been initiated against the person. Perhaps you can explain that due to your knowledge of the behavior of the Gestapo.
A First I would like to say that this part of the entire case was not the case which concerned the public prosecution Munich, II. On the basis of my experiences, however, I can only state that the reasons which the Gestapo considered to be sufficient in order to put people into protective custody never became known to me in detail.
Q That is correct, witness, but was it not true that the Gestapo, the executive organ of the police, was not bound by the rules of evidence which had to be submitted to the court so that the police could order protective custody in a case in which according to the evidence, the facts were not sufficient for a trial before a court, or the filing of an indictment by the prosecution. I don't mean here this specific case, but I mean quite generally whether from your practice as senior public prosecutor and later as Reich public prosecutor, or from other sources, something did not become known to you.
A Well, in that field neither as public prosecutor nor as Reich public prosecutor did I gather any experiences in answer to the question as to for what reasons the Gestapo put people under protective custody. I could gather some experiences occasionally; that was really only in any special case where I found out about such facts.
Q And from these individual cases, witness, you could not form a picture about it? All right.
A I believe that it was impossible for anybody, and I would like to add that it was extraordinarily difficult to peek behind this veil. May I mention an example. In the house in which I was living in Munich, the director of a steamship company was also living. This man, who was a friend of mine, I may say, was one day put under protective custody. I made some efforts on his behalf. It took months until this man was returned to his home and family. After he had come back, I wanted to use that opportunity to find out why he had been put under protective custody, and into a concentration camp, and besides, I wanted to know how he was treated in Dachau; but in spite of tho fact that we knew each other very well, I was unable to find out either of those two circumstances. He told me he was not allowed to comment about it -- to make any statement about it. That is only an example.
Q All right, witness, After this preliminary question, may I ask you, witness, by referring to this note, to describe to what extent the judicial investigating procedures which you have described were applied also in this Riesenfeld case, so that the suspension of the proceedings was in accordance with the legal regulations which were binding for you as a prosecutor.
A First of all I can repeat what I have already stated this morning that from the note, it can -- to be sure -- be gathered by what agency the case was handled, but I cannot gather from it to what extent I personally participated in it, but as I look at this note I can only say that the man to be sure in a somewhat unusual manner met his death, but otherwise, quite obviously, there was no evidence of force by a third person, and, as I stated already this morning, ever our highest forensic medical authorities, namely the institute for forensic medicine, which was excellently directed, could not produce any reason that a third person was involved here. I have already stated that especially the examination by the institute for forensic medicine shows that clearly. We were skeptical to start with and we did everything that was necessary, but the limit was the expert medical opinion and if the physicians after all finally did reach the conclusion that no outside influences existed we had no possibility to take any steps against this expert opinion.
Q Thus, witness, in this case you say the examination by the physicians gave no reason to believe that a third person was responsible for the death, so that the proceeding had to be suspended, as German lawyers say, due to the fact of insufficient evidence.
A That is correct.
Q Now, witness, may I ask you to go over to the third entry-
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I interrupt you before you pass on from that question. Dr. Barnickel, I should like your opinion, as a lawyer and former prosecutor. Did you, or do you now consider; do you now consider that it was in accordance with German law for the Gestapo to put a man who is accused of a crime in a concentration camp, rather than to proceed under the regular procedure of the Ministry of Justice?
A I believe, Your Honor, that I have hardly to emphasize that I was never of that opinion.
Q You think that it was illegal then?
A I considered it illegal.
Q Even then you considered that some one in the Gestapo on in the concentration camp had themselves committed a crime in putting him there; do you not -- if it was illegal to put him there?
A Your Honor, here we are concerned with the so-called protective custody.
Q That is right.
A That was the custody which was imposed for political reasons by the Gestapo, and, for example, in this case, it is absolutely possible that the Gestapo did not consider the suspicion to be sufficient to institute judicial proceedings; that nevertheless it considered it sufficient in order to detain the man in protective custody. That was just the very thing which I always considered to be the horrible thing about this institution of protective custody.
Q Well, it was not only horrible, it was a violation of law by the persons who put him in protective custody; was it not? I think you have already said that it was illegal.
A Your Honor, there was a legal basis for protective custody, but I regret that I cannot serve you with a more detailed information, with a more precise statement. In my opinion that was always an absolutely impossible measure.
Q You adhere to your statement that you considered it illegal, do you not? You have just said that.
