That state of affairs lasted until November 1944. A practical execution was this: Every month lists summarizing those clemency pleas - and those lists via the president's chancellery, the head of which was State Minister Meissner - were sent on to Hitler. Only when Hitler had given his consent the persons to whom clemency had been granted were told that the death sentence had been commuted. Previously that was not possible. As is shown by Exhibit 282 it was found that that procedure was not much good. It was a hardship for those who had applied for clemency - for they were left in uncertainty for some time as to whether or not they were to be executed. And also from the point of view of office management it made things difficult, for it was found that of the total of 290 clemency pleas - pleas to have the death sentence commuted to a prison sentence - Hitler had failed to approve only one. In 289 out of 290 cases he had approved that clemency should be granted. That is clearly shown from the letter of Thierack to Meissner, which is contained in Exhibit 282....
JUDGE BRAND: Pardon me... I think I didn't understand your statement with reference to the number of cases submitted to Hitler. Would you restate that? I want to understand it.
A. The letter says that during the last few months, or during the last year, 290 cases had been reported where the death sentence was to be commuted to a prison sentence. Of those pleas Hitler had approved all, with one single exception.
JUDGE BRAND: Those were cases in which clemency was recommended to Hitler, is that right?
A. Yes, Your Honor. That concerns suggestions by the Minister to grant clemency in the cases concerned. In introducing this Exhibit the prosecution made a mistake insofar as it has been stated that all pleas for clemency had been refused with one exception. In fact, it was the contrary. All pleas were granted with the exception of one single case, which was refused. Meissner replied to Thierack in answer to this letter that those lists concerning clemency pleas were no longer wanted and in effect that meant that from now on the Minister of Justice himself was able to grant clemency.
That is to say, the commuting of a death sentence to imprisonment had been delegated, from Hitler to Thierack. That was in November 1944. But the Gauleiter as hitherto had to play their part, in particular in cases which had attracted public attention.
And then there was another group of cases, as can be seen from the letter by Meissner. Closely connected with this Exhibit 262 there are Exhibits 455, NG--
DR. SCHILF: I have quoted it already. NG-304.
A. And Exhibit 358.
DR. SCHILF: That, too, I have already quoted. NG-137.
A. In the incorporated Eastern territories the decision about the execution of death sentences did not lie with the Minister of Justice but with the Reichsstatthalter and Oberpresident - senior president. Those, too, had to compile lists and send them to the Ministry of Justice. When Meissner said that those lists were no longer required it became unnecessary for the Reichsstatthalter and Oberpresident in the incorporated Eastern territories to send those lists to us. Therefore, for reasons of simplifying matters in war time conditions they were done away with. There only remained the individual reports. That circular decree which ordered this simplification I have seen, but I have not seen the list.
DR. SCHILF: I would ask you in this connection to tell us briefly to what extent in practice the Gauleiters influenced Thierack's practice in granting clemency. I only want to know what effect that had in practice.... now that we have already discussed the position of the Gauleiters.
A. The prospect of getting Hitler to grant clemency existed only if a Gauleiter gave us approval to have a sentence commuted, but from my recollection I can say that it was not such an infrequent thing for a Gauleiter to give his consent. There were a few cases where, in spite of the fact that the Gauleiter had refused, we managed to get Hitler to grant clemency, but, in general, this is the way it was:
If a Gauleiter made a decision against a measure of clemency which the Ministry had planned, Hitler only rarely did give his consent to grant clemency. If Thierack all the same, on his own initiative, had granted clemency, the Gauleiter certainly would have approached Hitler directly. Probably by Bormann. In that case the result would have been obvious.
JUDGE BRAND: Did the witness say he would have approached Himmler, or Hitler?
A. Hitler - as the head of State, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: I think the translation misunderstood you.
A. Thus, to a certain extent the clemency practice had developed by necessity to deviate from which, in general, was of no use. One had to concentrate more energy on those cases which, for objective or subjective reasons, justified taking particular interest in them.
DR. SCHILF: We now conclude this matter - for more individual cases or documents referring to the clemency practice have not been submitted by the prosecution. Now I would like you to give us your view in brief about Exhibit 496, with which the prosecution has connected you. Exhibit 496 is the so-called "Death List" of sentences passed by the Special Court of Nurnberg. The Exhibit is called the "Death Sentences passed by Oeschey." This is NG-1081, III-B Supplement.
