DR. BRIEGER: May I say something on this point, your Honor. The witness was called as a witness by the Prosecution to tell us about conditions of German justice under the Nazi regime, and all the time he has Compared these conditions and contrasted them with conditions before and of 1933, and that has never been objected to by the Prosecutor. And I may make a point that a while ago the witness said that Adolph Hitler was sentenced by such a Peoples' Court which was organized under these laws; that was 1923, five years after the end of hostilities of the first World bar. I would fully understand, as far as facts are concerned, for the statement of the prosecutor if we were concerned with the Law of 1916 where there would be no doubt that this law was only inexistence for a few weeks, but not such as it looks for five In these circumstances I believe that it is correct here, years. and an essential source for comparing the penal laws of the Nazi period with the penal laws of the German Republic prior to Hitler's day. I would like the Tribunal to make their decision.
MR. LaFODLETTE: Just a further point. As I understand it, the general concept of laws was discussed on direct examination and the witness went very fully into that law, and I am quite aware of the fact that the period to be covered is not particularly pertinent, but here we have a state law of Bavaria, which was enacted certainly under unsettled conditions. It is not a law of the Weimar Republic as that term is used, applied to the German nation. It was a state law and enacted, under these circumstances which I believe does not make it relevant.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel a question. It has been obvious for some hours that the purpose of various Defense Counsel has been to show that there was not as much difference between the procedure before and after 1933 as the witness had perhaps indicated. If you should, as a part of your cross examination, or thereafter, introduce a copy of this statute from which you have been reading, I think, unless you indulge in the presumption that the Court is composed of morons, they can gather the inferences which you are attempting to present, and we could gather it much more quickly.
DR. BRIEGER: May I add that I am nearly finished with the law, and that it will not appear in the record.
May I, therefore, ask you to give me a few more minutes.
JUDGE BRAND: The Court was asking you a question, not making a ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to me, speaking for myself, and I trust I speak for my colleagues on this point as well -- instead of asking the opinion of the witness concerning these matters, why not address your argument to the Court, and at the proper time. If there is something material about the comparison between the conditions in 1933 and 1918, and if it appears that that is material, the Court will hear you. But it certainly doesn't aid the case, it doesn't advance the truth of this case, to merely get the opinion of a witness on that comparison. The Court will ultimately have to decide all these questions, and unless you think this witness is more competent than the Court to determine these matters, I suggest it might be to your advantage to address yourself to the Court rather than to a witness.
DR. BRIEGER: I gladly give in to the ruling of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't make a ruling. I merely was making a suggestion to you. You have gone so far that it will probably take very little time to propound your questions, and we want you to feel that your are getting a fair trial in this matter. Therefore, we will let you complete this question and get the answer.
DR. BRIEGER: I am almost through. I will desist from further reading from the text.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. I would, like now to ask you when, starting from the assumption that Hitler was sentenced by such a Bavarian court, a special court, and if one further considers that this sentence and prison sentence, would you consider it possible that Hitler in his later legislation, after his rise to power, concerning the Peoples' Court and the special courts, and eventually about the law which was applied to him when he was sentenced, do you think he was stimulated by the law which was applied to him in making this legislation?
A. I can only answer to this question the following: To the fear by which this law was surrounded; the law is dated 19 November 1916; it quite definitely a law of the time of the revolution and it set up a tribunal during the revolutionary period; that was the time when there existed no Bavarian constitution and when conditions were critical and unsettled.
Whether the Peoples' Court which sentenced Hitler, after all the provisions had to judge under the provisions of the original law, or whether in the meantime the establishment of a Bavarian constitution which had brought about a control of the legislation of the revolutionary period, whether an amendment of that provision had. occurred, I cannot say.
