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.
A: Oh, the Tribunal hasn't got this?
Q: No, it hasn't been translated.
A: Well, this is the correspondence between the Ministry of the Interior, the MinisterPresident, and the Minister of Justice. The files further show that Hitler himself was also involved.
Q: May I interrupt you, Dr. Barnickel? Would you please tell the Tribunal, would you read to them the pages that show that Hitler himself played a part?
A: Well, I will have to look for it, first.
THE PRESIDENT: Would the Prosecutor indicate, without approaching the podium, whether we are to have this exhibit before us at a later time?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: We will have it processed.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The answer was in the affirmative.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Witness, you have just told us that the files show that Hitler himself was to deal with the matter, and I asked you to tell the Tribunal briefly, for the sake of clarity, from what passages of the files one can see that and what other high functionaries of the Party dealt with the matter.
A: Well, according to the German text, this is a report by the Ministry of Justice dated 6 December, 1933, and the passage appears on Page 8 of the report. Besides Himmler, Reichminister Roehm, Chief of Staff at the time, also dealt with the matter. And as I have pointed out before, the Ministerpresident also had something to do with it.
Q: May I just interrupt you briefly? Does the letter which you have just mentioned which contains the names of Himmler and Roehm indicate that the matter was reported on to Hitler?
A: I will quote the last paragraph of the report, and I quote: "I shall ask the Reichsfuehrer SS to order that the investigating authorities will not be allowed to enter the camp and that for the time being it will not be permitted to interrogate inmates of the camp. Tomorrow I shall discuss the matter with the Fuehrer and shall ask him to give a decision."
Q: Witness so as to avoid all misunderstanding, you used the word "I". I think you better tell us who that "I" was, otherwise the impression might be that it was you who conducted that conversation.
A: No, I never had any contact with the higher-ups. As I pointed, out before, this is a report from the Ministry of Justice which is signed Dr. Walter Stepp.
Q: I beg you pardon. Stepp? Did he say that he was going to have that camp licked, and did he say that he was going to see the Fuehrer? I think Stepp only reports about some conversation where he was present and about which he heard. This mysterious person "I" -- who is it? Is it Roehm, is it Frank, or who is it?
A: What I read out I read only for the purpose of making it easier for the Tribunal to identify the document. But if you think it necessary, I shall tell you more details.
THE PRESIDENT: If the exhibit is to be introduced in evidence, which we have been told it will be, we can determine who the mysterious "I" is for ourselves.
THE WITNESS: Well, I just want to add that naturally the General Public Prosecutor at the District Court of Appeals also dealt with the matter. According to the files, it seems likely that on the highest level it was decided not to institute proceedings.
Now that I have read these files I believe I can just remember vaguely that I discussed this matter with the General Public Prosecutor; and there is no doubt that I received instructions from him, instructions which he for his part had received from the Ministry of Justice to discontinue proceedings. And in view of the facts as they are, I have no doubts that the text of the order to discontinue proceedings was laid down. That is to say, I was told how to word it. I also think it possible that at the time I did not have all the files, but I believe that some of the files may have been put with the Siegfried files at the Ministry. I think that possibly I myself only had comparatively insignificant files which did not give the complete picture of the matter. As I pointed out this morning, I know that a number of important files had disappeared, but naturally I am not in a position to make reliable statements.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness' testimony indicates that he is just speculating on what he may or may not have seen. I think he has covered it sufficiently.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. I believe, Witness, the most important point is that according to your recollection you received instructions to suspend proceedings from ahigher authority, that is to say, from the General Public Prosecutor, who had received them from the Ministry. I believe that is sufficient.
A. There cannot be the slightest doubt about that.
Q. Witness, my attention has been drawn to the fact that in this connection the words "Ministry of Justice " might easily be interpreted as "Reich Ministry of Justice." To avoid misunderstanding in the transcript will you tell us please what Ministry of Justice this was?