A I always considered this protective custody an illegal method, but, of course, there was a basis in the law for it; to that extent it was not illegal. My defense counsel, I believe, is in a position to submit some legal regulations to that effect. In any case, it was a field in which the administration of justice had no influence of any kind.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Dr. Barnickel, following that question I would like to put a question to you. You mentioned the legal basis for protective custody. I haven't introduced, as yet, any documents concerning that, but if it should be necessary I will be able to do so. But one thing you did make clear. There was a legal basis for protective custody, was there not?
A Without doubt.
Q Can you -- I don't know whether you can -- state who made out the warrant for protective custody?
A Counsel, I am not in the position to make any precise statements about the method of protective custody, and, therefore, I would prefer to refrain from answering your question. But, of course, it was some organ of the Gestapo that did.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q One more question. If the Ministry of Justice and you gentlemen as prosecutors considered that it was legal to confine a man in a concentration camp, who was only accused of a crime, then is it not true that the Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors must assume some responsibility for the carrying out of that legal procedure of putting people into concentration camps?
A Your Honor, the first prerequisites for this, however, would be that the prosecution or the courts would be informed about it at all; that somebody was put into protective custody.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Dr. Barnickel, but there is one complex, one group of questions concerning protective custody I think we would have to discuss: Against putting a person into protective custody was there a means of complaint to a court, be it administrative or a court of the administration of justice?
Court No. III, Case No. III.
A. As far as I know that did not exist. In particular the general courts had nothing to do with questions of that kind.
Q. So that I may understand you to say that any complaint by a person in protective custody because of unjustified arrest did not reach the agency of the administration of justice but that these agencies, at least in that way, did not and could not find out anything about an unjustified arrest.
A. That is certain.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Did not the facts appearing on pages 574 to 575 in this document reach the ministry of justice? Did they not thereby become aware of the facts set forth?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I have to say again first of all I do not know whether I participated in this at all, or had any part in it, but If I assume for the purpose of this question that I did have something to do with it, that is only an assumption, then, of course, it is possible that by some means, and that is perhaps through the police record later had found out that the man who had already died because of suspicion of race pollution was in protective detention pendind trial. If an agency of the administration of justice should have had a part in this proceedings, we certainly would have informed this other agency about this incident, but we only found out about it after the man was dead already.
Q. I am not suggestion you could have saved his life, but you might have prosecuted the person who had illegally put him there, that is, unless the Prosecutor considered putting him there was perfectly legal?
A. Your Honor, I have already said that a so called warrant for protective custody, as I believe it was called, always existed of course, and against that warrant for protective custody we had no power, whereas the Gestapo, of course, could refer to a legal procedure.
Unfortunately, from this brief excerpt it is impossible to tell, it may have been the Gestapo of Berlin or any place else. All of that is not known and that is why I regret exceedingly that I can answer your question only so incompletely.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. For clarification, I may perhaps say the following, Your Honor, without having to become a witness myself. There are matters which are probably known to the Tribunal. The warrants for protective custody on principle were only issued by the RSHA in Berlin, and only on those warrants was anybody put into a concentration camp. These warrants could not be reviewed either by the Courts or by the administrative Agencies. I believe that is enough on that point.
We now go on to page 275, **at is on the same page of the document, where the investigating procedure, because of the suicide of the tailor, Wagner, from Nurnberg, is described, and here it says that the Public Prosecutor of the district Court Munich No. 2 stopped the proceedings concerning the suicide of the tailor Wagner from Nurnberg in Dachau. The report is signed by Barnickel and runs as follows: It describes why Wagner was in protective custody. He was a so-called professional criminal who had spent 23 years in prison and the penitentiaries. Wagner was found hanging in a lying position. To that extent the document was already discussed this morning, and you stated that as far as you remember Wagner, of course, was not lying flat on the floor, but if I understand you correctly, in a half hanging position, hanged himself from the steam pipe, but one point has not been clarified on this document and this is the following:
There is a sentence mentioning that he left a farewell letter. It continues: "These facts were confirmed by the official Court Inspection of the local", that is probably by the investigating Judge, "and the postmortem, according to the opinion of the District Court Physician death occurred through hanging in a lying position. No trace of any force exerted by third persons could be found. It is a case of suicide." Witness, as to the prerequisites which are necessary for court investigations and also for suspending proceedings, do they exist also in this Wagner proceeding?
