May I ask you, are there any other corrections of the transcript -- I mean of the affidafit -- which you want to make at this time in addition to the two specific sentences which you changed yesterday and this morning?
A. Unfortunately, I only had the affidavit yesterday for a short period. If special value is attached to every single word, for example, the question is the special court of the Ministry of Justice -- which I meant as a general term -- special courts let us say in the civil sector, then I would have to examine that as to whether in regard to one or the other point. I can say today with certainty that this was at a certain time this way and at another period it was this way. Please, Mr. Prosecutor, I ask you to consider that I only got a insight into the Polish-conditions during the first establishment of the special court; I want to express that quite generally, when they first infiltrated into the Polish area, which at this time was still exclusively military, under military administration, that is the period from September, 1939, on: from then on, the Polish area in regard to administrative matters, that is the administration and structure of the administration of Justice, I did not get any insight into any more. Then, during 1940 I did not know anything about it because I was in the west. In 1941 and 1942 the following questions occurred to me -- the Reich German district as in connection with the Polish district, in regard to the examination of witnesses; now, the question of taking an oath from a Polish witness and trials against the citizens of the German Reich occurred; that was in connection with some difficulties per se, and that should not be so. Those were the points of view. Then, secondly, the question why did Poland urge Poles who had gone with German soldiers and committed crimes, why did they urge that they too should be sentenced by military courts immediately, and that the trial should not be separated insofar as they were concerned and turned over to civil courts; that the judges would in their spheres of the district -- at that time I was not in a job of supervising, but a deputy; that the judges again and again reported that the civilians wanted to be sentenced by the military because they thought in the military courts they would be treated better; that they would get away with a lighter penalty.
Those are the points of view of which I wanted put down in the affidavit. Then, there is a third phase, when I again got an insight into the Polish conditions, when I was with the chief judge with the Fourth Air Force and the judges of the Tenth Flak Division of the Air Fighter Corps, and as far as I know also the Ninth Falk Division, Antiaircraft Division; these were in the Polish area. I purposely mean by polish area the former Polish State because for us, it was of no interest whether the General Government -whether it was a General Government or the incorporated territory; we were not interested whether Frank was in charge here or whether the German office governed it; that wasn't of interest to us. From that point of view, I ask you to look at my entire statement, my basic atti tude, that these sentences of the courts in the civil sector were more severe than those in the military sector I maintain still; I adhere to that since we were severe in the military courts when discipline was concerned, but on the whole we could issue lenient sentences because we knew, we frequently knew the men for years, and could certify that the man on the whole was all right, and that played an important role. Therefore, the differences in regard to the extent of the penalty in the civil sector resulted. In addition, the law left a large scope to the discretion of the judge who on the basis of his own discretion, and considering all the outside conditions, has to find the extent of the penalty; and I don't know to what extent the tendencies had to be presented, that is the deterring theory or the retribution theory when the penalty was considered; that is the question the judge had to decide.
Q. Dr. Roerder, I don't wish to cut you short from any explanation you wish to make; however, it might be a more orderly procedure if I ask you several additional questions and perhaps in answering them you can say all that you had intended to say without the questions.
May we proceed in this way. I refer now to your affidavit, particularly to the section in which you say, and I will quote: "We received", -this relates to the treatment by the Gestapo of certain prisoners which were taken under apprehension by the Gestapo. You say: "We received no support from the Ministry of Justice. In many cases, if it had merely tried to exercise the necessary influence, the Ministry would have been able to free many people from Gestapo custody." Then you go on to say Dr. Schlegelberger was a man who wavered first to one side and then to the other. Yesterday I was not quite clear in my own mind as to what extent you thought that that sentence did not reflect your feelings in the matter. Now, I think your affidavit introduces the subject of the Gestapo through the case of Schwarz, which you at the moment undoubtedly recall.
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask you, you wore instrumental were you not, in getting Schwarz released from the Gestapo so that he could be tried by the military courts with which you were connected, and, as a result of the trial of Schwarz by the military courts he was acquitted. Now, in connection with the case Schwarz, first, do you still believe that you received no cooperation from the Ministry of Justice in getting Schwarz released from the Gestapo in order that the military court could try him?
