THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Have you read this document through during the recess?
A I have read it through in the meantime, and I have found that a number of Jewish names are listed here; Jews who after they had served their terms for race violations had been taken into protective custody.
Q Is there any criticism exercized?
A Their names are listed, and at the end it says that no decisions have been made as yet about the time they are going to be kept in protective custody.
Q Witness, and now my last question. I want to ask you again about the prison at Fuhlsbuettel. Was the police prison of which you have spoken under the administration of justice or not?
A I cannot tell you for certain because at that time I no longer had anything to do with the administration of the prison, but I am inclinced to assume that the police prison had been removed from the group of prisons which were under the administration of justice because the administration of justice had nothing to do with that police prison or with any other police prison in Hamburg.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I would now like to introduce this document for the purpose of identification; it is going to be translated and I shall introduce it properly when it has been translated. I should like to hand it to the Prosecution today so that they have an opportunity to examine it. I do not have my documents with me and unfortunately I can't tell you now what exhibit number I would like to have reserved for it. I shall be able to tell you this afternoon, because this afternoon I intend to introduce my other remaining documents. I have now finished my cross examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please.
MR. KING: Before Dr. Wandschneider departs from the stand, I should like to have him identify the document somewhat more fully than he has.
I am afraid that with my limited knowledge of German I shall not be able to identify it, and if Dr. Wandschneider can tell us a little more about what it is so that we will know later on when it is introduced, I should appreciate it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: This document comes from a collection of files from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: Who do you claim signed this - the witness, or Dr. Rothenberger?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: This is a collection of documents which as such has not been signed. It is a collection of material which has been taken from a file volume. The document is signed and certified by a justices inspectore.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all very interesting, except that we don't know yet who is supposed to have made up the documents which are no doubt duly certified to here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, may I point out that this document is a collection of material which comes from a file volume of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeal at Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that. How, let us assume that it is a very creditable or a very discreditable document. To whom do we give the credit or the discredit unless we know who is responsible for the document?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The official inspector from the district from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal is responsible because it is he who signed for it and he who certified that these files came from a file volume from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal as material for the subject which I have mentioned here.
THE PRESIDENT: You may mark it for identification, but we don't yet understand - but we have not heard any answer to my question.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I shall try to give you further explanations, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve Exhibit Ho. 78, Rothenberger 78 for this document.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be marked for identification now 78 - so that we can tell what document it is when it is offered.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect?
MR. KING: I have only one question concerning the identity of this document. It consists of approximately thirty-four pages of material. My question is, and this is rather of Dr. Wandschneider than of the witness, how are we able to -- how shall we be a ole to know when the document is submitted that it is the same document which was shown the witness this morning, or
THE PRESIDENT: I can give you the answer to that. Take the document to the Secretary General and let him mark it for identification as Exhibit 78, Rothenberger.
MR. KING: I have no questions on redirect to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: This is Exhibit 78 only for identification; it is not received in evidence at this time.
The witness may be excused.
MR. KING: Before calling the next witness, I would like to offer for introduction into evidence documents previously marked for identification. First of these is NG-2216, which has been previously identified, for which an exhibit number has been reserved, Exhibit No. 587. I have copies in English and German for distribution at this time, and I offer the Document NG-2216 as Exhibit 587.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The document NG-2215 was marked for identification yesterday and the Exhibit No. 588 reserved for this document. I am now able to and do offer this document in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 588 is received.
WILHELM OEHLCKERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Doctor, will you give your name to the Court? Perhaps you had better spell it,Doctor, so that the record will be clear.
A O-h-l-c-k-e-r-s; my first name is Wilhelm.
Q Can you give the Court your present position; your present position and address?
AAt the present time I am the president of the Surrogate Court at the Hamburg Court of Appeals. I am a resident in Hamburg, Kirchwerder, Haussteig No. 191.
Q Doctor, will you tell us, please, what positions you held in the Hamburg judicial administration from 1933 until the capitulation?
