We have great difficulty in understanding at all. Are you having the same difficulty; there is a roar in these earphones. .... It's better now.
A Would you like me to repeat this again?
THE PRESIDENT: We heard you, but with great difficulty. You may proceed.
Q I come now to Exhibit 339, concerning plans for the confiscation of real estate property in Czechoslovakia. What can you say about that?
A I can say the following: We were concerned here with a measure for which the Reich Minister for the Interior was competent. He wanted to have a general directive for the confiscation of real estate property. The foreign office protested against this and called to his attention that the number of confiscations in contradiction with international law necessary will be small, and that, therefore, special measures were really not needed. I agreed to that attitude of the foreign office. Moreover, this was case of reprisals which was not objectionable from the point of view of international law.
Q The prosecution submitted a document, Exhibit 362; that was a public proclamation which mentioned death sentences passed against Czechs. What can you tell us about that?
A I have already explained that in March, 1942, Heydrich demanded the execution of all death sentences that had been postponed. Since these were all death sentences that had been accummulated since 1939, and that I had to expect that their execution would be carried out very soon, I agreed that no public posting would be made in Berlin. It was hard to understand any way in what manner posters in Berlin would have the nature of a deterrent against the population of Czechoslovakia.
Q The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit No. 259; that is a report from the General Prosecutor at Hamm, who pointed out that Polish shirkers, slackers, were not to be turned over to the courts but taken into police custody. What can you say about that?
AAccording to prevailing regulations, decrees from the 1st September, 1939 and 28 October, 1941, breach of work contract could only be punished if the labor office or the Reich Trustee of Labor first filed a request for punishment. As long as that request is not filed, the Administration of Justice has nothing to do with these matters.
Q About measures of execution by the police, we are informed from the two following reports: The reports by the Reich Governor at Danzig, Exhibit 470 and 471; and the report by the General Prosecutor at Nurnberg of the 11th August, 1942, Exhibit 478. Can you give us any information on these points?
A These reports only illustrate what I said this morning that the police in many cases, outside of the sphere of influence of the Administration of Justice, and without informing it, carried out police measures. If I may also be permitted to say -- that is for the Nurnberg report from the 11th August, I doubt whether I ever saw that report because I left the Ministry of the 20th of August.
Q The Prosecution submitted Exhibit No. 371; that is a directive of the Ministry of Justice of the 23rd June, 1942, concerning the establishment of new real estate registers in Auschwitz. What can you say about that?
A I can only say that that deals with a measure which normally would not come to the attention of the Under Secretary or the Minister. Such matters were dealt with by the department head, and I cannot remember ever having seen it. Actually this is what went behind it: If, when various pieces of property emerged, depending upon the individual case, new sheets have to be made for the registry of real estate. That necessity apparently arose in the area of Auschwitz.
DR. KUBUSCHOCK: With that question I have finished my direct examination.
DR. KOESSL (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug):
I ask to be permitted to put several questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask what the plans cf the Defense are as to how many of them are permitted to conduct a direct examination of each of these defendants. I think the Tribunal is somewhat in doubt as to that procedure. I think we would not question the right of a Defense Counsel, who represents some ether defendant, to cross examine this witness on any matter which touched the other defendant's case, but I gather that the attempt is to conduct the direct examination of this witness by several different Defense Counsel. Now, what is the position of the Prosecution on that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I am a little surprised. I did not anticipate that; I am as surprised as the Court is. I would think that this should be limited to cross examination. On the other hand, if this defendant is a witness, I guess he can be a witness for as many other defendants as he wants to be; however, that will extend this trial too long. I guess, however, each of these defendants could call this defendant as a witness for themselves if they chose to. I hadn't anticipated it. Certainly it puts a little more severe burden upon the Prosecution than I had anticipated, although I think all direct examination ought to be before any cross.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Attorney for Defendant Schlegelberger):
May I make a short statement in that connection. The same problem which arises today had also arisen in the IMT trial, and then the decision was to do the thing that the Defense Counsel want to do now, that is the order that every defendant can enter the witness box only once, because that would save time, he could be a witness for all those Defense Counsel who want to take him into direct examination. Other wise, it would be necessary that, for instance, Schlegelberger, appears as a witness when in the case in chief five other Defense Counsel come up who want to question him as a witness, and that certainly would require even more time.