According to the provisions of the law read out here, I do not believe that would have been allowed. It is known that the sentence passed on Hitler compared with any sentence for a similar case under the Third Reich, it was strikingly lenient. It is further known that the sentence was executed in such a way that he was given the opportunity to write his book Meim Kampf, My Struggle, and particularly if one compares the proceedings against Hitler, the proceedings under the Third Reich, it becomes evident that the comparison is altogether unfavorable for the Third Reich. I believe it is possible that Hitler had the ideas on the People's Court and on the Special Courts, and that he derived them from the provisions and the law at the time of the revolution, just as the idea of permanency of revolution conditions for the effectiveness of his party, just as he submitted that for the effectiveness of his party. The law on the People's court in the Third Reich can, comparing it to the law which has just been read, it could be regarded as a permanent tribunal of a revolutionary period.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Defense Counsel, you have asked for the opinion of the witness and he has given it to you. Are we to understand that you vouch for the soundness of tie opinion he has given us, since you asked the question?
DR. BRIEGER: I was just going to ask him another question which contributes materially to clarify conditions and that question is very important to me because in a certain way I have different views from the witness.
Q Witness, may I ask you who was the Minister, President of Bavaria, the Prime Minister at the time Hitler's sentence was passed?
A Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. You say you want to express your opinion to the witness?
DR. BRIEGER: No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: You did say that?
DR. BRIEGER: I only wanted to say, your Honor, that my views differ materially from those of the witness, and, therefore, there are several things left for me to clear up by my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You should be advised and admonished at this time, that this is not the time nor the place for you to air your views on any subject. And, I think in view of your apparent desire to get your views before the witness, and before the court at this time, that we will have to rule that your line of questioning is not in order at this time. It is a part of your defense and you will have the opportunity at the proper time to argue these matters to the court and not to the witness.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, I am doing everything not to impress any of my views on the witness because we are not concerned here with my opinion, but in this case I said that my opinion differs and that I, therefore, only said that I wanted to give a reason why I wanted to ask the witness more questions to clarify the matter, as a matter of fact.
Q In other words, Witness, at the time when the sentence was passed on Hitler was the government that of a bourgeois, socialist or communist?
AA bourgeois socialist government.
Q At any rate a bourgeois, and Eisnerauer was still in the government?
A No.
Q Were there any prominent personalities who signed that law?
A No, I can't say so.
Q You said it was essentially a socialist government. Are you convinced that the sentences imposed upon Hitler, which you describe as lenient, would have been just as lenient if the government of Eisnarauer still existed?
A Certainly not, because that was a revolutionary government.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Defense Counsel, we must rule that you shall desist from further questions along this line. We are not at all concerned at this time, concerning any phase of the trial and conviction of Adolpn Hitler at that time; so, you will have to pursue a different line of questions from this point on.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, may I have your views repeated and may I have it a little more clearly because I am very anxious to comply with the Tribunal's wishes. May I ask you to tell me what questions I am to eliminate.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the Reporter read my ruling.
(The ruling was read by the Reporter.)
Q Witness, do you know that at the time during the Eisnerauer government, the Prince von Thurn und Taxis, whom it was known who had no political influence was sentenced by such a tribunal to death and was executed?
A I do not remember exactly but it is possible.
Q Concerning this connection, here is one more question. On the first day when you gave testimony, Witness, you made a formulation saying that all Special Courts before the time of Hitler were merely temporary or very temporary institution. Do you now consider that the law originated from 1918, and until Hitler was sentenced--I am not sure was that in 1923 or 1924?
A 1923.
Q Would you now like to admit your concept of time, do you mean to say some weeks, some months, or do you mean to say a period up to five years?
A In a time of continual disturbance of public order a period of five years could be described as temporary. In Bavaria after the murder of Eisnerauer by Meuchel, who as far as I know was not sentenced by the Tribunal. After that murder, the dictatorship of Meuchel was proclaimed. Later dictator and terroristic crimes were committed on both sides. I remember the murder of hostages, I do not remember it in detail in Bavaria, in particular. There was the continuous unstable state of affairs which was upheld by the mass actions of the National Socialists in Bavaria. The relations between the Bavarian government and the Reich government detoriated thus, and there was continuous friction. There were some slogans such as the "March on Berlin" and-so-forth, until Hitler's Putsch and its consequences.