A. The matter was as follows: We got Schwarz away from the Gestapo because we were of the opinion that the Gestapo had no right to apprehend a member of the Luftwaffe; this was an interference into a purely military sphere; this question was brought up to Reichsmarshall Goering for decision, and an agreement was reached between Goering, and as far as I know, at the time with Heydrich of the Gestapo, in which the Gestapo obligated itself in the future to hand over every imprisoned member of the Luftwaffe immediately to the Luftwaffe.
In the case against Schwarz, there was a member of the propaganda ministry, whose name I do not remember any more; he was a large man with one eye; I don't remember his name anymore.
COMMISSION III CASE III He had without doubt, because of some personal hatred, made these denunciations about Schwarz which led to his imprisonment, and the files were then submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice in order to clarify the basic question thereto.
I know that my then highest reviewing judge, military reviewing judge, was anxious to make this a precedent case in order once for all to determine the competency between the Gestapo and the Justice, the Department of Justice, Military Justice, and that the Ministry of Justice in this matter later no longer indicated -- never said anything about it; whether there was any discussion about it, I do not know. In any case the legal division later on did not succeed in bringing the matter to such a point that the competences were clarified once for all.
Q But, in the case Schwarz, you first tried to get cooperation from the Ministry of Justice in getting the Gestapo to release him; is that correct? Make you answer to that question very brief, please.
A No, that was not necessary but rather we appealed to the Under-secretary Milch at the time, and Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, and under the pressure of those conditions Schwartz was released from the Gestapo. But, now it was a question of the basic clarification on principle that the Ministry of Justice should also cake part in this and that is why we brought the matter up to them, and later we did not hear anything more about it.
Q Then, so far as the case Schwartz is concerned, you feeling, your position, is that the Ministry of Justice should have and could have exerted influence to remove, at least, the man Schwartz from the Gestapo custody, but did not do so; is that correct?
A Well, we had the feeling that we, as independent judges, we did not like an intervention by the police and it was our effort to maintain the independence of the judges and to put the Gestapo, to restrict the Gestapo again as an aid to the ---
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Mr. Witness, just a minute. Will you attempt to confine your answers to the question put to you. Now, let COMMISSION III CASE III me ask you one simple question:
So far as you know, did the Ministry of Justice take any action either way with reference to the Schwartz case?
THE WITNESS, ROEDER: No, not as far as I know.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the answer reduced to its lowest terms.
BY MR. KING:
Q Would you say in your experience that there were other cases, would you say in support of what you said in your affidavit, that there were other cases in which the Ministry of Justice took no action to release prisoners apprehended by and in custody of the Gestapo? Will you answer that, yes or no, please?
A No, I could not say that because I do not know whether these cases which I am referring to went up as far as the Ministry of Justice. The matter was as follows: If the people were in concentration camps it was very difficult for them to reach an ordinary court. The Gestapo was between them and the courts, for us it was to that extent possible sometimes from the military sector, especially during the war we had -- well, let us say a much stronger position when matters of importance to the war effort were brought up. If people were put into the concentration camps-
Q (Interposing) You say it was very difficult for people in concentration camps, presumably put and held there by the Gestapo, to reach the regular courts. Now, why was it difficult for those people to reach the regular courts; can you answer that briefly?
A Well, in my opinion, because the correspondent alone had to go via the competent office. I do not know whether it was the RSHA AMT IV or AMT III. Please do not ask me to state the exact office. In any case the correspondence went from the concentration camp by the RSHA or the Gestapo in general, and it was shown now that there was no certainty that this now went to the court, that it was handed on to the court.
AAlright, may we turn now to an additional part of your affidavit about which some controversy arose yesterday. I refer to this sentence COMMISSION III CASE III which I believe you corrected, the sentence is:
"The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of the Special Court of the Ministry of Justice." That is the way the sentence appears in the affidavit. Yesterday you submitted certain corrections which I think you said or at least implied were not an accurate reflection of what you had said in your interrogation?
A Yes.