A. Well, I was referring to the time before the Administration of Justice had been centralized. I was referring to the time when Dr. Hans Frank was still the Minister of Justice in Bavaria.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, I have no further questions, but I should like to point out that I have offered all documents from my Document Book I except for the last two remaining ones, and I should be glad if you would allow me to offer those now, in order to conclude Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't them before me, but you may make the offer and we will make a notation. Before you do that, it is important that we should not become confused as to what document the witness has been testifying during the last few minutes. May I suggest that whatever instrument it is that is in the possession of the witness be marked for identification with an exhibit number and that when this exhibit is processed that exhibit number be employed. What is the nature of instrument that the witness has?
Is that the original in German?
DR. TIPP: Just a second, Your Honor. Your Honor, the document which I have just discussed with the witness is the document which was mentioned this morning from the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. TIPP: It has the number D926. According to my information it was introduced as Exhibit GB-- which stands for Great Britain --568. The other documents which I have discussed with the witness were submitted by the Prosecution this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Will this D 926 be marked for identification our exhibit No. 565 and then put that on the exhibit when it is offered. That is for identification only. Thank you.
DR. TIPP: May the witness leave the witness stand, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. TIPP: I shall now offer from Barnickel Document Book I Page 74 Barnickel Document 22, which is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Hans Bachhammar of Munich, dated 4 February 1947 and the exhibit number is 22.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. TIPP: The last document from this document book which I offer is Barnickel document No. 23 on Page 76 of the document book. It is an affidavit by Ministerial Counsellor von Perisnow, dated 16 July 1947. The exhibit number is 23.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, I reserve the right to present my Document Book 2 as soon as the translations is completed, and I would ask you to allow me later to introduce two or three documents which I have just received. Apart from that I have finished for the moment the submission of evidence in the case of Dr. Barnickel.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will proceed with document books.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz) : To begin with, I offer the documents from my Document Book 4-A, which I wish to offer is Document 57 on Page 1. This is an affidavit by Gustav Ullrich , director of a local court.
It refers to the political attitude of the defendant Lautz during the time he was at Neuwied as public prosecutor. I offer this document as Exhibit 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I understand that the certification of the signature of this document does not conform to the rules laid down. Under the circumstances the Prosecution would object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't find it.
DR. GRUBE: Document Book 4-A, Page 1. According to my opinion it is entirely in accordance with the rulings that have been made about affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: It is Page 4, not Page 1.
DR. GRUBE: May I say that document 60, our pages 2 to 4, is an affidavit by Steinecker. That document is superfluous, as Steinecker has been examined in person.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. You are offering an affidavit by Richter?
DR. GRUBE: No, by Ullrich , director of a local court. On Page 1 of the Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: I say it is on Page 4 of our document book.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon. Apparently that is an error which occurred in the translation department. In my document book it is on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Has your document book been numbered consecutively from the first page throughout to the end of the book?
DR. GRUBE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that numbered at the bottom of the page?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, at the bottom right.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 4.
DR. GRUBE: Apparently that is a misunderstanding that occurred in the translation department. The next document I offer is Document 51 by Werner von Haake. In my document book it is on pages 5 through 8. The striking thing in this affidavit is a sentence which I am going to quote. It is on Page 2 of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Again you are in error. Your index shows it on Page 2 and the affidavit appears on Page 6.
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, will you forgive me, please, because apparently there is a mispagination, but that isn't my mistake. That happened in the translation department. The pagination is correct in my book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will have to consider it the responsibility of counsel to see that the books which are presented to the Court are correct, no matter whose mistake it may be. Now, what was your document number of the affidavit of Werner von Haake?
DR. GRUBE: This document has the Lautz document number 51 and the exhibit number will be 217.
THE PRESIDENT: The Lautz document number doesn't appear on the affidavit, although it does appear in the index.