A In 1933 I was an assessor with the prosecution in Hamburg; in November, 1933 I spent two months with the local court at Hamburg; and from 1934 until 1937 I worked at the district court in Hamburg; from 1938 until 1945 I was again at the local court in Hamburg. In 1945 the military government in September dismissed me; and in January, 1947 the Military Government reinstated me.
Q You were a member of the NSDAP, were you?
A Yes.
Q When did you join the party?
A In May, 1933.
Q Will you explain the circumstances, please, under which you came have been dismissed at any time.
Conditions were very difficult and the pressure which was exerted on us assessors was such that we were faced with the alternative of either losing our position or joining the party.
Q And, as a result of this fear you joined the party for security of office?
A Only for that reason.
Q During your career as a judge in Hamburg, up until the end of the war, did
A Until the end of the war I could not join the army; I had an operation and because of that I could not become a soldier. For most of the war I worked as a
Q Doctor, I hadn't completed my question. I think you misunderstood. I was about to ask you this question. During your career as judge in Hamburg, and until the end of the war, did it ever come to your attention, officially or otherwise, that there were certain cases of sentences against high party officials and friends of high party officials in Hamburg that were quashed?
A Well, what happened was that an attempt was made; the formal prerequisites were observed that is, but if the defendant was a member of the Nazi Party, very frequently, and usually successfully, an attempt was made either to have a somewhat more lenient sentence passed than would have happened to an ordinary citizen; or, not to have a punishment at all.
Q Well, Doctor, I want to inquire of you as to the facts in certain of these cases. In 1936 or 1937 do you recall a case brought before the criminal senate against certain SA men for breaking into an inn in Hamburg which was the property of a socialist?
A Yes.
Q And after breaking in demolished the fixtures? Will you please, if you can, explain the circumstances of this case as you recall the facts?
A Yes, the man was an inn keeper in Warmbeck, part of Hamburg. He was a socialist, and that whole district was known as a socialist district. He was suspicious to the national socialists for his politics, and one day the political leaders of that area, under the leadership of the Ortsgruppeneleiter, and with the knowledge of the Kreisleiter, entered the inn and smashed up all the furniture. The inn keeper informed the prosecutor and the prosecutor filed an indictment; the case was indicted before the penal chamber five.
I was an associate judge at the Penal Chamber 7 at the Hamburg District Court. The presiding judge was a man whose general reputation was that he never allowed himself to he persuaded to any other point of view. We passed on the indictment, as we were obliged to by law, to the defendant. A time of about a fortnight elapsed and then the defendant had to make a statement in answer to the indictment; all during that period the administration of the district court of appeal phoned us up and told us that the files were to he sent immediately to the district court of appeal because the Reichsstatthalter in Hamburg intended to make an application to the Reich Ministry of Justice that proceedings were to be quashed. I discussed the matter with the director Schmeyer, the presiding judge, and we agreed that we would keep the district court of appeal waiting until that period of a fortnight had elapsed and then we could make a decision to open the trial, and in that case time indictment couldn't simply have been withdrawn. We were told again to hand over the files; we didn't pay any attention, and when the period of the fortnight had elapsed, we decided to open the trial, and we sent the files to the district court of appeal. We never saw those files again.
Q And, so far as you know, no action was brought against the perpetrators of this crime?
A No, as far as I know, never.
Q Now, Doctor, do you recall the facts of the case Karutz? May I say before you answer that question that a document concerning this case was marked for identification yesterday is NG-2283. I think perhaps before we go into the case I can distribute it so that the Court and Defense Counsel may follow it as you describe it.
MR. KING: I offer the Document NG-2283 which was identified yesterday, as Exhibit 590.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: May the record show that I am temporarily handing the original to the witness.
Q You recall the facts of the Karutz case as the one referred to the document which is now before, do you not?
A I remember the Karutz case particularly well.
Q Were you the competent judge in that case?
A Yes, I was at the local court at the time, and I was the person who would have tried the case if an indictment had been made.