Q I, last evening, availed myself of the opportunity to get the transcript of the interrogation of you which was held on the 15th of January 1947, and I would like to read to you which provoked the question, the answer, the answer which I have just read.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I object to that. The witness will have parts read to him from an internal interrogation by the Prosecution, statements which do not appear in his affidavit. Yesterday and this morning, at considerable length we discussed with the witness that the things which he says in the witness stand will be the final statements which he is ready to state under oath. We cannot now refer back to internal interrogation transcripts of the Prosecution.
THE WITNESS ROEDER: I have no misgivings to answer the questions of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, I take it that you want to ask the witness if, on a certain occasion, he made certain statements, which you may claim to have been inconsistent with his testimony yesterday.
MR. KING: That is a part -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) You may do that and we will consider the objection, as made, to the question which you will now ask, and which has not yet been asked. Without preliminaries, just ask him the question what he said on a previous occasion.
Q Can you tell me, Dr. Roeder, what the answer was you gave to the interrogator who interrogated you --
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Mr. King, ask him if in answer to a specified interrogation he made a specific answer, and state it to him.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q On the 15th of January 1947, you were interrogated by one of the interrogators for the OCC Staff. The question which was asked concerned the organization of the court system in the occupied Eastern Territories. Now, you answer was in two or three parts because there were interruptions, but the interrogator, perhaps you recall these words, the interrogator says -- you made a statement and the interrogator said: "Perhaps we may have this in a chronological order?" Now, do you recall making this answer at that point: "It was chronologically this way: that first of all, Special Courts were set up by the Ministry of Justice for the civilian occupation in Poland." Do you recall having given that answer as part of a larger answer to the question of how the organization of the court system in Poland was established and operated?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf's objection to that question is overruled and the witness may answer.
A Correct, I gave the answer, that in Poland --
THR PRESIDENT: All right, ask another question.
Q Do you recall this question the interrogator asked you: "Such cases which did happen, that the Ministry of Justice ...." Excuse me one moment. There has been a word left out of here--" In such cases which did happen that the Ministry of Justice, the Poles were better treated." This is not a very good translation. Apparently, now, your answer to that question is this -- I ask you if you recall it -- the answer was that -- it was this way: "First, that the military courts were more popular under the civilian population than the Special Courts; they were more objective. Second, the soldier forgets much quicker than the politician, and the soldier does not know any hatred and he does his job quickly and objectively. And the soldier admits certain motives differently then the civilian." Do you recall that answer?
COMMISSION III CASE III
A Yes, I gave that answer, and I still maintain it today; I stick by it, and I add to my statement that the soldier gets over things much quicker than the politician who judges according to quite different points of view. The soldier judges for a short period of time - the politician has to work with a long point in sight.
Q Now, do you further recall this answer to that question: "I can only say that the civilian population disliked the Special Courts very much. They were more afraid of the Special Courts than the military courts. Among the military judges the cooperation was so that they agreed with the politicians." Now, do you recall that answer?
A Correct. Yes. That is correct, too.
Q In other words -- we come now to a larger question -- In other words in the instances to which I have referred the statements made by you to the interrogator are accurately reflected in the affidavit which you had an opportunity to read and later signed? Is that correct?
A Yes, they are stated correctly but not quite completely. It would have given a right picture if -- may I state briefly -- if by it it had been expressed that as in every country there is a difference between the conception of a military government and a later civilian government which is set up... and I believe that this difference exists also right now in the American military and civilian government, and the British military and --
MR. KING: I believe you are going a little too fast for the translator.
JUDGE BRAND: Ask him another question.
MR. KING: I have no further questions, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: The witness is excused.
(Witness was excused)
JOSEF MAYER, a witness took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure COMMISSION III CASE III truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DR. SCHUBERT: (for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Commission, we are concerned with the affidavit of the witness Dr. Josef Mayer in Document Book 3-I, the Document NG-662, Exhibit No. 226.
JUDGE BRAND: Go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Dr. Mayer, please tell the Court first of all your name and your profession.
A Mayer, my family name; Josef, my first name. Formerly Amtsgerichtsrat -- local court counsellor, Nurnberg.