There was in Bavaria since the revolution of November 1918 a state of affairs which involved uncertainty.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Mr. Defense Counsel, while your questions are slightly different they evoke similar answers from the witness and it's repetition. It's immaterial at this time. It has no proper part in the cross examination and it has no relationship to the direct examination. Let me remind you again that when you cross examine to witness about matters which have not been referred to in the direct examination you vouch for the correctness and the soundness of the answers. Now, if you really desire that, we perhaps should not interfere with you but I merely warn you.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. president, I would allow for the fact that I was not a defense counsel in the big trial and that I am trying very hard to adapt myself to the customs of this Tribunal but that in this short period I have not completely achieved that. Mr. president, at the instigation of the prosecution I had access to the statements -- I would have liked to have promised the Tribunal that before the time I would announce from what point of view I wished to ask those questions. How, I will do so clearly. I must say in that when the documents were presented by the prosecution the prosecution on its part stressed the point it was an obligation to tell ta this time the Tribunal and the President from what point of view these documents were being submitted. Therefore, I ask you to assume from my statements today that I for my part do not want to tie myself for a future date -- commit myself. I would like a few words on the matter under discussion. I would now like to ask you, witness, whether considerable legal thought in the Hitler Legislation concerning the Peoples Court and the Special Curt were expressed which are the same legal thougnt which later occurred in the statement as you stated -- I would like to ask you to give us -- to speak to us in great outline about the similarities and the deviations.
A. I can only confirm that a number of provisions were later taken into the permanent legislate in of the Special Court and National Socialism which occurred in the emergency law against the revolution curtailing the right of the defendants -- refusing legal remedy and other provisions which occurred in the emergency decree made during the time before 1933 which I would not like to describe again.
Q. Summarizing, these three sources of law from the time before Hitler -- in other words, the three emergency decrees, the Reich Law from the year 1920 and the Bavarian Law-- would you say that Hitler fought back with the same weapons with the Peoples Court and the Special Court?
A. No.
Q. I will leave open the question whether this wouldn't have been effective because Hitler was in power longer than the Eisner Government and the Government Mucller and the Bruening Government.
A. I should not like to answer in detail because I think I have already given my views in detail to the Tribunal. I should only like to emphasize one thing; that the rescinding of the decree -- the abrogation of the 1920 decree --- was abrogated while the Democratic Goverment was still in power. The period of the Ministry of the Reich cannot be compared with the dictatorship period of "Hitler but one can only compare the tasks with the Weimar Republic Laws as a whole -- you can compare that with the period of the Hitler dictatorship as far as that is concerned. Beyond that it isn't correct-the question addressed to me was not correct, saying that Hitler's special legislation only lasted because he remained in power. While the Special Courts, which for a certain reason, were made earlier on were not valid as laws because the Government under which they wore made did not stay in power for the same duration.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I would like to inquire first of defense counsel, is there a particular hour that the defendants must eat? Can they eat before 12:30 or must they only eat before 12:30? I am just tninking if -- that is, the dining room is usually less full and we can get back faster -- (confers with defense counsel Brieger). Of course, if the defendants can't eat before 12:30 I won't make the request now that we adjourn.
MR. BRIEGER: May I add some in a from my technical knowledge of the situation. If I am correctly informed the lunch period starts at 12:30 but it would help us if at a quarter past twelve we could have the recess so that we would be the first to go to the dining-room. Otherwise, we usually find all seats engaged and we often have to wait until a seat becomes vacant and other things like that.
MR. PRISIDENT: That scene to be a good reason and we will therefore have the noon hour at 12:15.
DR. BRIEGER: I hope that I can finish my cross examination at that time but I don't want to commit myself.
THE PRESIDENT: We think, Mr. Defense Counsel, that you will have to continue this at considerable length. Moreover, you have departed from all reasonable rules of cross examination but I think it isn't too much to say you have been disregarding the ruling of the Tribunal. It will be necessary for us to curtail your cross examination and assume more reasonable lines.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President; may I say again that I have not done so on purpose. I shall use the first opportunity to familiarize myself with the questions of the Tribunal so that in the future I shall avoid such. Accordingly, I will be brief now and I shall go over to quite a different subject, Mr. President, may I ask you to translate for me what it means in German "no bis in idea?"