Q Will you please briefly explain it - or, give us the facts of the case and explain why an indictment was never brought against the accused or the individuals who should have been accused?
A Karutz was a referent in the propaganda Ministry. During the winter of 1938-1939 a policeman had found him outside a restaurant in Hamburg. Karutz was drunk and about to enter his car. The policeman told him you are in no condition, you are not fit to drive a car; don't enter that car. Without answering at all, Karutz hit the policeman in the face and it was such a strong blow that it threw the policeman down on the ground. Karutz, with the aid of passers-by, was then taken to the police station where he was very excited, and insulted the policeman on duty, and he was charged with having offered serious resistance to a policeman on duty. According to my observations and my experiences, he should have been sentenced to at least three months imprisonment. In this case the police chief interfered; he more or less asked Karutz to pay a. fine of 150 marks; if I remember rightly, it says 150 marks here; and he told him to pay that to the NSV; the police chief more or less asked the prosecution to discontinue proceedings against Karutz because this was a trifling affair. At the time the law was such that if proceedings were discontinued, because the offense had been trifling, the judge had to give his agreement and I refused to agree to that and said that a referent at the propaganda ministry and an old party member should not be treated any differently from the way we treated any ordinary citizen.
Therefore, I thought he ought to go to prison for several months and I said this was not a trifling case, so I refused to have the proceedings discontinued. For a few months, I believe for three months, I heard nothing of the whole matter. Then, the files were submitted to me again, and again I was asked to discontinue the matter because it was a trifling offense. Further investigations were made and these further investigations brought to light facts which were even more against the defendant and even more in favor of the policeman. Therefore, once again I refused to have the matter dropped because it was a trifling offense, and this time I wrote a statement and gave my reasons; this was a curious case, and I called it a curious case in that it did not happen - what I want to say is the prosecution complained to the penal chamber a.bout my decision and the penal chamber, that was Penal Chamber No. 3, and its presiding judge was a particularly confirmed national socialist, and he revoked my decision, and then the whole matter was discontinued on account of it having been a. trifling offense. Afterwards -
Q Witness, may I interrupt you a moment. Did Letz get in touch with you in regard to this case?
A Yes.
Q What did he ask you to do?
A Letz asked me when the matter had been dealt with, that is to say after the proceedings had been discontinued, to go to see him at the district court of appeal, and I talked to him a few days before war broke out. Letz told me, well, you know actually you are quite right, and. Senator Rothenberger also is of the same opinion, but think of the prestige, and that word prestige was actually used; well, you have to remember that it is the prestige of the police president that is at stake; that was why we intervened, and the presiding judge of the penal chamber then was in favor of interfering contrary to your self, and that was why he discontinued proceedings in that case; that isn't going to happen again, but this time we had to do it.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, owing to special circumstances, it is necessary for the Tribunal to recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 18 September 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 18 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
WILHEIM OEHLCKER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. KING:Q.- Doctor, just prior to the luncheon recess you were discussing the facts of the Korutz case.
Can you take up where you left off, please?
A.- Yes. Meanwhile, I have looked through this file copy. This is a file from the Administration of the District Court of Appeal. Of course, I was not familiar with it at the time and I am seeing it for the first time today. From this document I gather that at a time when my second decision had not yet been made, contact had taken place between the presiding counsel of the District Court of Appeal and the presiding judge of the Penal Chamber of the second instance; that the file had already been unofficially submitted to the presiding judge of the Penal Chamber while the case was still pending with me, at the court of the first instance; and that, furthermore, the presiding judge of that Chamber had given assurance, with almost complete certainty, that he would stop the. proceedings. At the time I did not know anything about these negotiations which took place, and I do not consider them quite legal. I then again refused the proceedings, as it was a trifling matter, and then it was concluded.
Q.- From what you knew of the Korutz case, without having of course seen the document NG-2283 which you are seeing for the first time today, is the information contained in it, to the best of your knowledge, in accord with what you knew to be the facts at the time?