Q Dr. Mayer, for some time you were working as prosecutor at the Special Court of Nurnberg, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell us during what period this happened?
A It was from April 1943 until the end of the war.
Q On this occasion you also met the defendant Oeschey as presiding judge of the Special Court?
A Yes.
Q Did you participate in many sessions with Oeschey as a representative of the prosecution?
A That differed from time to time. As far as I remember Oeschey came to the Special Court in 1943 as presiding judge. Until the spring of 1944 I regularly took part in the sessions of Oeschey as prosecutor, according to the usual rotation. In the spring of 1944 I was suffering from bleedings of the stomach which continued until the summer of 1944, and in August 1944 I returned to the prosecutors' office. From that time on I took part in the sessions of Oeschey to a lesser extent than the other prosecutors.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q If I understood you correctly, from the spring until August of 1944 you did not appear in sessions at all?
A Yes - it was interrupted. At that time I was sick, from February until about May 1944, and then in the beginning of June I again fell ill. That is one month - there was an interim when I was not working.
Q All right. And after you recovered from your illness and had returned you worked only to a limited extent?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Mayer, you deal with a number of cases in your affidavit. There are the cases of Friedchen, Katharina Meyer, Frieda Bayer, Karl Bauer, and the case Fuchsbauer. Can you tell me whether in any of those cases, you were the prosecutor working in the session?
A I was the representative of the prosecutor in the case Katharina Meyer, and in the case Frieda Bayer. And the rest of the cases cited here I was the expert working on the case.
Q Dr. Mayer - may I show the files of the Friedchen case to you just now... Do you have the working file of the prosecution in from of you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Please look at the first page in these files - the direction by the general public prosecutor to the prosecution, Nurnberg. Is that correct?
A It has to be regarded as an instruction.
Q Was the instruction to the effect that the so-called law of the 4th of September 1941 was to be applied - that is, that the defendant was to be regarded as a dangerous habitual criminal and treated as such?
A It says here - "I request you to examine whether the application of the law of the 4th of September 1941 is not the proper one."
Q And what does that mean?
COMMISSION III CASE III
A Then there is a longer reason for this given.
Q What does that mean, Dr. Mayer, the lav of the 4th of September 1941?
A It means that it was to be considered whether the person concerned should be condemned to death as a dangerous habitual criminal.
Q Dr. Mayer, in this case it was the question, and you also state that in your affidavit, as to whether Friedchen should not be fully responsible for his crimes. Some time ago you read the sentence of the Special Court in Nurnberg. In your affidavit you state that Friedchen, in an earlier trial, in a sentence of the Court of the Front, had been declared not fully responsible for his acts. Can you now confirm from the sentence that another court - namely, the Local Court in Wiesbaden, had also decided the same way previously -- but that they had refused to assume limited responsibility for his acts?
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) A. It says here:
"According to the expert opinion of Medizinalrat Dr. Baur, the defendant Bole is feebleminded. His feeblemindedness, however, is not so extensive that he could not realize the extent of his crime and that therefore his responsibility was lowered or that he was not responsible for it at all."
Q. That is the opinion of the expert, Herr Dr. Meyer, if I understand you correctly.
Q. The Court agrees with the expert opinion. Therefore, the prerequisites of article 51. Paragraph 1 or 2 of the Penal Code, apply.
Q. Dr. Mayer, I asked you about another previous decision.
A. Yes; I shall read it further.
Q. No, you are not supposed to read it; you are only supposed to tell me. You have had a look at the sentence, don't you remember it any more?
A. "In 1939, the defendant was also examined by an expert regarding his responsibility for crimes (the Jury Court in Wiesbaden). At that time too he was regarded as fully responsible from the point of view of Penal Legislation."
Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Mayer.
A. Well, there is another paragraph.
Q. In your affidavit you cited this sentence of the Field Court. However, the other decision is what I wanted to know, the one you did not cite in your affidavit.
A. Well, in addition to that, Friedchen was -
Q. (Interposing) Dr. Mayer, I ask you not to read any further; you have answered my question.
Now I am going over to the case Katharine Meyer. In this case you were the prosecutor, were you not?
