Is that right? your opinion?
A Yes. One reason is that in this report in an obvious manner it is avoided to say that these measures were carried out by the German security police insofar as I was able to read through these reports. Now generally it is expressly said there that the Einsatzgruppe or the Einsatzkommando with that figure or other, took certain measures. That is not written here but it merely gives us a local name. It says in Estonia these or these measures were taken without one word adding who took these measures. If all these measures had been carried out by the German security police in Estonia I am convinced that the official who made this report would not have omitted mentioning this expressively. I should think that even in the original report from Reval it is pointed out that the other agencies mentioned took part in these measures to some extent. The experts in Rige or in Berlin then left it out because it did not fit into their general line of reporting. In any case I would like to emphasize that the chief of Einsatzgruppe A Stahlecker, and his Chief Department IV, already through many oral reports by me, particularly Stahlecker through oral reports, were very well informed as to how great an extent Estonian agencies and agencies of the German Army had carried out such measures and how to a relatively small an extent their own forces did this. of Communists transferred to camps is stated exactly with 5,377 but the figure of the people executed is not stated exactly.
A. In my opinion that is proof again of the fact which I mentioned that in these measures various German and Estonian agencies took part in these measures, because the Estonian police knew exactly who was in the camps, and, therefore, they could report this to the department office in detail, but during the executions, the other agencies, namely, Estonian Home Guard and German Kommandantura of the army were not in a position to make exact statements, and, therefore, their's is only an estimated figure here.
Q. How far was the German Security Police responsible for these thousands of executions?
A. The German Security Police, for the reasons I gave is not at all responsible for this figure of approximately a thousand, but only for a fraction; I do not think it right to give an estimated figure here. I shall give more concrete points of view later of concerning other reports of events which reveal which figures concern other agencies without doubt, but, of course, it is right, and I would like to establish this: that executions of communist functionaries and agents to a certain extent were approved by my sonderkommando leaders, by my Department Chief IV, and my myself, according to suggestion, to interrogations, and mobulated suggestous by the Estonian police authorities. But these cases which come under the responsibility of my subordinates and myself, as I said, only concerned a fraction of the mentioned figure.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, your attorney asked you to what extent was the German Security Police responsible for the one thousand deaths. We gathered from that question that he was trying to find out about how many the German Security Police executed, but you did not answer that question.
A. Your Honor, the question which was put to me was not how many executions the German Security Police are concerned with, but what was the responsibility of the German Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will ask you to what extent, numerically, was the German Security Police responsible for the shootings of one thousand.
A. Your Honor, I am not able to give a definite figure on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not?
A. Because I cannot remember such a figure, and, therefore, cannot state it.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it a large figure; or, a small figure?
A. If I have to make an estimate, which might be wrong, however, then I would give a figure of about three hundred to three hundred and fifty for which the German Security Police was responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. Only such cases were concerned, however, which had been examined very carefully previously, and where it had been ascertained that there were communist functionaries who had endangered the security gravely; and that simultaneously there was serious guilt which even according to national Estonian law would call for a death sentence. That careful individual examinations were carried out, is shown by this document and shown by the fact of other decisions; namely, as it says here, that 3,785 people who had minor charges filed against them were released; that is, these persons were also communists and they were also incriminated as communists, but the incrimination was not so serious, in a sense that during that time, this time of reporting up to December, it was possible to release them. To the expression "concentration camp captivity," which is mentioned here, I shall say more about later on when describing the execution of penalty in Estonia. BYDR. VON STEIN:
Q. Please look at the report of events, No. 88. It is contained in Volume II-A, Exhibit 46, Document No. NO-3149, page 92 of the German text, page 86-A of the English text, your Honor. Page 87. Here it is reported that in the Dorpat district since the occupation by German troops, 405 executions took place. Is this figure of 405 executions contained in the figure of one thousand executions in the Report of events No. 155?