A.- Yes, that it is. However, I did not know, of course, of the negotiations which took place in the interium between the District Court of Appeals and the Penal Chamber. President Letz, in the discussion which I had with him afterwards, and which I have already described, told me that influence had been exerted.
Of course, I thought this influence was exerted after my decision had already been made, but something that I did not know was that while the case was still pending before me, influence was being exerted.
Q.- Yes, The net result of the case was that the proceedings against the individual Korutz were quashed, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now, doctor, I wonder if you recall the facts of a case which I shall never hope to pronounce, but I will spell it, t-s-v-a-t-g-h-e which I believe came up in Hamburg in 1941, and, if I am not mistaken you dealt with it in your capacity as a judge at that time. Could you give us the facts briefly in that case?
A.- Yes. Tsvatghe was one of the editors of the National Socialist paper, the Hamburger Tageblatt. During peace-time he had caused an automobile accident, but after this accident occurred he had escaped. This was a matter of drunken driving. The first time, this case did not come before a court, it was handled by the police. Then, around the turn of 1940-1941, Tsvatghe was again brought before a court for the same offense. During the war, he had been driving his car during a blackout while he was in a drunken condition, he hit a pole, and then escaped. Again, it was a case of hit and run driving, which at that time, was considered a very serious offense, and it was especially serious since it was during a blackout and a human being was almost killed at the time; a human being was in great danger.
The case was tried by my division. I had planned to punish this man very strictly because that seemed necessary for purposes of public security. As far as I remember, I sentenced him to five months' imprisonment, and I immediately had him arrested in the courtroom because it was surprising to me that he had not been placed under arrest. I knew that if I did not arrest him the Party would again take some steps in order to avoid having the penalty executed, and I wanted to prevent that under all circumstances.
Therefore, subsequent to the pronouncing of the sentence, I had him arrested. He had been under arrest for just one week, at which time I went on leave. During the time while I was away on leave, he was released. That is, he served his term for one week. In my conviction, he did not merit this release from custody and in the case of another person that would never have been considered at all.
That was the course that the Tsvatghe case took.
Q.- Now, did Dr. Rothenberger, at any time during the course of this case, during its pendency before you, get in touch with you?
A.- Yes, but not before the sentence. While the case was pending before my chamber he did not exert any influence upon me. He only told me that the sentence did not have legal force and that Tsvatghe was no longer under arrest or in prison.
Q.- And did you get the impression from Dr. Rothenberger that he personally had released the man whom you had sentenced?
A.- I had the impression that there was some cooperation between a representative of the Party, and later I found out that it was Undersecretary Arentz of the Prosecution, and Dr. Rothenberger, and that on the basis of these discussions Tsvatghe was pardoned. That was something which I had desired to prevent, but I could no longer prevent it. Officially my opinion was not asked for on the clemency question, which was the proper procedure; I should have been asked.
Q.- Rothenberger got in touch with you how many times in connection with the case?
A.- Twice.
Q.- The net result of which was that the man whom you had sentenced was pardoned without serving his sentence, except for one week in detention; is that correct?
A.- Yes, one week only, he was in detention.
Q.- Now, doctor, do you recall the case Reimer?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Would you explain very briefly the facts of that case and who the principles were?
A.- Reimer was the owner of a restaurant in the area of Hamburg, or in the district of Hamburg. During the closed season he had gone hunting and had shot a dog with an illegal gun. That was a hunting offense of the most serious nature. He was indicted before my chamber and was sentenced by me to six months in prison because of poaching. I had not thought that this case would have serious consequences because Reimer was not a Party member, so I had supposed that no objections would be made from any side, because I considered the man to be an insignificant person and didn't think that anything of any consequences would result. The man was sentenced and was supposed to servo his term.
Then, suddenly, personal efforts were made by the Gauleiter and Reichstatthalter Kauffmann in order to prevent the man having to servo his sentence. At first I wondered why Kauffmann happened to have interest in this particular man, and later on I heard that Kauffmann frequently was a guest in the restaurant of this man, and that was the explanation for me.