For the some crime a second proceeding -- a second proceeding may not be started against the first defendant if he has already been sentenced by legal sentence -- if a legal sentence has already been passed on him.
Q Will you from that point of view regard this as a violation by the Special Court which have not yet become legally valid from the standpoint of the nullity plea, and an extra-ordinary objection and if it was re-opened and after the second sentence -- would you call that an infringement on the principle of no bis in idom?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Did I understand the question clearly? That because a decision -- a sentence had been made and was subject to be open for a year -if it was opened, that was in double jeopardy? Did I understand the question?
DR. BRIEGER: May I repeat. Would you, Mr. President, after what you told us just now, would you consider the fact that sentences before they become loyally valid were by a higher legal authority -- were quashed by that higher loyal authority in the sense whereby by way of nullity plea of by way of extra-ordinary objection a year later it was again re-opened at a trial?
Would you consider that an infringement of the principle of no bis in idem-- the principle of double jeopardy?
A I should like to say that I think that question is based on an incorrect premise. The nullity plea and the extraordinary objection were intended to destroy sentences which were legally valid and to reopen the trial and have a second trial.
Q Mr. President, would you consider as correct, or as incorrect, the view that the principle of ne bis in idem means that a person cannot be given two sentences for the same offense? Would you consider that correct or incorrect?
A That is right.
Q Do you believe that, apart from the contents of this principle, the principle of ne bis in idem has further meaning?
MR. LaFOLLRTTE: I object to that question as being too indefinite. I don't know what further meaning counsel refers to. I mean, I think there should be some further identification on cross examination as to what he has in mind. Maybe there are many further meanings.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q It is difficult, particularly concerning such legal concepts, to commit oneself to make binding statements. However, I wanted to express this: Are the contents of this principle exhausted by that, or has the principle a further meaning? I think I have made myself clear on that.
A I cannot say that. I have not yet completely understood what you mean by your question.
Q I do not want to make you give any certain answers by what I say, and therefore it is difficult for me to formulate my question. Perhaps I can clarify my question by giving an example.
Would you consider it an infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem, double jeopardy, that, when a man was sentenced for robbery and when the sentence became legally valid, shall we say because of the man concerned, and because another court considers the sentence far too lenient, in an entirely different part of Germany a new proceeding is started and, on the basis of a new sentence, he is given a new punishment?
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't received an answer yet. Don't ask another question until you get the answer.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The answer didn't come through on translation.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it had no opportunity.
JUDGE BRAND: What did the witness answer?
THE PRESIDENT: He didn't answer at all.
THE WITNESS: That is a violation of the principle.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Would you also consider it a violation of this principle if a sentence has been quashed by way of a nullity plea or by way of an extraordinary objection and the new court sentences the defendant again to a new punishment, quashing the first sentence?
A My answer to this question depends upon the meaning and one's view of the meaning of the extraordinary objection. In the course of my testimony the question has been touched upon that the two Oberreichsanwaelte, chief prosecutors, received their directives from the highest Reich authorities because such quarters considered certain sentences too lenient. It was apparently believed that the terror effects which were caused by the Special Courts and the People's Courts -- that is, these terror effects which were intended by the People's Courts and the ordinary courts had not been sufficiently realized. If one considers that with this remedy of the extraordinary objection we are concerned with a bit of modernized cabinet justice concerning the question, that here the meaning of this procedure regarding an infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem was aimed at, then I must affirm that question.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Mr. Witness, may I ask you a question, for information, concerning the matter you have just testified upon?
When, with reference to the time that sentence is pronounced, is the nullity plea introduced; before or after?
A I didn't quite understand. After what moment?
Q After a man has been sentenced, is there provision that the nullity plea may be invoked, after sentence has been pronounced?
A Yes.