A. Meyer? Yes.
Q. May I show you the file?
(Document submitted to witness)
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) Do you have the working file of the prosecution in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you state from that only what plea the prosecution intended to make?
A. They intended to ask for the death sentence.
Q. Dr. Mayer, do you remember that Katharine Meyer had opened about five hundred parcels? Or don't you remember the case any more?
A. About five hundred. As far as I remember from the session, there were about five hundred. In the indictment I see here that the figure one thousand is cited. As far as I remember during the trial , the figure of five hundred was made the basis of the decision. Yes, here in the trial the figure five hundred, or five hundred parcels which were robbed, was made the basis of the sentence.
Q. Dr. Mayer, the death sentence which was pronounced in this instance in view of the high figure of five hundred parcels, was that in accordance with the general jurisdiction of the time?
A. It was in accordance with the jurisdiction of the time.
Q. You then cite the case of Frieda Bayer. Dr. Mayer, did you describe that case on the basis of having seen the files, or did you write that from memory?
A. I described that case from memory.
Q. Can you tell me, Dr. Mayer, according to what legal regulation Frieda Bayer was indicted and condemned?
A. According to the decree against public enemies, Article 4.
Q. I am now going to the case of Karl Bauer, in which you -were the expert working on the case.
Do you have the working files of the prosecution in front of you, Dr. Mayer?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you state from them what plea for penalty the prosecution intended to make for Bauer?
A. The death sentence.
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III)
Q. And now, in regard to the case of Fuchsbauer, you state here, Dr. Mayer, that the expert, Dr. Kunz, gave an export opinion according to which it could be justified that a lowered responsibility for his crimes could be assumed in the case of Fuchsbauer. I now show you the file.
(Document submitted to witness)
Do you see the opinion of the expert in this file?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Mayer, was this expert opinion of Dr. Kunz given before or after the indictment?
A. It was given before the indictment was filed.
Q. Would you please turn some pages in the file? In the back are the working files of the prosecution. Can you find the working files?
A. Yes.
Q. From those files, please tell us what plea for penalty the prosecution had intended to make?
A. The death sentence.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have concluded my cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there further cross-examination?
(No response)
Is there re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Commission, may I ask your indulgence for sixty seconds or so while Mr. La Follette is summoned? I believe he has a few words he wants to say.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been suggested by Judge Blair to me that it would be desirable that all of the defense counsel who are available should be present at the conference which I presume is about to take place. If there are any of defense counsel who could be conveniently Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) called, I think they would appreciate being called; and we will take a recess to make it possible for those of the defense counsel to come if they are available.
We will take our recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(Recess taken)
Commission III, Case III.
THE MARSHAL: The Commission is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please the Commissioner, the Prosecution would like to state that the Prosecution is advised that there are no more witnesses who can at this time be produced through the office of the Secretary General. The Prosecution is suggesting that the taking of further testimony by the Commission be terminated, and states its position to the Commission, to be reported to the Tribunal, that any other witnesses, any other affiants who have not been produced for cross examination may be, of course, produced as part of the defendants' case. And if it should develop that these affiants cannot be produced in person, then the Prosecution anticipates that the Tribunal when it is in session, and the Commission may report the Prosecution's position, may make such orders as to giving the defense an opportunity to test the veracity of those affidavits in such a manner as the Tribunal may then direct. There being no further testimony, or no witnesses or affiants to be produced, the Prosecution respectfully petitions the Commission to end these proceedings at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Our understanding of the situation is that the Secretary General has produced all of the witnesses -- I should say all of the affiants who were on the list of affiants requested by the defense counsel, with the exception of approximately four who are either sick or cannot be at this moment produced; that the proper procedure would be to go on before the full court with the presentation of the main case of the defense, with the reservation that those affiants who have not been cross examined but who have been requested by defense counsel for cross examination may be produced at a later time as and when they can be produced for cross examination in the course of the defendants' principal case.
That seems to be, as I understand it, the suggestion that at this time it would be appropriate with the approval, by reason of necessity, of those of us who are sitting as commissioners at this moment.