A. I have looked at that list and I have also looked at Exhibit 238, NG--409, and Exhibit 253; NG--398. Those are the lists of death sentences passed by the Special Court of Nurnberg, and death sentences executed at Stuttgart.
The two exhibits I mentioned last are contained in volume 3-L. Neither from those lists nor from affidavits which have been submitted in respect to the Nurnberg or Stuttgart judges, have I been able to find any case where I decided about granting clemency.
Q. I am now referring to the Altmeyer affidavit, Exhibit 441. He said only that in principle you had followed the same line as Thierack. I would like to ask you in what way did you report as to what happened when you were there and did you during those reports have a chance to exert any influence on Thierack?
A. In general I can only say that the reports to Thierack about death sentences did not have the character of a consultation. Thierack did not want to take advice. He merely wanted to know about the facts of the case and then he decided himself. The decision was made immediately. That was true particularly in the case of the clear death sentences. Thierack had before him the document which had been drafted in the clear cases, saying that clemency would not be granted. The facts were layed out and as soon as that had been done Thierack in such clear cases signed the document. There was no possibility for intervention. If one did occasionally draw attention to a particular point as a rule Thierack very tactlessly and with much energy rejected such intervention. It was different when the cases were doubtful. In those cases the referent or the expert gave a detailed account of the facts of the case and that referent or expert gave his own views. He gave a reason for the position he took and he also gave supplementary explanations. As to whether Thierack consulted other persons or not that varied. That was left to him entirely whether ho would do so or not. Sometimes he asked one of the other persons what do you think about this, but as a rule he came to a decision immediately, execution or commuting the sentence to the penitentiary term of eight of ton years of whatever may have been suitable.
Q. Would you be a little more brief here. All we want to know is to what extent you could have exercised influence and what part you yourself played?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness just answered that question. I suggest that you proceed to another question. We have had his answer.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, your position as under--secretary would have lead one to believe that you, concerning the procedure which you have just described, had a certain advantage of stating your views, Was that so?
A. I couldn't do so. I use to sit on the same side as the referent, the head of the department or the collaborator. Sometimes my opinion was asked just as the others may have been asked and my opinion was taken into account in the same way, or rather it was usually not taken into account as the opinion of any collaborator or referent.
Q. There is one more individual case here where according to my information, you are said to have worked particularly hard for clemency. That is the Dreiling case. Would you tell the Tribunal about that in a few brief words?
A. I can actually remember two cases where I did succeed in persuading Thierack to grant clemency. The cases can be seen in Exhibit 352, page 18, in the English text pages 20-21, and pages 89 and 90, in the English, pages 102 and 103. I beg your pardon, the first was page 19, not page 18, page 19, it was page 19, that in the English text is page 22. It concerns the von Goddin case. In that case the Minister had already ordered that the death sentence was to be carried out. I had the files returned to me by the referent and then after the department in general had reported I had a private talk with the referent and after lengthy discussions the minister allowed himself to be persuaded and did commute the sentence. I remember the Dreiling case even more clearly. It concerned an elderly woman who had made defeatist remarks
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Klemm, may I ask you a question which might perhaps shorten this.
In the case of the elderly woman did you also intervene successfully with the minister and secure a commutation of the death sentence?
WITNESS: Yes, I achieved the commutation. The question was remarkable in so far as the gauleiter was concerned, he had with a great deal of determination rejected the idea of a clemency plea.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. We will now go on to other documents which the Prosecution has submitted against you. That is exhibit 281, that is NG-301, and 279, that is NG 302. The execution of death sentences was to be accelerated. According to the documents which we have mentioned here we are concerned with events, some of which occurred in 1943 and some of which occurred in 1944. That is the time during which you were under-secretary. Please tell us something about these two documents?
A. Exhibit 281 deals with two events, one of which happened a year before the other. The-one deals with Meissner, the head of the Chancellory, a letter from him to Thierack dated the 3 of September, 1943. In that letter Meissner at the request of the Fuehrer complains that no decision had been made about the carrying out of the death sentences within a space of five to twelve months. That letter was not replied to. There is a note on it: "No answer - out of date." The explanation for that is to be seen in Exhibit 279, that is correspondence between Lammers and Thierack on the same subject, because the necessary measures had in the meantime been taken it became unnecessary to reply to Meissner. Quite independent from that matter, the second part of the document deals With the fact that Department 4 on 1 September 1944, that is to say, almost exactly a year to the day later, established the fact that many death sentences had not been reported on and so no disposition had been made as to whether clemency was to be granted or not. That was reported to the minister and the minister then ordered a letter to be written which we have seen in the document, the letter to the President and the General Reich Prosecutor of the Peoples Court.