A. Without doubt they apply. No doubt as to the suicide could arise due to the fact there was a farewell letter. Moreover, the investigating Magistrate who obviously was present as well as the physician confirmed there was a suicide. Of course the word "lying" is not to be understood quite literally, that is quite obvious, I believe, that all of us understand what is meant and that I do not have to explain that any further. In considering these excerpts, one must not overlook that they are quite brief excerpts and that in the files the cases are described much more extensively, so that we could form quite a different picture of course. If we had only this as a basis we couldn't have worked with these at all. Thus as far as I can judge this excerpt today there can be no doubt that the proceeding was suspended rightly because there was a case of suicide.
Q. I believe that clarifies everything. Witness, I also find your name on the next side of the document. I am now quoting from the next page forward, on page 234, that is the next to the last paragraph from the bottom, and it says here that the Chief Public Prosecutor, Munich, signed Barnickel, 28 April, has stopped the proceedings regarding the death of the prisoner Heldmann, held in protective custody in Dachau.
On 27 April 1937 he arrived in Dachau camp. On 24 March 1938, he confessed to have assaulted, raped and murdered a girl, together with another man, in a wood near Buettelborn in 1934. In solitary confinement in concentration camp. On 23 April 1938 found hanged in his cell. Witness, can you perhaps by chance remember this incident?
A. I cannot recall that incident. It is not apparent from this note either whether I was in Dachau for the purpose of investigating this incident. The note is also apparently incomplete. This one can really only say that if this man had committed serious crimes which are described here, and then he committed suicide that is quite understandable. I cannot state my opinion on any facts of the case because there aren't any. There is no description of them.
Q. May I then ask you to turn to the first page of the document, witness. The paragraph I am referring to is the last one on the bottom of page 119. This incident was put to you this morning during cross-examination. It says here: "The employee Weil, a Jew and a prisoner under protective custody in Dachau concentration camp, had been indicted for assault with fatal result, because on 17 May 1938, he, as supervisor, kicked the prisoner under protective custody Jakob Erlich, a Jew, with the result that Erlich died." Witness, do you recall what was the result of this proceeding?
A. I can't tell you, but according to the facts as described here it was quite a natural result that an indictment was filed here because of bodily injury with fatal results. I assume that the trial ended, in a prison term. The extent of it, however, I could only assume, the highest prison term was five years.
Q. I beg your pardon, witness, you said the highest penalty in prison, you mean quite generally?
A. Yes, if there was an imprisonment, the longest term was five years. Thus in the worst case this would have been the most severe penalty in this case.
Q. Then witness, the first entry on page 83 was put to you, the name of the prisoner is not mentioned here. It only says that a prisoner attemped to jump into the barbed wire, probably with the intention of committing suicide, that is of being shot by the guard. However, he broke his leg and was taken into disciplinary arrest. On the 27 June he was found hanged in his cell. I may assume, witness, that you probably do not remember that incident wither, and therefore cannot state the details in regard to this incident either.
A. I only notice it says here the 27th of June, whereas above the date of the 29th of July is mentioned. I would also assume that it is supposed to say July, in the lower part too. If my assumption is correct, I believe I did not hear anything about this case at all, because in so far as I remember I was in Yugo Slavia at the time, out even if I should have heard of it, according to what it says here, I can only repeat that quite obviously and without doubt it was a suicide. First, the man tried to commit suicide in another way. In these cases, or let us say, in this case again, it is not mentioned that the investigating Magistrate was present, and that is obvious, and that without doubt a physician was present too. In addition, a record, of course, already existed.
Q. Witness, it says here the Chief Public Prosecutor, Munich, II, 29 July, that must be the date of the report which the Chief Public Prosecutor in Munich sent out - that if I remember correctly could not be - no, I withdraw the question.
I beg your pardon. I believe we have discussed the cases in this document fully. I would like briefly to discuss two other documents which the prosecution has submitted Jo you. They are No. 562 and 563. The first proceedings concern the painter, Louis Birck, from Wiesboden. Here the indictment dated the 29th of April 1943 has been submitted and this was not signed by you, and than the sentence is contained in this document - that is not of interest either, and further more, a letter which you wrote on the 24th of July, 1943. The Prosecutor asked you whether you remembered the suggestion which you made in regard to the motion made during the trial, you said you cannot recall the case. Now I would like to ask you the following: Bieck is indicted for a number for a number of crimes, among them, Article 5, # I, Section I of the Special Law for War time of 1938. This regulation has been repeatedly discussed here and we also know, therefore, that the death sentence was the basic penalty provided. If you recall that to your mind, witness, can you not then perhaps after all state your position on the question broached this morning of the suggestion and a motion which was made and who in this case probably made the decision as to what penalty was to be asked for during the trial, what sentence?