Are there any objections from the defense counsel to that general procedure? (No replies) If there are none, I would suggest three considerations which should be discussed by you at this time. There seems to be no other procedure possible except the one which we have outlined. Then I suggest to counsel for both sides that at this time it would appropriate that notice should be given which will go into the record as to what the desires of defense counsel are concerning:
1. The date at which the full Tribunal should convene for the purpose of hearing the opening statements of the defendants by their counsel;
2. The desires of defense counsel as to the order in which they will make their opening statements; and 3. The order of proof in the presentation of the evidence which the defendants will produce.
One would think, subject to other considerations which have not yet been suggested, that the order of proof would normally be the same as the order of the making of the opening statements. I take it that is not necessary, but would seem to be regular. I think I recall that when the Tribunal was in session, it was indicated, perhaps only by myself, that the order of proof is always a matter within the discretion of the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal would very likely be strongly influenced by the wishes of defense counsel in that respect.
Now as to the difficulties which are incident to the fact that we are sitting only as Commissioners and that it is of course highly desirable that nothing should be done which could in any way be thought to disqualify Judge Marshall on his return, it has occurred to us that it would be proper for us as Commissioners to adjourn to a specified date and to reconvene you before us as Commissioners on that date.
When that date is determined, then the Tribunal will also, we think, there being two of us here present, make an order reconvening the Tribunal for the same date. In that way, it will be made very definite when we are to reconvene. The order as to the reconvening of the full Tribunal will be in the future made by the Tribunal and will be signed by Judge Marshall so that there will be no question as to the validity of the reconvening as a Tribunal with Judge Marshall participating, as we devoutly hope.
Now what suggestions have defense counsel with reference to the three matters which Tie have discussed?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: First of all, I would like to refer to the last two points, and I wish to make this statement: The defense is altogether in agreement that the opening statements as well as the submission of evidence should take place in the order in which the defendants have been put into the deck. That is to say, opening statements and submission of evidence would begin with the defendant Schlegelberger and would then continue in the same order in which the defendants are sitting in the dock.
THE PRESIDENT: The front row first: Schlegelberger, Klemm -
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Schlegelberger, Klemm, Rothenberger, Engert, Lautz, Mettgenberg -
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Now, the second point: the date for the opening statements and immediately there after the submission of evidence. First of all, I wish to refer to the latter point. The Tribunal has already pointed out that in this trial there are a number of general topics which for the purpose of saving time should be dealt with in as uniform a manner as possible by one defense counsel. That is what we wish to do. We believe too that it would be expedient if some of those general topics were to be mentioned already in the opening statement in part in connection with the witnesses which will be called and in part by experts.
The defense also intends to submit general document books; that is to say, document books which are arranged according to the subject matter and which have been compiled in cooperation with all defense counsel. To mention one example: The Special Courts, Historical and Legal Development and Practice. Those subject could be submitted in one document book. We intend to submit those document books at the very beginning. Now at the beginning of a recess, the defense counsel intend to carry out that joint work. For that work, it has already become evident that the recess will have to take some time. For the individual defense counsel too, an adequate recess is absolutely necessary. Even though the session has been interrupted by odd days, the defense in its work, by the continuous course of the sessions, has been limited to a considerable extent. Would you kindly bear in mind that the scrutiny of the evidence and the interrogations of persons who might be used as witnesses require that we should make contacts all over Germany. The trips take up a great deal of time nowadays. Consequently, those journeys, even though in some cases the assistants were sent on those trips, have not yet all been made. Furthermore, it is necessary to contact a large number of prospective witnesses who are in the prison here.
With respect to that, in the past there existed considerable technical difficulties. If we wished to speak to a person in prison here and made our application, generally we had to wait for weeks until we received permission. Only a few moments ago, a colleague called my attention to the fact that since the fifth of May he had been waiting for a permission, which he has not yet received. Yesterday, a technical change was made which certainly will eliminate those technical difficulties. We now no longer need to examine those witnesses in the presence of a Commissioner, who as far as I know had to carry the burden of all trials.