I only took note of the draft of that letter.
Q. Furthermore, the Prosecution has submitted against you Exhibit 299, , No 303, document book VII-B. These exhibits are concerned with the question as to whether or when relatives of persons who had been executed had been informed about the execution, were you in the same department for that? Please tell us something about that?
A. It is particularly the second paragraph which caused the prosecution to submit that document, according to which relatives of non-German nationals were not informed when on execution had been carried out. That is evident too from the lists on reports. I approved the draft of that circular decree, but the report was made for an entirely different reason. Up to that time the prison was to inform the relatives--that is to say, the prison where the condemned person had been executed. It was found, however, that in most cases the prisons did not inform the relatives. In 1943 the Ministry of Justice gave information by writing to the relatives, which was unskillful. That is shown by Exhibit 298. Department IV itself wanted the matter to be put in order, and that was the true reason for that circular decree, that is to say, the relatives were to be informed by the prosecution. I noted down that actual reason in these report lists as a clue. What I put down was: "In future the prosecution will deal with informing relatives."
The fact that foreigners were excepted from that ruling was due to purely technical and mail reasons. In most cases the nearest relatives were not known, or their residences were not known, or it was not possible to reach them through the mails. That was in the middle of 1944, when that applied particularly in the West. That was quite apart from the linguistic difficulties if one would have sent out such a letter in German. It was not really a great disadvantage because it was open to the defense counsel to produce that information; it was much easier for him to get into contact with the relatives than it was for the legal authorities.
May I refer to the witness Gruenwald who, here in the witness stand, said that in 95 percent of all these cases he himself sent the information to the relatives.
Q. The Indictment contains a special point concerning you;
that is the assertion that you had exercised influence on the jurisdiction of the People's Court. It asserts that you had participated in the jurisdiction of the People's Court. Did you have any influence on the People's Court?
A. We. For example. I met Freisler only one time--I mean, over matters concerning the People's Court. Freisler came to my office once-
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has said "no" categorically, that he had no influence. I don't think that he can expand on that very far.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. The Tribunal does not want you to go into so much detail if you can give a clear answer in a few words.
A. What we discussed was merely evacuation of the People's Court for reasons of air raid danger. That actually happened on the day on which Freisler was killed during an air raid.
Q. Herr Klemm, you know that the prosecution has charged you personally with having directed the jurisdiction of the People's Court. We will revert later to two documents which are known in this trial as direction letters. I would ask you now whether you exercised an guidance, in writing or otherwise, on the People's Court or, concerning extraordinary objection, whether you introduced that or asked for it also for the purpose of giving direction.
A. Thierack, who came from the People's Court, regarded the People's Court as his own sphere when it came to ministerial decisions. The jurisdiction of the People's Court was already established along firm lines when I arrived. Everything that belonged to that sphere had been settled before my time, before I ever joined the Ministry of Justice. The department dealing with the undermining of defense morale had been established in 1943; the jurisdiction concerning malicious acts law cases and the undermining of defense moral had had established policies given to it before I arrived on account of the war-time exigencies.
The lists of sentences show that the Special Referat, Franke, had been established in January 1944. Franke never informed me about matters; he had many immediate negotiations with the Minister, and only occasionally, afterwards, did he inform me about the results. Freisler too in no way allowed interference with his jurisdiction. He made it more severe against the will of the Ministry. Furthermore, all attempts to make Freisler give up his incredible way of conducting procedures were absolutely hopeless. In the year 1944, at the decision of the Minister, several extraordinary objections were made, but nearly always, as far as the People's Court was concerned, those extraordinary objections against death sentences passed by Freisler.
Q. I would like to put something to you in this connection, and what I wish to put to you is Exhibit 174. That is an affidavit by the defendant Barnickel states that the Reich Ministry of Justice frequently shared the view of the Oberreichsanwalt and that therefore the Reich Ministry of Justice did exert influence on the jurisdiction of the People's Court through that channel.
A. In a few rare cases the Oberreichsanwalt was immediately instructed to make an extraordinary objection, but hardly ever when a short prison sentence was to be changed to a longer prison sentence. Such cases were submitted to the Oberreichsanwalt for examination and for his opinion. He was asked whether it was desirable to make extraordinary objections. So far as I know, what actually happened was that in such cases where it could only be expected that the prison sentence would go up, the Oberreichsanwalt used to advise against making an extraordinary objection, and the Ministry of Justice, with the exception of a few very rare cases, if ever at all, did not condone those proposals.