A. Counsel, before I answer your question, may I say a few sentences regarding the Dachau incident?
Q. Yes.
A. I would merely like to say about that that I may assume I think that the cases enumerated are approximately all that occurred in Dachau during the course of 1938. Of course, the number of such cases always should be brought into the relationship with the number of prisoners who were in the camp. Dachau was a very large camp - by the way, I got to know it not only as Senior Public Prosecutor, but also as a prisoner -- and certainly at that time thousands of persons were detained in the camp and that the number which is listed here should not surprise any one so very much.
That is all I wanted to add in conclusion. Perhaps may I ask you not to show me the other document?
Q. As I said, it is Exhibit 562.
A. Yes. Now I can even slowly recall this case and now I even remember the name. Thus I certainly knew the case, at the time. From the indictment it is apparent that the defendant, firstly because of treason, and secondly, because of high treason, and then because of undermining of military morale, was indicted. The first sentence of the indictment which I just happened to read says that the defendant did not belong to any political party or organization before the political change-over, and it says from some year on, the year is ommitted, until 1929, he was a contributing member of the SS. I mention this only because yesterday I once stated it was the practice at the People's Court to mention membership and political parties in an indictment, without that constituting an incrimination in itself. Yes, the charges were serious considering the time at which they were raised, and I am not al all surprised that the defendant was condemned to death. I consider it possible that we had already asked for it and discussed it that way in out division, but, of course, today I am no longer able to state that with certainty.
Q. Witness, moreover, in this case as you stated, it probably applies, in quite a general way, that if the death sentence was considered possible, the decision of the Chief of the Agency had to be obtained.
A. It had to be obtained.
Q. It was this way in this case too?
A. Yes, in this case too - it was a general directive.
Q I would like to ask you in this case, and the same question arises also from the next Exhibit, that is Exhibit 567, document NG 375. Perhaps by referring to the indictment you can briefly comment on this point too?
A. So that no misunderstanding should arise I would like to make the following remark about the Birck case which we have just discussed. The defendant was not primarily indicted because of undermining of military morale and this is how it came about that the indictment was not sent to the Fourth Senate where indictments because of undermining military moral were filed, but to the 6th Senate, which was competent from the other legal points of view. The defendant, however, was sentenced by the Senate only because of undermining military morale, but this did not change anything about the conditions which I have just mentioned. The next document contains not only an indictment, out moreover, a request for investigations which I signed, a letter and a questionaire from a political office. I have no recollection of the indictment nor of the letter, but from the investigations I see that I took a part in the proceedings. It is, however, no personal signature, therefore, no certain evidence, but it speaks for it, that I did take part, but I believe I have not much more to say about the case. It is beyond doubt that everything that what the man had said constituted undermining of military morale and as I said before the document does not show anything about the outcome of the trial.
Q. With that I can conclude the discussion of the documents, witness, and I would like to discuss only a few brief questions with you which result from the cross-examination. The first question is the following, which was important during the direct examination in regard to Lautz. This concerns the Beck case, Exhibit 159. Here it was mentioned that the racial qualification had to be included in the indictment, on the basis of a general directive issued by the Ministry of Justice.
On this subject I would like to ask you the following: Did this circular decree apply only to political criminal cases, or did it apply quite generally to all criminal cases of any nature?
A. There is no doubt in my mind that this directive applied to penal cases of any kind.
Q. Then, may I came back to Exhibit 267, tho Kubiak case, which has been discussed repeatedly? I have only one question in regard to that. Yesterday, during the crossexamination, one page from this document was put to you because the suspicion had arisen that two letters which are under tho word "copy" have the meaning KZ, "concentration camps". You can remove that suspicion. However, on the same page, another reason causes me to ask you another question. On line 3 of this page there is a word "Lagervollzugsunfaehigkeit", "inability to execute sentence in the camp." The word "camp" always sounds somewhat suspicious in this connection, and therefore I wish to ask you this. Did the inability to execute the penalty in the camp have anything to do with a concentration camp?
A. Before I answer your question, counsel, I would first like to state that my statements do not apply to this concrete case, but are supposed to apply quite generally.