I refused to approve the clemency plea. Then, first of all, Reimer was drafted into the Army, where he stayed for some time, and then he was released from the Army and returned and, as far as I remember ho was pardoned. This happened on the basis of the personal intervention of Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, for, in the clemency file which was made available to me, I saw a letter written by Gauleiter Kauffmann to the Senior Public Prosecutor, in which the Gauleiter recommended to the Senior Public Prosecutor that he pardon this man and excuse the man for his deed.
That is what I think was the reason why Reimer did hot have to serve his sentence. However, I have to say that in this case, contrary to the previous case -- that is, the previously mentioned case, Korutz -- I had the impression that Dr. Rothenberger had no personal knowledge of this later case, but this was a case in which Reichstatthalter Kauffmann addressed the senior public prosecutor immediately, directly. I cannot say that with certainty, but, from the files, I have to assume that Dr. Rothenberger was not asked in advance.
It probably was like this, the restaurant owner, as I said, was not a prominent Party member, and the matter was altogether too insignificant to be of concern to Dr. Rothenberger. It was the personal wish of the Reichstatthalter, but the man concerned was not a prominent person.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question in connection with that case? You said the defendant was pardoned. Well, what authority was it who pardoned him? You mean that the prosecutor was able to pardon him?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q. One further question in that connection, Doctor. Did the prosecutor have the authority, without the approval of the presiding judge, in the normal case, to effect a pardon?
A. Yes; the prosecutor had to ask for the judge's opinion, but he was not bound by the opinion of the judge.
THE PRESIDENT: Did that relate only to minor crimes?
THE WITNESS: Yes. It was regulated like this. In the more serious cases the Ministry of Justice had to decide, and in the minor cases--I don't know exactly what the limit was, one year in prison, or six months. I don't remember for certain--the Ministry of Justice had delegated the clemency right to the prosecutor in those cases.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Doctor, I show you now an exhibit identified as NG-2279. This exhibit, as you will note from observing the copy before you, consists of three letters, one written on September 8, 1938, from Rothenberger to the Presiding Judge of the District Court, Korn, another letter from Letz to Korn, and the third a reply to Rothenberger from Korn. I should like to distribute copies in both English and German at this time.
Doctor, I should like to have you follow me while I read from the third and last paragraphs of Rothenberger's letter. The third paragraph reads as follows:
"Regarding the problem of the relationship of political decisions of officials of the Party and judgments by the courts, one can say, in my opinion, that although it is difficult to solve in principle, one can find a solution in a single case nearly always with the necessary tact."
Now, the last paragraph of Dr. Rothenberger's letter reads as follows:
"The Gau leadership Hamburg has declared its willingness to cooperate in this method for its own field of activities as well as also for the fields of activities of other Gau leaderships. Therefore, it would be advisable that the correspondence in such cases would be conducted via my office so that I am able to take up direct contact with the competent department of the Gau leadership Hamburg."
Now may I ask you to turn to the last letter, the letter from Dr. Korn. I misidentified that letter a moment ago, I said it was from Korn to Rothenberger; it is not from Korn to Rothenberger, it is from Korn to his subordinate judges. This is what Korn says to his judges:
"The Gau Leader will issue an instruction to the Kreis Leaders according to which they have to turn in principle and exclusively to the presiding judge of the Hanseatic Appellate Court whenever they are of the opinion that they have to come in contact with the court in any question whatsoever. By this regulation every possibility of friction should be avoided and most of all the impression of an attempt to influence vis-a-vis the Court should be prevented. The suggestions made by the officials of the NSDAP will be made known by the presiding judge of the Hanseatic Appellate Court to the Court, from case to case."
Now, when you have had time to examine other paragraphs of the letter, I should like to ask you, Doctor, one question, or perhaps several questions, based on these series of letters.
I shall ask my question now, Doctor, and you may answer when you feel you are ready. My question is this. Is it conceivable to you that the quashings you experienced as a judge in the Hamburg Judicial District were arranged for and directed by Rothenberger in conferences with the interested. Gau officials, as suggested by this correspondence?