A. Yes, doubtlessly. This figure surely is part of that figure one thousand, except perhaps of the 50 Jewish communists mentioned here. I shall give more explanations of this question also later on when talking about measures against Jews. May I reply to your question now that according to the instructions by Einsatzgruppe A it was actually laid down that Jews, even if measures were taken against them because they were communists, were to be classified as Jews and reported as such, and not to be classified as communists; but in spite of these Riga regulations it is possible that these 50 Jewish communists are contained in the Figure 405 -
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that reference, please, 405.
MR. GLANCY: On page 88, the last paragraph on page 88.
A. The figure of these 50 Jews, I shall come back to when explaining measures against Jews later on.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite catch your explanation about the 405. Would you please repeat it?
A. Yes. The question which was addressed to me was whether the figure of 405 in the territory Dorpat, people who were executed there, which is mentioned here, whether this figure is included in the figure of one thousand which is mentioned in the report mentioned before. I answered yes to this question. The Report of events of 19th September, the other report is one of 14th January; therefore, they are not 405 different persons but they are included in the figure of one thousand. In any case, as I emphasized, it is possible except of the 50 Jews mentioned here, which are included in this report, in this figure 405 and about which I shall speak again later on. This exception is possible because according to the regulations of Einsatzgruppe A, measures against Jews in general were to be classified under the term of Jews, even if these measures had been taken because of communist activity, as communist functionaries add agents, and not only because of the fact that they were Jews. That was the general instruction and according to this general instruction, these 50 Jews should actually not be contained in the figure one thousand, but in spite of this, it is possible that owing to a mistake they are still contained in the figure owing to the reason that they appear here in this total figure 405, and this figure 405 possibly was included in the figure one thousand, BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Can you give detailed statements from what time this original report originated on which this report of events No. 88 is based?
A. It is this report of events in Berlin, of the 19th September 1941. The original report from Dorpat must have originated from the 3rd of August 1941. In the original report there must have been a report which was made at the end of the month of August, 1941, by the Sonderkommando Dorpat, and sent off to Einsatzgruppe A in Riga, that is, actually, presumably the report was made on the 26th or 27th august and on 28th or 29th august it was sent to Riga.
Q. Could you give us a point, from the document itself, concerning the organizational circumstances at the time?
A. Yes. Such a report by a individual Sonderkommando immediately was sent to the Einsatzgruppe in Riga concerning organization was possible only during the time when a central headquarters for the office had not yet been set up. As I said, such a central headquarters was set up after Reval was conquered at the end of August of 1941. Therefore, this report must have been made before that time, and must have been sent off from Dorpat immediately to Riga. If not, it would have been sent via Reval and this obviously didn't happen, because from Reval one could never have written such a report or sent it off which only concerned one city in one district.
Q. In this report it is mentioned, -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, suppose we recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 13 November 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal II.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I ask that Haensch be excused is examined in the witness stand.
I ask him to be brought to Room
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be excused from Room 57.
You may proceed.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. We finished discussing the situation report Number 88 in Volume Number IIA, Exhibit 46, on page 87 of the English text;in this report there is mentioned the custody camp in Dorpat.
Why did the field commandatura have a custody camp there?
A. I already mentioned yesterday, and the witness, Dr. Mae, stances.
These conditions were caused by the fighting which had beengoing on for a long time.
During these fights -
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Von Stein, when you refer us to a document, try to indicate that to us also please so that we can have it.
Now we have the document but we don't know which particular page or
MR. GLANCY: If you please, Your Honor, it is page 88 of the English, the paragraph headed "Operations in the town and district of Dorpat.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you.
MR. SANDBERGER: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT:Please.