THE PRESIDENT: What would Defense Counsel have to say -- I repeat: what would Defense Counsel have to say with reference to this suggested rule that when counsel who represent a defendant other than the defendant who is on the witness stand desire to examine the defendant on the witness stand and to examine him as direct examination, not merely cross-examination, that they should be limited to examining him concerning matters which particularly touch and concern the defendant for whom they are examining?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Certainly I think that must be true.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it should be limited -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- to that extent, at least.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And I would make this other suggestion: I won't object today, hut it strikes me also that when a defendant as in this proceeding, having been a witness for himself, as what we are seeing now, unquestionably I think he could he called as a witness for the defendant, Rothaug, hut I believe the Prosecution should be notified in advance just as they would any other witness then, or at least give some knowledge as to how many defense counsel intend to treat any defendant as their witness so that we can make some advance preparation. I won't insist on it today. I would just like to have a showing as to how many are going to -- because the defendant then steps into position as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you indicate again, gentlemen, how many of you wish to examine him on direct examination? There appear to be six.
THE INTERPRETER: Seven with Dr. Koessl.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there appear to he seven. Without making any rule such as I suggested, you may proceed along the lines indicated, and unless and until some further order is made, you will limit your direct examination of Dr. Schlegelberger to matters which will particularly touch and concern the defendant for whom you speak.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And repetition of general matters -- repetition of general matters concerning which the doctor has already testified should be avoided.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, the president of the District Court of Appeals, Doebig, did he ever come to you with complaints about the Special Court, Nurnberg?
A No.
Q If the material for complaint was so serious as existing today, was not it his duty to bring these matters to the attention of the Ministry in writing?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object. I object. Your Honor. It calls for a conclusion of the witness as to an opinion of the witness, not as to any facts as to what Doebig should have done. I think the objection should be sustained.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. KOESSL: May I just make a statement in this connection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal is clear in its ruling. You may pass on to something else.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did there exist a rule, witness, according to which such things had to be reported to the Ministry in the reports on the situation in Lageberichten or in reports to the superior authority?
A That was certainly expected as a matter of course.
Q According to the rules then in force was it admissible that Doebig discuss the matter not in writing but by telephone with the Ministerialrat, Miethsam, for the purpose of obtaining a transfer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Just a moment, hold it. I didn't get the question very clearly. I wonder if somebody would read it back.
DR. KOESSL: I shall repeat the question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q According to the rules then in force, was it admissible that Doebig report the matter by telephone without making a written report to his superior, Ministerial Councilor Miethsam, for the purpose of a camouflaged transfer meaning a transfer of Rothaug?
A It was against the custom.
Q For a transfer of that kind could the decree of the 1st of September, 1939, be applied?
A You mean the decree according to which judges had to be at the disposal for any kind of a job of a judge?
Q Yes. Was it admissible to apply that decree although that decree should only make transfers possible which were necessary on account of the personnel?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object. I wish the doctor would ask Dr. Schlegelberger to give me a chance to object, please, before you answer. I object, Your Honor, because if there is such a decree, the decree will speak for itself, and it can be readily obtained. The Counsel is attempting to ask the witness to interpret a decree without producing the decree about which no one knows anything, and the decree is the best evidence and it can be produced.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that a decree of that nature according to conditions prevailing at that time has to be interpreted concerning the reasons which led to its promulgation and concerning the purpose of the decree, and since at that time already the witness was Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, he can speak about the justification of applying that decree or not to a much further extent since we also have to concern ourselves with the manner in which that decree was actually applied and as to how far its application was considered possible. I believe that, therefore, the witness should be asked about the fact whether that decree could be applied.