I stated yesterday that I do not remember this concrete case nor having worked on it, and so far my original signature has not been submitted in regard to this case. I have also mentioned the concept of a camp during my examination. The concept of a camp was known also in the Administration of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: You covered that, didn't you, that there were camps which were under the Administration of Justice, and were not concentration camps? I believe you have covered that in your direct testimony.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood your testimony.
A (Continuing) There was one large camp for criminal prisoners at Papenburg in Oldenburg, which was under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Justice.
The prisoners who were detained there were, I believe, predominantly working in the fields, agriculture, etc. Now, in accordance with a directive by the Ministry of Justice, every prisoner who was condemned to a penitentiary sentence had to be examined as to his ability to have the penalty executed in the camp. For several reasons, not all prisoners could be used for this particular camp. On On the one hand, they had to be people who were accustomed to physical labor; on the other hand, certain crimes, as, for example, treason, were excepted, and, above all, no persons could be used who were under suspicion of trying to escape because, since these people were working in the open the possibilities for escape were very large.
Thus it was in this connection that the examination of the prisoners was undertaken, and if it is stated here that those three or four prisoners were examined as to the possibility of executing the penalty in a camp, that refers only to their being put into the Papenburg camp.
Q. Witness, a final question. Yesterday you stated that the position of the main camp Schiratz became known to you only here in the courtroom from a map of concentration camps. This might result in the impression that you meant to say that you considered Schiratz a concentration camp. Perhaps you can briefly eliminate this possible error.
A. I did not mean to say that. Of course, I cannot judge, either, why the person who made up this map put Schiratz on it. I just assumed that it happened to be situated in that district. Schiratz was never a concentration camp, but it was a regular penal institution, just as every other German penal institution. This is apparent from the fact alone of the letterhead of one of the letters contained in this document.
I may also point out that if Schiratz had been a concentration camp, the Reich Minister of Justice would have had no reason to interrupt the serving of the sentence and to transfer the prisoner, through the Gestapo, to a concentration camp.
I myself am not informed, about details concerning the Schiratz camp. Later on I did hear once that it was one of the newest and best penal institutions.
Q. Now a final question, witness, with the exception of the document that we still have to discuss. My question is as follows.
The prosecutor asked you yesterday whether you did not have the possibility of resigning from your position, or of being pensioned. May I ask you to instruct us again about this question, which has already been discussed repeatedly during this trial?
A.- As far as I know, since the first year of the war it was forbidden to resign from office. Every prerequisite was lacking for my being pensioned, according to the Civil Service Law. That Thierack would not lot me quite is evident from the fact that in 1942 he refused to let me apply for another position. During the regime, and particularly during the war, there was only one possibility to leave an a ency like the Reich Prosecution, and that was that one aroused displeasure. That happened to me, as I have already stated, and if my leaving the Reich Prosecution still took place in ah honorable manner, if I may say so, this happened, certainly, only because the Minister considered my former good services, my merits--that is, before the Reich Prosecution--especially in the field of civil law, and probably the Administration of Justice also realized that it was a mistake not to transfer me to another position, and that they did not let me quit in 1942.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, I only have to ask questions about the document, and I request permission to do so after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Barnickel, if you had shown Minister Thierack your diary, he would have permitted you to resign, wouldn't he?
We will take our recess without waiting for an answer.
(A recess was taken,)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. TIPP.
Q: Dr. Barnickel, during the afternoon recess you have had an opportunity to examine this document. Therefore I now ask you, since you have had time to closely examine this document, and since you have seen more documents than you had seen this morning, whether you are now able to remember those occurrences, in particular the reasons which led to the proceedings being discontinued by you.
A: Now that I have looked through the files, although I did not examine them as thoroughly as I would have like to, I should like to give the following explanation: The most important documents which are contained among these files, in particular the document from which quoted at length this morning I cannot have seen, because that was the correspondence with the Ministry. Such a correspondence naturally was not shown to the lower authorities. Furthermore, I should like to state from the documents that the events themselves on which the files are based occurred more than a year before I assumed my office as Senior Public Prosecutor with Munich II. Further, I can say with absolute certainty that according to what I have read, it was altogether impossible for me to have discontinued these proceedings on my own initiative. That is quite out of the question, since all these high authorities had dealt with the matter, and that can be seen from the files.
Q: May I interrupt you, Dr. Barnickel? In giving this explanation to the Court you are forgetting that the Tribunal doesn't have the document and that it doesn't know the document, and therefore you will have to toll the Tribunal what higher authorities you are deferring to and what the letter is.