Q And am I correct in assuming that the nullity plea is in the nature of a motion to set aside a judgment -
A Yes.
Q -- which has been pronounced?
A Yes.
Q Can the convicted defendant make such a motion? Can he invoke the nullity plea? The defendant?
A No, the defendant cannot.
Q Under the provisions of the decree for the formation of special courts, I read, in Section 16, "There is no legal appeal against decisions of the special courts." Prior to the enactment of that provision, was there an absolute right on the part of a defendant to appeal at his own option?
A Yes, in the ordinary procedure there was.
Q Then after the appeal provision was revoked, the possibility of opening a sentence did n t depend upon any action by a defendant but, on the contrary, was in the discretion of some public officer only? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Was that also true with reference to extraordinary objections?
A Extraordinary objections could only be made by the Oberreichsanwalt, the Reichsgericht, or Volksgericht.
Q And when he made the extraordinary objection, was the determination of the question as to the reopening of a case decided by him, or was his extraordinary objection submitted to a court for a decision?
A It was submitted to a special senate, which was built in the Reichsgericht and in the Volksgerichtshof.
Q But am I right in assuming that it could not be submitted unless the public officer submitted it?
A Yes, that is right.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The case went, but the court before which it was filed made no finding; they simply automatically sent it some place else, it was automatic in its operation?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: My interest was in the question as to whether these remedies -- the extraordinary objection and the nullity plea -- could in any event be invoked by the defendant or his counsel, and I think I understood that they could not.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Not in the same capacity, certainly.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, my questioning will go on for at least another quarter of an hour, if not 20 minutes, and therefore I am asking you whether you wish me to continue or whether the Court now wishes to go into recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We certainly have time for one more question, and we wish you would employ the time.
DR. BRIEGER: One question, yes.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, concerning the examination of the extraordinary objection or the nullity plea on the one hand, and on the other hand the cancellation of sentences by the Cassation Court, would you see a parallel there in the Denazification Board or would you not? And would you give us your reasons, please?
A I have already said earlier that the Denazification procedures are of quite a special nature, conditioned by the circumstances of the Third Reich and their consequences, and that they can in no way be compared with any other procedures.
Q If I may recall to your memory that the Denazification Boards, in their verdicts, can make rulings which are decisive for the whole existence of the persons concerned, that they can sentence the persons to go to camps, that they can confiscate their property, and so forth, would you assume, on the basis of that, that only in this respect the Denazification procedures are similar in their effect, or that they are something entirely different? -793
A. I would like to refer to the statement I made in detail one or two days ago when I gave my view on the nature of the denazification proceedings and said that amounted to making people responsible for the damage by the Third Reich, and I do not wish to repeat that now because the Tribunal does not desire such a repetition.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, both the question and the answer have been stricken. I objected to the question once before on the ground that it goes outside the range of any cross examination. But it has been answered before and I don't think it makes any difference if it stays in or out. But if it would be possible to make an automatic objection, I would like the Court to note that I am objecting to any interrogation with reference to denazification proceedings because they come without the range of the questioning in chief and clearly within there is no analagous situation. They come without the range of any period of law which we have under consideration and they are the result of actions arising out of an unconditional surrender and the action of Allied governments, which are not comparable under any circumstances. And in a sense, since this procedure must be adaptable, I am making that automatic objection to any further questions of that kind and ask the Court to have it in mind if any such questions are asked. I can't get to this microphone fast enough.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have ruled on questions of this character and have ruled that they are not permissible. We should now say that whether the exact question has been asked before, the questions that are now being asked do evoke the same answers which have been given before. There should not be this continued repetition.
We will take a recess at this time.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, in view of the fact, that the powers of concentration of this witness have been taxed to the utmost since the day before yesterday, I have decided to take account of this. I will refrain from further questioning this witness with the exception of a very brief question.
Mr. President, the day before yesterday you pointed out that you had a friend who was a high ministerial counselor in a Ministry. He told you approximately the following, "I remain in office in order to prevent worse things." In regard to this testimony, I would like to ask you the name of this gentleman. What is his address? And in what Ministry was he working?