DR. GRUBE: From this affidavit on the second page of the document, if the Tribunal will permit me, I shall quote this sentence. I quote: "He as a department chief was a kind but strict superior to us who in accordance with his own very conscientious and correct and of course strictly legal attitude demanded from his subordinates an irreproachable and highly correct performance of duty strictly within the limits of the law and a highly idealistic conception of our profession as public prosecutors."
Further on Haake says that Lautz was always moderate and that in writing the indictments he desired that all severity towards the defendant and also all coloring be avoided.
Haake also pointed out that Lautz, on account of that attidue of his, possessed the particular confidence of Guertner. I offer this document as Exhibit 217.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Counsel didn't wait for us to rule upon the first exhibit, which is Exhibit 216. The exhibit is received. It appears to be substantially in compliance with the requirement.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is an affidavit by the former Judge General of the Judicial Affairs Division. In my document book, it is on pages 9 to 12; in the English volume, it is on page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. This is so badly confused, that you will have to give the Tribunal time to straighten it out. That is your document 115?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, that is my document 115.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: May I point out that in this document, Thissen states that Lautz was anything but a particularly severe penalty. After this Exhibit 218, there comes an affidavit by Brueninger, which has my document number 158. In my book it is on pages 13 through 17. In the English text, it is on page 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The pagination is wrong in every instance. That should be on Page 9 in our book. The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: May I say something to throw light on the responsibility of the defense counsel in connection with this matter? We hand four copies to the Defense Center, and we do not see the document books again until they are handed here to the Secretary-General. We have no influence whatsoever an the work that is done in the Translation Department, and just as the Tribunal itself, we are faced with the fait accompli.
THE PRESIDENT: I actually understand that you don't control those departments and the errors that are there, but I would suggest to you that you take a look at your books when you have an opportunity and send them back to the people who have made the errors, when you find the errors. This is a very slow procedure. We are not trying to blame anyone; we are simply stating that the books are all incorrectly paged. If you go slow, we will try to work it out. The next one, 219 is receive". That is document 158.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is the affidavit Weiss, which has my document number 132. In my document book it is on pages 18 to 22. In the English text, it is on page 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: I think that this document is of importance because it mentions the constant friction which Lautz had at Karlsruhe with the Gestapo. I offer this document as Exhibit 220.
As Exhibit 221, I offer an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Lehmann, who has been examined here on the witness stand. This is Lautz Document 124, Page 13. Under Roman numeral III in this affidavit, Lehmann described how Lautz' appointment to be Chief Public Prosecutor came about. Guertner, at the suggestion of Lehmann, appointed Lautz as he felt particular confidence in him, and as he wanted to prevent the General Public Prosecutor Wagner of Stuttgart, who had been the tool of his Gauleiter, from becoming Chief Reich Prosecutor. Furthermore, this affidavit shows that Lautz repeatedly mentioned to Dr. Sack and Lehmann the struggles in which he was involved with Thierack.
Lehmann also mentions the Elias case and confirms these statements which Dr. Schlegelberger made here on the witness stand to the effect that the defendant Lautz wanted to resign over the Elias case. I offer this document as Exhibit 221.
THE PRESIDENT: 221, isn't it?
DR. GRUBE: 221.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the relation of this affidavit in point of time to the time when Lehmann was examined here as a witness? Did you have an opportunity to examine him then?
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, at that time we were not allowed to examine Lehmann as our own witness. Lehmann was here as a witness for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: As Exhibit 222, I offer now Document 248, which is on Pages 28, 29, on my document book. This is an extract from the Reich Law Gazette, 1942. It is an extract from the decree on the further simplification of the administration of penal law, 13 August 1942: Page 15 in the English book. By way of explanation, I should like to point out that an my Exhibit 23, which deals with the competency decree of the year 1940, I showed that in articles 34 to 37 of that competency decree, it was laid down that the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Reich Supreme Court an not the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court was competent to make a nullity plea. The document, 248, before us, contains an amendment of those provisions concerning the nullity plea, but it does not mean that the extension brought about by this provision authorized the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court to make the nullity plea.