MR. SANDBERGER: During these fights and following them the Estonian home guard in the city of Dorpat and the vicinity had carried out arrests and interrogations and executions partly on their own authority and partly under the supervision of the German field commandos of the army. In connection with these arrests and interrogations the Estonian home guard also had set up this custody camp which is mentioned in this report from Dorpat here. The Estonian Police Prefecture who had also been set up during the time of fighting was subordinate to the Estonian homeguard commander. And apart from the very first days of the fighting when the homeguard commander was independent , he was then subordinate to the German field commanders of the German army. This Germanfield commander, a colonel, and first of all, his deputy, a major, were very energetic and active and particularly interested in security questions, including all police questions. They were not at all prepared to hand the security tasks and police tasks over to anybody else, in particular if a subcommando of the German security police came to Dorpat. The German subcommando leader alone, owing to the fact of his rank, was not able to maintain his views towards the field commander, his deputy and the commander of the home guard. Therefore, the full responsibility of the field commander remained in existance until the month of September, also for all police matters. Only in September in security police tasks the supervision over the political and criminal department of the Estonian police prefectura was handed over to the subcommander of the security police. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Pardon me, witness. While you are commenting on this para graph, you see the statement at the end of the paragraph, "There are no more Jews in prison".
A. Yes.
Q. Now, does that mean that they were executed?
A. Your Honor, about the details of this report, I cannot tell you anything since all occurrences throughout these entire reports were not the responsibility of the security police, but, as I have said -
Q. But, Witness, you have just given us a report, a story, a comment on this entire paragraph. You have told us about the subcommandos, about the Estonian guard, and so on. Now, when we ask you a very specific question, you say you are not familiar with the details, why are you commenting on this at all if you don't know this very important detail?
A. Your Honor, I just talked about the organizational conditions as they were in this time from July until September in Dorpat.
Q. How, I will call your attention to the proceeding sentence, "The Total number of persons executed in Dorpat is 405, among them 50 Jews." Now, you told us about that yesterday, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, you were able to give us enlightenment on that sentence. Why can't you shed the same kind of illumination on the succeeding sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. Your Honor, what I said yesterday about this figure of 405 executions concerned exclusively the fact that it was my opinion that this figure is contained in the total figure of approximately one thousand executions.
Q. Very well, now, that is your opinion on the 405. Now, give us your opinion on the other sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison". Give us your opinion on that, since you volunteered your opinion on the preceding sentence.
A. Your Honor, I cannot state anything about this because I was not informed about the details. All these occurrences happened exclusively under the responsibility of the field commanders. I can merely presume, and when talking about measures against Jews I shall explain it, that the 50 Jews who are mentioned here are part of the 405 persons executed and were arrested by the Estonian home guard as Communists. In particular as NKWD agents and as such they were interrogated and executed.
Q. Now, you read all that into this simple sentence, but yet you can't read anything into the other clearer sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. Your Honor, I said that the things I mentioned just now. I can only assume from the general conditions, but I cannot say how it can be explained that at that time no more Jews were in prison. But it is certain that at that time a great number of Jews were free in that district. In that district in all there were about a thousand Jews before the war.
Q. In this same paragraph there is the statement, "150 persons were released". Were there any Jews in these 150 people?
A. Your Honor, I do not know, because all occurrences mentioned in this report I do not know about in detail. I can only assume that as far as these 450 and these 150 are concerned, the facts are as I mentioned them. I do not know about any individual occurrences mentioned in these reports, nor about the previous figures of releases either. I am only certain that at the time of this report a great number of Jews in the district of Dorpat were at liberty.
Q. Weren't you up there with specific orders to arrest all Jews?
A. Your Honor, at that time I did not carry out this order in the district of Dorpat, as can be shown from this report, because if it had happened it would have been mentioned in this report. In this district, the city and district of Dorpat, about a thousand Jews lived in the year 1935. If we assume.....
Q. Will you please answer my question. Weren't you up there with orders to arrest all Jews.
A. I had this order, yes.
Q. Yes. Now, why do you now say that there were a thousand Jews walking around free?
A. Because at that time I had not yet carried out the order, but only at the end of September. This is shown from this report, Your Honor, that the order was not yet carried out at that time or else it would be mentioned in this report.
Q. Well, then, you can offer no comment on the statement, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. No, not for that reason, because all these measures...
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Who carried out the arrests mentioned in this report?