Q. In Exhibit 174, Mr. Barnickel also states that the objections became more frequent--and that does refer to your period of office--objections concerning undermining of defense morale cases. Would you give us your views, please?
A That was not the reason. The reason was only that in that sphere of jurisdiction the District Courts of Appeal, the Oberlandesgerichte were most lacking in uniformity. That alone was the reason why they increased.
Q. The exhibit also states that the extraordinary objections almost always had for their purpose to achieve a more severe sentence.
A. That too is not correct. I would refer you again to the report lists in Exhibit 252, to page 5 and page 110, in the English text, pages 5 and 4, and pages 126 and 127. They show that extraordinary objections were made in the case of death sentences, and as a rule those objections, as far as Freisler's sentences were concerned, were designed to bring about a more lenient sentence.
Q. The defendant Nebelung to, in the affidavit which he gave to the prosecution--that is Exhibit 177, NG-333, document book III-G--has made a statement to the effect that during the time when you were Undersecretary, the extraordinary objections increased.
A. If such increases actually did occur, I have already given the reason. The reason was the lack of uniformity with the Oberlandesgerichte, the District Courts of Appeal, and Freisler's sentences. However, I wish to add that on no account that increase was due to any influence that I might have exerted.
Q. You stated that the jurisdiction in so-called cases of undermining of defense morale was lacking in uniformity. I would now like to put to you Exhibit 97, and Exhibit 100.
THE PRESIDENT: We will postpone those matters until after the afternoon recess. We will now take the 15 minute recess.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the absence from the courtroom of many of defense counsel, the Tribunal will merely state now that tomorrow morning we will have a ruling upon the matter of the conspiracy charge in Count 1.
You may proceed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Herr Klemm, last I asked you for your position concerning Exhibit 97, that is NG-510, Book I-D, and concerning Exhibit 100, that is NG-674, in Document Book I-E. It is the problem of undermining of military strength and points of discussion at a meeting in Weimar in 1944 at the time when you were Under-Secretary.
A. The practice of handling cases of undermining of military strength and points of discussion at a meeting in Weimar in 1944 at the time when you were Under-Secretary.
A. The practice of handling cases of undermining of military strength was firmly established. That can be seen in particular from Exhibit 97 and 100. It was different, however, with the way in which local courts and prosecutions handled it. Frequently one misunderstood that the law against malicious attacks and provisions concerning undermining of military strength were to protect entirely different legal concepts; that is to say, that these acts violated entirely different legal concepts. That discrepancy was unjust and therefore one had to do something about it.
Q. In an affidavit Gruenwald, Exhibit 283, NG-535; Document Book VII-A, the assertion is made that cases of undermining of military strength were almost always decided by death sentences. What can you say in this connection? What were your experiences as Under-Secretary concerning that point?
A. That statement by Gruenwald is based on an error. First of all one has to take into consideration that only the most serious cases were tried before the People's Court.
If one wants to get a clear picture then one would have to add the jurisdiction of the 15 District Courts of Appeal which also had to decide cases of undermining military strength. One may even speak of the fact that in cases which were referred to the District Courts of Appeal, only very rarely death sentences were pronounced. But from Exhibit 124, one may also see--that is a statistical list concerning the People's Court--that although the People's Court only dealt with the most serious cases in less than 50 per cent death sentences were pronounced. That statistical list, of course, refers not only to cases of undermining of military strength but also to high treason, treason. If one compares, on the other hand, that list of death sentences from the Ministry of Justice with it and the statements contained in Affidavit Rothaug, who estimates 30,000 denouncements per year--I consider that figure too high--but if one puts that alone in comparison then one can find out that in only one per cent of all cases of undermining of military strength, a death sentence was pronounced.
Q. As you saw matters at that time, you said that according to the statistical list on the people's Court, about 50 per cent death sentences were pronounced. Wasn't that figure extraordinarily high? I want you to make your statement from the point of view of the Ministry. That is, from what you could observe during your work as Under Secretary.
A. Here again I can only refer to the fact that one really would have to add the jurisdiction of the District Courts of Appeal, and then of course I could not get a clear picture because the Referent for these matters, Franke, almost in all cases went directly to the Minister. In addition, we did not have the right to decide, as far as members of the Protectorate were concerned, because the right for clemency in these cases was with the Reich Protectorate for Bohemis and Moravia.