THE PRESIDENT: What decree do you refer to? I don't mean that you should read the decree, but will you state the subject concerning which you claim there was a decree?
DR. KOESSL: The decree deals with the need for personnel caused by wartime conditions, and with transfers which were made necessary by wartime conditions. That decree played a part in the matter of the transfer of Rothaug to the East which was requested by Doebig.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the official title or date on which this decree that you suggest was enacted?
DR. KOESSL: The decree was issued on 1 September, 1939. It will be contained in my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: And who issued it?
DR. Koessl: That is a decree by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: And, do I understand you are asking the witness to construe the decree before the decree has been introduced in evidence?
DR. KOESSL: The decree has not been submitted in evidence here, as far as I know; I, myself, intend to submit it in evidence in my case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not consider that it is necessary or proper to ask this witness to interpret or construe the decree, if there is one; it is a matter the Court can go for itself. We will permit you to ask the witness if he knows about the decree and if he knows whether action was taken pursuant to it. And, if the decree is not offered in evidence the testimony will be subject to be stricken. You may proceed.
Q.- Witness, do you know that decree of 1 September 1939, and what was the purpose of that decree?
A.- I remember that decree should remedy the lack of personal caused by the war; that was the purpose of the decree.
Q.- Did that abrogate paragraph 8 of the Judicature Act according to which judges could not be transferred?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object unless he -- of course I realize he is highly an expert, but is he making this witness an expert; is he trying to ask him to interpret the question of law which is before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That objection is sustained. You may proceed.
Q.- Witness, in the Katzenberger case, witness Engert asserted that Freisler had expressed to him that he considered the sentence not correct. Were conditions, prevailing and customs prevailing, at that time, were such as to impose the duty on Engert to inform the General Prosecutor about the opinion of Under Secretary Freisler?
A.- Yes, of course.
Q.- Therefore, I can assume that Engert had the duty to report to his superior the attitude or the opinion of Freisler?
A.- Yes, he had that.
Q.- Could Engert speak against a pardon if he considered the sentence to be incorrect?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I will object. I think that calls for an opinion, whether he thinks he may do in speaking against a pardon, but what he noticed, and whether it was correct or incorrect, is a question which states the condition of the man's mind.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
Q.- At that time, was it the duty of the Prosecutor to request retrial or to file nullity plea if they considered a sentence to be incorrect?
A.- I do not know of any directive of that kind, but that is not necessary because that is left to the dutifull discretion of the official.
Q.- Did he have to make the demand for retrial or file nullity plea if the Prosecution was of the opinion that -
A.- (Interposing) I do not understand the question.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: Please, I have got a set of headphones here I cannot hear through.
Q.- Was it the duty of the Prosecution to demand retrial, reopening of the procedure or to file nullification plea, if the sentence was technically incorrect?
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: If you please, Your Honor, I object to that because it calls for an interpretation of the existing statutes which he interpreted himself.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the objection may properly be sustained on the ground the witness just answered the question previously.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: I did not hear that.
THE PRESIDENT: He said it was a matter of the exercise the sound discretion of the prosecuting officer to act conscientiously in the matter of nullity pleas, and that was all the answer the Counsel could possibly get on that issue.
Q.- Was it ever put to the special courts or the Reich Prosecution that they should connect purposes outside the scope of criminal law with their office?
A.- No, not at all.
Q.- Was the thought ever put to the Chief Reich Prosecutor or the Special Courts to participate in the extermination of foreigners, political opponents or a socials?
A.- No, certainly not.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, I ask that the answer be stricken because the question calls for a conclusion of the witness, as to the purpose which this Court must furnish. It calls for a conclusion on law. That was the purpose for the establishment of the Court. I assume that was what was asked. I ask the answer be stricken.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I asked for a statement of facts. The fact whether the court authorized the chief prosecutor, whether that authority, the authority of extermination was ever put to them. I do not believe this calls for an expression of an opinion, it is just a question of stating a fact.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to strike will be denied, but the question as to whether authority was ever put to a person is not of great aid to the Tribunal.