A. The Estonian home guard and the Estonian police.
Q. The Interrogations and transfers into camp mentioned before, who carried these out?
A. The Estonian home guard and the Estonian police.
Q. Under whose supervision--under whose responsibility did the Estonian police carry out these arrests, interrogation, and transfers into camps?
A. Under the supervision and the responsibility of the COURT II CASE IX Estonian home guard.
Q. Under whose supervision was the Estonian home guard?
A. During the first days of the state of civil war at the time and during the fights in the district of Dorpat, they acted on their own responsibility because from the Germans there was nobody there yet at the time who could have been in charge or put in charge of the Estonian home guard. After the first few days had passed the home guard was under the supervision and responsibility exclusively of the German field commanders.
Q. The executions mentioned in this report, who ordered them?
A. In as far as it concerns the first days, the commander of the Dorpat home guard, later the field commander of Dorpat or his deputy.
Q. Who carried out these executions?
A. The Estonian home guard.
Q. Can you give arguments based on this report for the facts mentioned by you?
A. The report itself proves, and I am only basing my argument on the text of the report, there are a few points showing that this report does not concern the activity of the security police but the activity of the field commanders and the home guard. These are the four points of view: First of all, in this entire report in the heading and also in the text the absence of any mention of any own activity of the German security police is conspicuous. In other reports--in those reports of events it is nearly always mentioned that an Einsatzkommando had done something, or the security police. This is not mentioned here, but it is simply said here that this or that measure was dealt with, was carried out, and so forth without mentioning who COURT II CASE IX did this.
A second point is shown from the heading of this paragraph where it is said that measures in the city and district of Dorpat were carried out. This district was under the competency of the field commanders of the army; not the competency of the subcommando of the security police. The jursidiction of the subcommando of the security police apart from the city and district of Dorpat was concerned also with three other districts in the south of Estonia, namely, the district, Vero, Walk, and Petschur. If this subcommando reported about their own activity and their own responsibility or would have reported about this, then, of course, they would have reported about the three other districts as well.
Q. You, therefore, mean to say that the subcommando had nothing to do with the events mentioned here?
A. Yes. It is in so for a security police situation report and not an activity report. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, do you categorically exclude that a subcommando had anything to do with these activities in Dorpat?
A. Yes.
Q. And you do it just merely from reading this report?
A. No, Your Honor, but from my own knowledge of conditions at the time about which the subcommando leaders reported to me.
Q. Didn't the Estonian home guard have to submit their recommendations for executions to you or a subcommando leader?
A. No, Your Honor. In the district of Dorpat it was like this, that he submitted it to the German field commander.
Q. Didn't you tell us that all recommendations for executions had to be passed on by the subcommando leaders?
A. Your Honor, I explained yesterday that in the COURT II CASE IX district of Dorpat, in particular, the conditions were different.
Q. Why was Dorpat different from any other place?
A. The reason was that the field commandant from the very beginning had a very strong position. He was very energetic and on his part wanted to keep the jurisdiction for everything.
Q. When you told us yesterday about the recommendations for executions being approved by subcommandos, you did not make any exception in favor of Dorpat, did you?
A. Yes, Your Honor. I am absolutely certain that I explained that these suggestions to the subcommandos and these regulations existed only there where no special regulations had been laid down as in Dorpat and in several localities in the south of Estonia. I am quite sure of that.
Q. Well, we gather from what you have said that you personally are not at all familiar with everything that is stated in this paragraph to which you have been directing your attention in the past half hour. You are personally not acquainted with those facts?
A. Your Honor, I do not know about the individual occurrences. I know the organizational situation, that at that time....
Q. Well, please answer the question. Do you personally have any knowledge of the facts contained in this paragraph?
A. No.
Q. Were you involved in any way in any of these incidents referred to in the paragraph?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, why are you spending so much time defending the statements in that paragraph if you are not involved?
A. I wanted to explain how the responsibility was in COURT II CASE IX connection with the jurisdiction in Dorpat, and that for this report.
...
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, why did your subcommando make this report if you said they had nothing to do with the events mentioned?