Q. In this connection, I would like to ask you whether you have any knowledge of the fact that at the People's Court the defense was allegedly limited. We have repeatedly heard witnesses here who stated that defense counsel before the People's Court hardly had an opportunity to conduct an adequate defense.
I refer also to the fact that other witnesses have stated to the contrary. What have you, as Undersecretary, heard about the cases which were here quoted as presenting a limitation of the rights of the defense?
A. I have never heard anything about complaints against the People's Court with one exception, and that was the person of Freisler. There was never any complaint about any other judge that reached me. I could not even say complaint, I could only say criticism--adverse criticism. That was criticism of the manner in which Freisler conducted the trial. One case was described to me by my Adjutant when he saw Freisler in the trials concerning the 20th July. Never, however, was a complaint received by me from an attorney, and I do not know of a single case where a defense counsel might have been sent to a concentration camp for the manner or the content of his defense. Moreover, for the People's Court, the same provisions of the legal code of procedure were, of course, valid as for every other court, and that these rules were not kept, about that I have never heard a complaint.
Q. The prosecution has submitted individual cases against you. First we are concerned here with Exhibit 79, that is NG-316, in Document Book I-C. It is the affidavit by the witness Bram, and he mentions cases of illegal border crossing, cases of foreigners who lived in Germany and who had fled across the border to Switzerland and who were prosecuted for treason by all agencies of the Administration of Justice, also by the People's Court. What did you hear about that at the time?
A. I cannot say anything about that. These cases must have been important during the years 1940 to 1942. When I was there, they were no longer important. Brem, I believe, was a judge with the People's Court only until 1943. I cannot recall that during the time when I was Under-Secretary any such case had come to my attention.
Q. Then I still have to mention Exhibit 495, that is NG-1009, an affidavit by Weinmann. It's in Supplementary Book III-D. He describes the case of Dr. Will. Did you know anything about that case while you were Under-Secretary?
A. I recall that the case was reported to the Minister. Details, I can no longer remember, but I do recall that the problem was that the presentation of evidence was not very convincing and that a supplementary sentence had been pronounced for which there were no provisions in the law. Therefore an extraordinary objection was made. We also have the case Brinken, Exhibit 160, NG-274; in Document Book III-D.
The problem here was that by the intervention of a high SS leader, influence was exerted on the Administration of Justice, that is to say in this case on the People's Court. Did that case at the time come to your attention?
A. Yes, I know of that case, and that case particularly lent itself to complete clarification. Exhibit 160 contains copies, not from originals, but from the personal files of the lawyer. The prosecution asserts that Frau Brinken had been acquitted, because a high SS leader intervened on her behalf. In fact, however, she was sentenced to six months in prison, probably for an offense against the law concerning malicious acts, whereas the indictment was filed and based upon the undermining of military strength. The time she had been in prison pending trial was deducted. This correspondence was conducted only between SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt and the defense counsel. But particularly for the intervention on the part of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer, one can prove just the opposite of what the prosecution assumes. Hildebrandt, that was the SS Obergruppenfuehrer, also approached the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry of Justice, did not react in any way. As a result the woman remained in prison under arrest; the trial took place, and when that case was reported to the Minister, he directed that a letter be written to the Reichsfuehrer SS. I was present when that happened and know for sure that the department was instructed to send a copy of that intervention on the part of Hildebrandt, together with a complaint to Himmler, that is the superior of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer. That can be seen from Exhibit 252, page 37; in the English pages 40 to 42, from the schedule of reports of the 27th of October 1944, under No. 6.
Q. That concludes the Brinken case. But in this connection I should like to hear your explanation of Exhibit 246, NG-153, Document Book III-G. It is a correspondence, on the one hand, between Bormann and Lammers, and on the other between Lammers and Thierack of July, 1944, that is during the period while you were in the Ministry of Justice as under secretary.
Would you comment on that, please.
A. Bormann, for the sphere of the party, and Lammers, for the sphere of the state, had either drafted or prepared circular letters by which it should be avoided that people in prominent positions of the party or the state on their own initiative would submit testimonials for clemency pleas without actual knowledge of the facts concerning the contents of a penal procedure, and only with the intention to make use of their personal prestige in favor of a clemency plea; that should be stopped. And Bormann, as well as Lammers, referred to the proper channels and means for the support of a clemancy plea. The answer which Thierack gave Lammers on his draft does not bear the file mark of a department, and the answer must have left within a very short time after receipt of that letter. That shows that he himself answered directly. By these documents an element was introduced which proves that one wanted to prevent the intervention of prominent personalities -- such interventions as are charged in the Brinken case.