Q.- Could the agencies of the administration of justice, which had to apply the law, know anything about the transfer of prisoners to the Gestapo?
A.- No, I do not know how they could find out about it.
Q.- Did these agencies, in particular, have anything to do with the transfer of criminal prisoners to the Gestapo?
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: I object, your Honor, for the reason that the agencies are not properly identified. I do not know what agencies or what sub-divisions are meant. The question is so general that an answer can not be made.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained, and Counsel will limit his examination to matters pertaining to his client, the defendant Rothaug.
Q.- Those offices, those agencies, in which the defendant worked, that is to say, the special courts, and the chief Reich Prosecution, did they have any part in the legislation.
A.- Not from the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: (Interposing) I am sorry, in the first place, the witness started to answer before the question was completed. I ask the question be restated, and the witness again advised to wait until the whole question is finished.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will kindly refrain from answering so promptly. That it is impossible for the Prosecution to make its objections heard. This objection, Mr. La Follette is overruled.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: Well, I would like to make this point, If he is speaking of offices, that is quite general; if he is speaking of whether or not this man knows whether Rothaug, in either his particular capacity, knew, then I think it is proper.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I clarify this a little? May I address a remark through the microphone to the Tribunal and to the witness? If the witness please I think if I will object before I fully hear a question, as I hear it develop, I would like to be permitted just to indicate that by showing my hand; in which case I wish the witness will not answer until I have stated the objection and the court has a chance to rule. That is all, the witness must realize that he hears the question long before I hear it through the interpreter.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure he will cooperate in that manner.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am sure, just so we understand each other.
DR. SCHILF: (For the Defendant Mettgenberg) BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, I should like to put a question to you concerning my client, Dr. Mettgenberg and his career. You were Under-secretary already in 1934 or 1935 when the administration of justice of the various states was put in the hands of the Administration of Justice of the Reich. In that connection, I would like you to answer a question from your experience. My client tells me in general after service for 10 or 12 years as a Ministerialrat, Ministerial Councillor, that is to say if an official were a Ministerialrat in the Ministry of Justice for 10 or 12 years, then he could expect to be promoted to chief of a sub-department, Unterabteilungsleiter with the title Ministerialdirigent? From your experience, Dr. Schegelberger, tell me whether that supposition on the part of my client is correct?
Q You can answer that question.
A Yes. I have. It is correct just as you said.
Q May I ask you to repeat your question?
A That is correct. I will repeat it again. What you have said is correct.
Q It may be known to you that since 1923, Dr. Mettgenberg was a Ministerial Councillor, Ministerialrat, in the Ministry of Justice, Do you know about that fact?
A Yes.
Q The conclusion, therefore, would be that in the years 1935, it would have been possible for him to become a Ministerial dirigent in case he had the qualifications?
A Yes.
Q Since for years, I would even like to say for decades, you have been his superior, you should be in a position to state whether he had the qualifications.
A I have no doubt.
Q Is it known to you that in spite of his qualifications, Dr. Mettgenberg was not promoted after the customary time to Ministerialdirigent because the Gauleiter of the NSDAP had voiced objections against him and protested against a normal promotion?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no objection, Your Honor, if the question includes the thought that the objects were stated to the witness. If they were stated to some other person, I think it is here say and I think the question is objectional. In other words, if the objection of the Gauleiter were communicated to this, it will be all right. As the question stands, I do object unless it is cleared.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may state whether he has personal knowledge concerning that matter. Do you have personal knowledge concerning the matter?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was told about that by the Ministerial director who dealt with personnel matters.
THE PRESIDENT: You may answer.
Q You may answer, Dr. Schlegelberger.
A Will you please repeat the question?