A. Why it made this report I do not definitely know, or at least I do not definitely remember, but there can be only one reason for that, that the Einsatzgruppe in Riga requested from the subcommando in Dorpat an activity or situation report at the end of the month of August.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q How did the expert get the statements for this report?
A I don't concretely know, but according to the circumstances it can only have happened in one way. Namely, that he went to the field commanders of the army, and to the Estonia Home Guard, and to the Estonian Police, and there asked for the documents concerned, or copied from the documents listed there, and made a situational report of the Security Police based on these documents. this report exclusively were under the jurisdiction of the German Field commanders, or, under the Estonian Home Guard, and not under the jurisdiction of the sub-commander of the Security Police?
Q The conditions regarding competency, in Dorpat, i.e. independent power of the Estonian Home Guard and total responsibility of the German local and field commanders; did that also exist in other localities in Estonia?
A Yes. Not to such an extent, but temporarily in a similar manner in some district towns in the south of Estonia, in the month of July, and partly also in August 1941. for these measures? issued at the beginning of the Eastern Campaign, about the question of the disposition of the population, and the combatting of Communists. The orders applied to the entire Eastern Army, and to the German Police assigned to the East. on the organization of the German SIPO, the German Security and the Estonian Police in Estonia at the time. the various succeeding periods are to be distinguished. Concerning the Estonian Police, this is first of all the period until the introduction Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of the Estonian independent administration, that is, 20 September 1941. The second period is that of 20 September 1941 up until the introduction of the German Civilian Administration, on 5 December 1941. In the first period the Estonian Police Prefectures ware auxiliary agencies of the field commanders on all question of public security. Centralized District Authority did not exist until the 20 September 1941. In the time from 20 September 1941 until 5 December 1941, the Estonian Police Prefectures were subordinate to the Police Department of the Estonia Ministry of the Interior. That was part of the Estonian self admininstration, and these were subordinate to the Commander Rear Army Area North. In the third period, from 5 December 1941, the Estonian self administration was subordinate to the German Commissary General as Chief of the Civilian Administration. The period about which I shall now talk in detail is that of October until December 1941, because this is the decisive period for these cases which are mentioned in the Report No. 111, that is, executions of Communists after careful examination. The Estonian P Police was subdivided into twelve Police Prefectures; in each Estonian District there was a Police Prefecture. The Estonian Police in general had a general police department, a political police department, and a criminal department. The political and criminal departments together on an average had a personnel of approximately 800 people. Among them were sixty to eighty lawyers, that is, persons who had received full legal training at the University of Dorpat. In this....
THE PRESIDENT: Where was this all taking place, in Reval? Was this all in Reval?
THE WITNESS: No, in the entire country of Estonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these eighty lawyers, scattered throughout the country?
THE WITNESS: These sixty to eighty lawyers, were, most of them, in Reval, and some were distributed among the twelve agencies throughout the country. Apart from that among the personnel of this Estonian Police and Criminal Department, there were sixty to eighty professional officers Court No. II, Case No. IX.
from the former Estonian Army, who had been assigned partly for organizational functions, and partly for the verdict commission, which I shall explain later on. From 5 December onwards, that is, since the Civilian Administration was introduced, the political and criminal departments of the Estonian Police were united, and became the special organization of the Estonian Police for Inner Security, whose headquarters were in Reval. In the previous period the Police Prefecture in Reval was the most important headquarters and the leading agency for the entire police concerning specialized questions; that is, all recommendations for judgments from the entire country came together there. During that time the organization of Department IV of the German Security Police, that is, the German State Police within Estonia contained the following personnel: With the commando headquarters in Reval there was a Department Chief IV with four intermediate officials. Department Chief IV had the rank of Kriminalrat, a criminal director of the German Security Police; that is the same rank as a Major, that is the same rank I had. In most cases it was an official who himself had been trained for law. In general his age was about ten years older than my age, and he had a lot of police experience. The four intermediate officials who were his assistants had the rank of a sergeant -- a top sergeant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr von Stein, what is the purpose of all of these very detailed descriptions of these officers, indicating their ages? We have not as yet heard about their home life, but it seems that we are getting into a greet deal of unnecessary detail. What is your purpose?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, that is of importance in order to prove what forces were at his disposal. The country of Estonia is about as big as Holland, and he wants to show that the police forces at his disposal were by far not sufficient in order to carry out the police affairs satisfactorily. He further wants to prove that he could not supervise those forces at all, because they were distributed all over the country. That is largely what he wants to prove.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: You say, all these forces were at his disposal?