Q. Then we have to discuss the Pelsen case; the Pelsen case is Exhibit 161, NG--336, Document Book III--D. It is a death sentence pronounced for listening to foreign broadcasts, and you are brought into connection with that document.
A. Here again I can hardly say anything. These are the personal files of the defense counsel, and a purely one-sided description of the man who was sentenced. It is interesting to note that the clemency plea begins with an express statement on the part of the defense counsel that the findings of the tribunal are not to be disputed; findings which were based upon the statements of two witnesses. The case itself was decided by the Minister, as can be seen from Document Book III-L, page 11, in the English book, pages 12 and 13, under C, Figure 2.
Q. Then, we come to the Kozian case which is also brought into connection with you. It is Exhibit 158, NG-357, Document Book III-D.
This is a case of defeatist statements which were punished. What did you have to do with it?
A. This case is concerned not only with defeatist statements, but also -- of course that was not read into the transcript -- but it can be seen from the case, it is also concerned with the fact that the convicted man wanted to prevent his son from doing service in the army. I don't know anything about that case.
Q. Then, we have another case; the case of the witness Solf, who was heard here. The Prosecution, after hearing the witness, submitted a so-called Fuehrer Information, Exhibit 402, NG-1243, Document Book III-D. You are supposed to have known about this Fuehrer Information, that is to say, to have approved of it. Would you care to comment on that?
A. The details as to the facts in the case I ca no longer remember. I have to depend on what is written in that Fuehrer Information. The case did not come us to the stage of a decision any more. If in spite of that I considered the Fuehrer Information, that does not mean a decision in the case itself. My signature only means that I considered the contents of that Fuehrer Information so important that it had to be brought to Hitler's attention; and that further more, as for the text of the Fuehrer Information I agreed with that -- there is no other meaning to that initial.
Q. Then, we come to Exhibit 513, NG-1472; that is an indictment from the Chief Reich Prosecutor, from 1944, against Czechs, Document Back III-B Supplement. Here again you were made responsible in part by the Prosecution.
A. Again on this point I cannot give any information. First of all, the man was a member of the protectorate; the right to clemency was therefore with the Reich Protector. Moreover, that was the question of a sentence of more than five years in a penitentiary. The witness Gruenwald testified here in the witness box that sentences of that kind were not submitted to the Minister or to the under secretary. These sentences were dealt with only by the department.
Q. Then, another so-called Fuehrer Information of the 18th of March 1944, was submitted in evidence against you, and concerns free thinker Sievers; that is Exhibit 483, NG-730, Supplementary Book III--A. Will you please say something about this, too?
A. Here again I can only say that the case as such was unknown to me. Initials on this Fuehrer Information also mean that the case was so important that Hitler had to be informed; and that I agreed with the text and the style.
The handling of the case itself, that I can no longer remember.
Q. Now, my last question concerning that group of questions dealing with the People's Court; would you give us your opinion of exhibit 220 which is NG 671, document book III-I. It is a report on the situation by the chief prosecutor Lautz, which came to your attention and I want to ask you whether you may have caused that report?
A. No, the report went first to the Minister, and only he could have made any decisions about it.
Q. Now, I should like to discuss a different question with you, and that is the subject of penal law concerning Poles, Jews and members of the Protectorate. On one occasion you mentioned what you had to do with these matters during your work at the Party Chancellory. The Prosecution , however has picked up that subject once again and submitted documents which are concerned with the periods of your activities as Under-Secretary. Two of these documents, exhibit 319; that is NG 269, document book VI; and, exhibit 455; that is NG 304; document book V, supplement, concern reports in the Reich Ministry of Justice; furthermore, exhibit 351; which is NG 309; that is a list of death sentences, document book V-B, that is death sentences pronounced on non-Germans and, another list of that kind is submitted in exhibit 352, that is NG 305, so-called monthly reports concerning the execution of death sentences on Poles after the clemency plea had been rejected. You have already mentioned that a pardon for Poles in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories was not to be decided by the Ministry of Justice, but by the Gauleiters, Reichs Governors and Chief Presidents, and I want you to explain to us how far the Ministry was concerned with it?
A. These monthly lists which I mentioned only before when I discussed the correspondence between Meissner and Lammers which lead to the elimination of the lists; these lists were received by the Ministry for a year and a half before the time when I became Under-Secretary.