Q Yes. The normal period after which Dr. Mettgenberg, who in your opinion had the qualifications, should have been promoted to Ministerial dirigent would have elapsed in 1935. He was not promoted because the Gauleiter of the NSDAP is said to have protested against it. I ask you what you know about it.
A That was told to me by the Ministerial director who was in charge of personnel matters at the Ministry at that time.
Q Again in your capacity as Under-secretary at that time, did it come to your attention that in April 1939, there was a vacancy for a Ministerial dirigent because Dr. Passowski who had been Ministerialdirigent, had been promoted to the position of Ministerial director, that is chief of the department; and that you had intended that position for Mettgenberg, you together with the Chief of your personnel department? However, that was not approved. A certain Hansen who was an old Party Member was nominated and finally also appointed by Hitler for that position.
A I think it was not quite as you stated it. I cannot say, first of all, whether it was in April 1939. It was certainly in the year 1939. As I remember it, this is the way it happened. There was a vacancy. That position was vacated, as you say, by the promotion of a Ministerial dirigent to Ministerial director. As far as I know, the right to appoint for that position was turned over the Party Chancellery in order to appoint Hansen and therefore it was lost for Mettgenberg. That is the way I remember it, but I may be mistaken.
Q Anyway, Witness, Dr. Mettgenberg lost his chance because an old Party Member got that job?
A Yes.
Q Now I would like to put my last question to you. At the end of 1939, at a time when Dr. Mettgenberg for 16 years had been a Ministerialrat, he was to be finally promoted to the position of Ministerial dirigent. Again, serious difficulties arose. Objections were made by the officers of the Party. Is that known to you?
A Yes.
Q Could you elucidate these difficulties which arose to the Court?
A It was extremely difficult, at that time, to have a man promoted who was not a party member unless an older party member could be suggested to the Party Chancellery as a candidate.
Therefore one had to wait until a candidate was found who was a Party Member and who could be promoted at the same time for a different job as a non-party member. That is what happened at that time if I remember correctly.
Q The decision about the promotion in order to make that quite clear to the Tribunal was with Hitler if it were a question of promotion between Ministerialrat and Ministerial dirigent?
A Yes, Certainly. The Party Chancellery, however, had to approve. I explained that yesterday.
Q But you, yourself, had the right to nominate?
A Yes.
Q You made use of that right to nominate in the case of my client, Dr. Mettgenberg?
A I wouldn't say that I did it personally, but at any rate, the Ministry did.
DR. SCHILF: Thus you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Without implying any criticism, I think that the last questions which have been asked, require that we call to counsel's attention the fact that they are not cross-examining, but are examining the witness as their own witness and leading questions should be avoided so far as may be possible.
DR. GRUBE: (For the Defendant Lautz) BY DR. GRUBE:
Q The first question refers to the exclusion of the Reich Prosecution from the proceedings against the Czech Prime Minister Elias. There are first two documents, NG-081, Exhibit 374 and NG-147, Exhibit 375. Witness, do you happen to remember what statements the Defendant Lautz made to you when his efforts failed to obtain his inclusion in the Elias Trial?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor. It calls for a self-serving declaration by Lautz, under the circumstance where it could only be self-serving.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: I remember the Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz asked me at that time to accept his resignation and I could understand that he was deeply hurt, but I could not grant his wish. If I had to stand the President Thierack I certainly needed a man in the position of the Chief Reich Prosecutor to whom I could tell the truth at all times and who worked for right and justice and not for the Party.
Q Witness, can you still remember whether in September, 1941, you sent the Defendant Lautz to the Protectorate?
A Yes. I remember that Lautz in September 1941 it must have been in the fall of 1941, told me that he had disturbing news. He had received disturbing information from the Protectorate, and wondered whether it were not expedient to go out to find out about it himself. I considered that to be correct, and asked him to travel to the Protectorate to find out what was true in all these rumors. I know that he went there, and I only remember that he came back with quite good news.