DR. VON STEIN: For his district yes, but all the forces Estonia, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I understood you to say that all these forces were at his disposal. Now, is that correct?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, he is now giving us the figure of the people who were subordinated to him.
THE PRESIDENT: All these police forces were at his disposal?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He was the Chief Police Officer in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: Not to that extent, no. He only had certain functions and about these functions he will tell us more later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Everything is going to come later on. Let's have something now. Let's get right to the very issue. He is charged with certain crimes. Now, if he didn't commit these crimes, then let him tell us why and how he didn't commit them, but we are getting into a great deal of academic discussion and description of activities in Estonia which may or may not enter into the picture. Let's get to the real issue.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, it is of importance, because if the defendant would tall us now that he only received a certain amount of knowledge of all of this, then it would seem incredible for us to receive an exact impression how conditions actually were in the country at the time. For that reason unfortunately it is necessary that we have to discuss these points as well.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN: tion, That police forces were under you? Police, Department IV in Estonia had the following personnel: Department Chief IV in Reval, plus four intermediate officials with the rank of NCO.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
In the offices in Reval, Dorpat, Pernaw and Norva, and Arensburg, one intermediate official, who had the rank of an NCO, For the State Police task in Estonia of German officials, there was an executive official, and nine intermediate officials. were subordinate to you?
A Yes, for State Police tasks, yes. Apart from that there was those for the criminal, police tasks, which are not under discussion here now. introduced as substitute for the instructions of the OKH and the RSHA in Estonia? 1941, those general directives applied which I had announced to the subcommando leaders before I moved; that is, first, only to arrests, executions only in special, exceptional cases in the manner as I have described yesterday. Now in the first half of October I initiated the following directives for the treatment of all districts concerning the Communists in Estonia. May I explain the procedure briefly that when reports came from the population to the Estonian Police, and to the Estonian Home Guard. In the political department of the Estonian Police, Prefecture the reports were received, investigations were carried out, records were made, arrests were carried out whenever required, and the witnesses were questioned; particularly, these witnesses were questioned whom the defendant, the accused, wanted called in order not to be incriminated. After the examination had been concluded, a Commission sat, consisting of three members. This Commission examined the entire procedure, and an expert gave a lecture on it, and explained same; they listened to the accused, and, in particular, they had to consider everything that he stated for his defense. They examined all the documents, discussed all questions in the case, and then came to a final decision.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: What would the accused be charged with?
THE WITNESS: As Communist functionaries and agents. There were many persons who worked for the Communist Party in Estonia, or for the Soviet Communists, and had been executed as such.
THE PRESIDENT: What if they proved to be Communist functionaries, then what happened?
THE WITNESS: Then in each individual case according to the facts, and according to the personality, it was decided whether the person was to be executed, or was to be transferred into a camp.
THE PRESIDENT: What would they decide as to whether he could be executed, or sent to a camp. Let's suppose now it is established that he was a Communist functionary?
THE WITNESS: There were a great number of Communist functionaries, of various kinds and various characters. Not every Communist functionary down to the smallest and the most minor functionary were executed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's suppose that he was a functionary of some importance; let's say, he had been a Burgermeister or a mayor of a town, and had acted as such up until the occupation of Germany, what would happen to him?
THE WITNESS: It can not be judged in this manner. It only depended on what he did in this office, and it depended on how we judged his general personality.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's suppose a case where you have a mayor of a term, and he conducted his office as a mayor should; he was very active, he was a Communist, and he attended the meetings of the Communist party, and he discharged his duties of the office with a Communistic point of view.