The word "simplification" is perhaps misleading, in describing this document. The word "summary" would perhaps be more applicable. Taking part in this meeting throughout and contributing a not inconsiderable amount to what was discussed and decided on this further simplification and rendering more summary of criminal procedure was the defendant Klemm who was then in his capacity as a Ministerialrat in the Nazi Party Chancellory prior to his appointment as Undersecretary in the Ministry of Justice. Without wading through this conference but offering it in its entirety the Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 437 Document NG-919.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEHAN: On page 62 of the English book which is page 71 of the German is found NG-938. This is a letter under the letterhead of the Supreme Chief of the SA. The Oberst J.A. Fuehrer. The letterhead continues to state that in the office of the Supreme Chief of the SA this letter originates from the Adjutants Office of the Chief of Staff. SA Liaison Office in the Reich Ministry of Justice, dated, Berlin, 4 December 1936. This letter is addressed to the Reich Ministry of Justice and in this letter the writer, namely, the defendant Klemm suggests five Honorary Lay-judges to be appointed to the Peoples Court on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the SA. These five SA officers whom Klemm proposes have ranks ranging from General, namely Obergruppenfuehrer, down through the various lower ranks of Generals, Gruppenfuehrer, Brigadefuehrer, Brigadefuehrer to Colonel, Oberfuehrer.
Klemm concludes with the remarks; "I should be grateful if the above-named would be included among the nominees proposed to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. "It is personally signed by the defendant Klemm. The last page of the document indicates that Hitler took kindly to these suggestions of the defendant Klemm in that all five of his nominees that were proposed were accepted by Hitler and duly appointed. That is seen from the last page of the document which is on page 64 of the English book and on page 74 of the German. The prosecution offers as Exhibit 438 Document NG-938.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 65 of the English book which is page 75 of the German is found NG-1070. This is a reprint of a law which should have been included among those collected in Document Book II and is included here to be made a matter of reference. This law was passed in December 1933 as one of the first measures of the incoming NAZI-government and is entitled "A Law for the Safeguarding of Unity, of Party and State." Among other things it destroys and renders illegal any political party save that of the National Socialist Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this passed by the Reichstag?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It bears only the signatures of Hitler and Frick, your Honor, and whether or not the Reichstag in full session passed on it I am not prepared to state.
THE PRESIDENT: It would bear the signature of Hindenburg if it had been an action of the Reichstag.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Not necessarily, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, the Reich Government has passed it as I see from the top.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Therefore a number of statutes that were passed by Hitler alone before that time. I will inquire, your Honor, and inform the bench of whether or not the Reichstag passed it. We have this statute to be attached to Document Book II as Exhibit 439.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean by that to detach this instrument from this book and attach it to Book II?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I don't think that will be necessary, your Honor. Just make a notation in Book II that an additional statute exists.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 67 of the English Book which is page ** of the German is found NG-1306. It is sworn affidavit by the Prosecutor with the Administrative Division of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the Stuttgart Court of Appeals, one Hans Dejlovec. Prosecutor Dejlovec in this affidavit states under oath that he remembers a decree concerning the handling of proceedings against people who had killed and murdered parachutist Allied Airmen within the Reich.
The affiant states that this decree was distributed to the Senior Public Prosecutors throughout the Reich presumably, and was labeled either "secret" or "top secret". The Prosecutor goes on to affirm that this decree had the usual form of all Ministry of Justice decrees, and in any case was issued after Goebbels' appeal for the killing of allied air men which had appeared in the press. The affiant concluded from the entire meaning of this decree that the Ministry of Justice considered as undesirable any proceedings against people who had murdered parachuted allied air men. The affiant further knew that in this decree it called for a report to the Ministry of Justice, together with the submission of the records in all cases involving the murder of parachuted allied air men. The affiant also recalls that this decree referred to displeased him, because he concluded from it that through the violations of international law, like the murdering of parachuted allied air men, as propagated by Goebbles, were being sanctioned by the Ministry of Justice.
Without further reading, we offer this affidavit, NG-1306 as Exhibit 440.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last document in this book is NG-1307, and it is a sworn affidavit by Hans Josef Altmeyer, formerly in Division Four of the Reich Ministry of Justice, where in Altmeyer explains in detail the methods whereby death sentences pronounced, particularly by the People's Court and Special Courts, were reviewed by the Ministry of Justice, clemancy appeals decided on, and execution orders issued. The mechanism of this Ministry review of death sentences and the method and manner in which the death sentences were carried out involves particularly the defendant Klemm.