Q Witness, could you -
THE PRESIDENT: I am informed that the film is running out. We will take our recess at this time for 15 minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q I request permission to continue my questioning of the witness. Witness, do you still remember whether in June 1942, after the murder of Heydrich there was a conference in the Reich Ministry of Justice in which the defendant Lautz and the general public prosecutors of Breslau, Dresden, and Leitmerite participated?
A Yes, I think I remember that.
Q Can you state what was the purpose of that conference?
A Counsel, you stated it was in June. I believe that is correct. Heydrich was murdered in May 1942. Thereupon civilian courtmartials were instituted and the danger existed at the time that they, the Standgerichte also, the civilian courts martial would also deal with matters under the competence of the people's court, according to the experiences which had been made during the previous year; with the civilian courts martial one would have to count upon an excessive amount of death penalties and this conference which you mentioned served the purpose of meeting this danger.
Q Do you know what instructions Freisler issued during this conference?
A Yes, I had the intention to participate in this meeting myself. I remember that. For reasons which I cannot recall, however, I came to this conference only when it was almost concluded. Freisler told me at the time in the presence of those who participated in the conference that he had issued the instructions that serious penalties were to be asked for but that the death penalty was to be pronounced only against active party members who had collected money and arms, distributed leaflets, etc.
Q Thank you. Now, the following question: Witness, what do you know about the instructions which the defendant Lautz received from the Reich Ministry of Justice in regard to the conduct of his affairs?
AAs far as I remember I never issued any instructions to Lautz myself, I believe. However, I know he was often called to see Freisler; that had been noticed in the Ministry generally. Therefore, I assume Freisler had occasion to discuss important matters with Lautz, that is, certain matters with Lautz. I have only been told by colleagues who again had heard it from others that there were great differences of opinion.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER: (Attorney for defendant Petersen)
Q Witness, did you know the defendant Petersen personally before this trial started?
A No, I saw Petersen as far as I know for the first time here altogether.
Q Did you ever directly or indirectly in writing or any other way have contact with the defendant Peterson before the surrender?
A Never.
Q Did the defendant Petersen at any time during your tenure of office as under secretary or when you were put in charge of the affairs of the Ministry of Justice take part in a conference of the Ministry of Justice or a meeting inside or outside of the building of the Ministry of Justice?
A I don't know anything about that.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
BY DR. FREDERSDORF: (Attorney for defendant Joel)
Q I request the Tribunal to permit me to ask a few questions of the witness. I would like to refer to document NG 988, Exhibit 510. On page 27 of this document which represents an organization chart of business of the Ministry of Justice it is stated that the defendant Joel among other things was charged with so-called "Sonderauftraegen", or "special tasks". May I ask you Professor to explain what was meant by these special tasks?
A I believe that is quite simple. There was a central public prosecution. This I believe in 1937 was dissolved. At that time the Minister reserved the right to himself in regard to give a special task to certain referents and I know such special tasks were given to Joel in considerable number. I already mentioned this today when the subject of transfer was mentioned.
Q Among the special tasks, do they mean individual penal cases which offered special difficulties during the carrying out because of the intervention of high party elements which were foreign to the Administration of Justice?
A These special tasks were up to a certain point supposed to help the old central public prosecution to continue and just as the central public prosecution had the task to deal with individual cases those who had special tasks had the same duty.
Q Thank you. In the organization chart of the business on the same page 27 there has also been said that Joel was occupied with socalled "special treatments", (sonderbehandlung). May I ask you what this organization chart meant by "special treatment"?
A Well, the word special treatment gradually got a bad name but I may say that within the meaning of the distribution of business the word is absolutely harmless; according to my knowledge of affiars it means the following: During the course of my examination I repeatedly reported about the efforts on the part of the police to take over matters which belonged to the Administration of Justice, especially this refers to the treatment of people from the East. Now, the important thing was if some police authority took some such measures under attack, then we took it away from them again, and every case had to be treated especially. One had to negotiate with the police personally and see to it that the police again released the files and then the legal situation could again be restored. As far as I know that is what is meant by "special treatment" in this chart.