A. Well, in the Vatje case I had reason to assume that discussions took place between the Gau leadership and Dr. Rothenberger. For the rest, I have to say that the contact between the Gauleitung and the President of the District Courts of Appeal was something that I never could quite make head or tails of. I noticed that something like that did take place, but of what nature this contact was and for what purpose it was established in each case I didn't quite understand. I always had suspicions and felt distrust, but I never really could quite find out what purpose this all served, because after all the court proceedings could go on in a proper manner. If Party offices were inclined to always address not the judges directly but the President of the District Court of Appeal, I have to say that in any case the Party offices did not always comply with these agreements. The. longer the war proceeded, in my opinion, the more and more they tried to interfere with the courts and influence the courts directly.
Q. Now, of course, this letter is dated 1938. One of the cases which you described, the first one, in fact, was prior to 1938. Is it your feeling that there was attempted influence and in fact successful influence prior to 1938?
A. In the Korutz case, certainly.
MR. KING: I should like to offer this exhibit as 594.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Doctor, in your experience as a judge in Hamburg have you come across the term "protective custody"?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How was a person taken into protective custody?
A. By the Gestapo.
Q. And did you hear of mistreatments, abuses of prisoners while they were in the custody of the Gestapo, while they were in "protective custody"?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those things common knowledge in and around Hamburg?
A. Yes, in some cases I could even make the positive finding that the Gestapo ill-treated people in protective custody. I recall that in 1933--it must have been November or December, for those were the two months when I was working at the local court in 1933--it was my task as a judge, at that time, among other things, to participate in post mortems. At that time a file was submitted to me by the prosecution which concerned a man who had died in the concentration camp, Fuhlsbuettel. As I stated, I was in charge of this post mortem, but through some official hindrance, purely by coincidence I didn't get around to it. However, I read the report of the post mortem that was made out for the official files, and in this record the sentence was contained that traces of serious mistreatment were found during the post mortem. A later on, when I was judge at the District Court as well as at the local court, in some cases--I estimate them to have been four or five, or even six cases--I made the observation that in regard to the testimony that defendants had given to officials of the Gestapo while they were in protective custody, that they later rescinded it before the Court. And then, partly, I believe, because they were afraid of the Gestapo the defendants did not explain why they rescinded their previous statements. There may have been one or two cases in which the defendants stated directly, "I made these statements that incriminated me, in the concentration camp, only because the officials of the Gestapo beat me up."
That was known to me, and that was the reason for a decision which I made later on during the war.
During the war--it was about in 1942--a political prisoner was brought before me because he broke the peace in 1933, and he was arrested. It was explained that in the interim, after 1940, the Gestapo had arrested this man in Paris--he had fled to France. This man was brought to the investigating prison at Hamburg City and he was safe in this investigating prison because nothing illegal happened in this particular prison.
Then the Gestapo came to me and requested via the prosecution and also directly by telephone that I should transfer this man for about four to six weeks from the prison and give him a furlough from the prison and leave him to the Gestapo in a concentration camp.
At that time I remembered the cases that I had experienced in the past and I told myself, if you give this man up to the Gestapo if only for a few weeks he will certainly be mistreated. And then, from the point of view of criminal law, you are co-responsible for such acts. Therefore, I made a decision in which I refused to hand this man over to the Gestapo, and then in my office issued the directive that in all future cases such applications should be submitted to me so that under the pressure of business I would not overlook them; and it was called to my attention and those applications were always refused by me and I still recall that in these cases the Gestapo gave in very meekly.
In all these cases political prisoners from France were actually saved from being handed over to the Gestapo so if in questions of principle, the basic questions, if in these questions one once in a while didn't go along with the Gestapo's wishes one could achieve it with energy that no mishap occurred.
Q Doctor, did you ever hear of any action being taken by any high officials in the Hamburg judicial administration against perpetrators of tortures and ill-treatments against people who were being hold in protective custody?