A We are concerned with the late Minister-Counselor, Dr. Willke who was in London with me. He was in the Ministry of Defendant Schlegelberger one or two years after the Nazis came to power. On the occasion of a meeting, I asked him why it was that he and Defendant Schlegelberger were going along with us. He said, "We are there in order to prevent worse events." That is what he told me at the time.
Q Did this answer apply also to the Defendant Schlegelberger?
A I assume so because my question concerned aim also. However, I expressed my doubts to him about preventing, permanently, worse things in National Socialism.
Q Do you still remember his official title and capacity in the Ministry of economics?
A No. He was ministerial counselor.
Q In which division?
A That I do not remember.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for the Defendant Engert. Mr. President, I ask your permission to put several questions to the witness.
BY DR. MARX:
Q Witness, yesterday you mentioned the person of Defendant Engert in connection with a so-called Action Engert in Schweinfurt. In the course of your testimony, witness, you furthermore said that the Defendant Engert exerted strong pressure on officials of the Justice Department in his district in order to force them to enter the Party?
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, according to statements of the officials in the denazification proceedings.
Q Is the following therefore correct? The officials in question only made this known in the course of denazification proceedings?
A The Chairman of the Advanced Investigation Committee told me that as he submitted to me a list of 25 officials who had made this declaration to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
Q Witness, can you still remember in what category these civil servants were? In the majority, were they higher justice officials or medium ones?
A They were in the medium categories, but there were also some judges among them.
Q Do you know when Engert became president of the District Court in Schweinfurt?
A In March, 1934.
Q When did he complete his activities as president of the District Court?
AAugust 1934.
Q Witness, do you know whether at that time there was a suspension of admissions to the Party?
A I believe there was such a temporary suspension of new admissions. However, according to the statements of these officials, Engert was supposed to have told them that the Party was open to them in particular and he advised them to join the Party as quickly as possible.
Q What did they mean by "excertion of pressure?" Did they make any charges?
A The persons concerned referred to the fact that Engert excerted pressure especially through the acting official inspector Klein who excerted pressure on lower officials and those in the middle categories. He excerted pressure constantly by means of Mr. Klein.
Q Is Mr. Klein still officiating?
A No. He has been dismissed. I believe he has even died.
Q I have a final question. Was there an exact investigation made as to whether these individual persons entered the Party?
A They entered in 1934. It was strikingly noticeable that a large number of officials in the District Courts with whom I became familiar in the year 1935, entered the Party in the years 1935 and 1937. At that time the entries into the Party were large.
Q Therefore, they must have made an exception for the Schweinfurt District Court as far as the closing of the party was concerned?
A Yes. I said that. Engert pointed out that the Party was open to these people for a short time, and that this was an exception.
DR. MARX: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. ORTH: Dr. Orth for the Defendant Altstoetter.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Witness, is it correct that under German criminal and civil law there was a strict distinction between criminal and civil proceedings before as well as after 1933?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that in criminal proceedings, criminal judges, criminal chambers and criminal senates made decisions; and that in civil proceedings, civil judges, civil chambers and civil senates were separated; that there were two different organizations?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that the Special Courts and the People's Courts did not have anything to do with civil matters?
A Yes. They had nothing to do with civil matters.
Q Is it correct that the civil proceedings, since 1933, were not at all changed in any direction which could be described as typically National Socialistic or contrary to the National Socialistic World Order or ideology?
A That is correct in as far as the institution of hereditary health courts is not considered.
Q Is it correct that the extraordinary objection was not applied to civil matters?
A Yes.
Q Do you know any single case in which a sentence in a civil case was contested by a nullity plea?
A No.
Q Did judges and lawyers ever complain to you that the Ministry of Justice influenced or curtailed the independence of the judges in civil cases?
A I do not know any definite decrease in measures in that respect.
Q Did you determine whether the civil jurisdiction was used for the establishment of the National Socialist regime?
A No. I do not have any particular experiences in that respect. I did not make any experiments.