Without reading this affidavit of Altmeyer's, we offer it as Exhibit 441.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, that consists of all the documents in Supplemental Book I, with the exception of one more document; that is all we are prepared to offer today.
I do like to say for the benefit of Defense Counsel and the Court that Monday at 0930 we will recall the witness Hecker for cross examination solely upon his Nacht and Nebel affidavit which is NG- 737, Exhibit 416. I state that because I think the record now shows that with the exception of that matter he has been cross examined on all other matters. We hope to follow that witness with a witness of the subject of sterilization. I think we will be able to, but we will have Hocker the first thing Monday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn a t this time until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
( The Tribunal adjourned until 12 May, 1947; at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 12 May 1947, 0930-1640, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The absence of the Defendant Engert is by request and proper notation will be made.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor will recall the witness Hecker is recalled for the purpose of cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination may proceed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Will Your Honor want to reswear the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. He has been sworn. It is part of the cross examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
ROBERT HECKER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KUBOSCHOK (For Defendant von Ammon)
Q Witness, on the 5th of January 1947 you submitted an affidavit regarding the transfer of the NN prisoners to the police. In this affidavit you state that in Department 5 of the Justice Ministry you had a position in the so-called penal execution department and that the taking care of the NN prisoners was part of the job of that department.
In this capacity you took part in a discussion in the fall of 1940. This discussion was held in the OKW because of the transfer of the NN prisoners to the police. In your affidavit you describe that you had that inner considerations about this transfer and as to how the police offices would possibly classify the prisoners and decide about them. According to your affidavit you were probably thinking of the experiences which you made in your Department 5 in the transfer of the asocials and Jews. I am now asking, did you discuss these personal considerations with Mr. von Ammon at the time?
A No.
Q Thank you. Secondly, did Department 4, in which Herr von Ammon was working, have anything to do with the transfer of the asocials and Jews which I have just mentioned?
A No.
Q Is it correct that in this meeting the representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice said in regard to the statements of the OKW, or rather, that they did not state any position in regard to these statements, but stated that they would have to wait first of all for the decision of the Reichminister of Justice Thierack?
A That is correct. First, it was to be submitted to him, and then they were to be informed of his decision.
Q Is it correct that the matter was submitted to Thierack when Ammon was not present and that Thierack decided it at that time?
A I personally do not knew about that. I don't know who submitted the matter to Thierack. I only know that Department 4 took care of the matter and that afterwards a decree was issued by Department 4--.
Q Did you not speak yourself about it with Minister Thierack?
A No. When he was informed about it I was not present myself.
Q Herr von Ammon states, and I ask you to state your opinion as to whether this might be possible that this matter was not reported to Thierack by him, that is von Ammon, but by others, and that Ammon received Thierack's decision after it had been made, and his superior the chief of Department 4, then took ever the further care of this matter, that is, the working out of the order.
A Well, as far as I remember, the matter was as follows, that the Generalreferent, the general expert and the representative of Herr von Ammon or Herr von Ammon himself reported the matter and that after that a regulation was issued which the Chief of the department signed.
Q Do you know anything about the fact that there was a misunderstanding prevalent in this matter, that in accordance with the agreement the OKW was supposed to send a draft to the Ministry of Justice, that therefore Ammon still waited before submitting the matter to the Minister and that then he was surprised when he received it since he was still waiting for the draft by the 0KW, that he thereafter, after the decision had been made complained to the OKW, that the draft had not been sent to them and that the misunderstanding was then cleared up in the following way, that the Minister had been informed not by von AmmOn but by somebody else. Do you know anything about this?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I object to the question for these reasons, first, the information and condition of the mind of the defendant von Ammon, that he was surprised, about which the witness can know nothing; and second, about the very statement of the involved question. There are included in the hypothesis facts about which this witness has no knowledge, or could no knowledge. For that reason I object to the question, on both grounds.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The question of the misunderstanding is very important. In order to point out the misunderstanding to the witness, or rather, the extent of the misunderstanding. I had to make these brief explanations.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty is that they are not merely explanations. They were assuming the existence of facts concerning which there is not an iota of testimony so far, and I think the Prosecution's objection is well founded that this witness could not possibly know the state of mind of von Ammon. The objection will be sustained.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I have finished with my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to cross examine this witness.
Has the prosecution any redirect examination of this witness?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, we have no redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We have a witness to follow. I assume he is on the way up. I seem to be a little short handed in the courtroom this morning.
We will have a witness here in just a minute if he is not outside, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a personal reason for desiring to know whether you have a full day of work before the Court today on the part of the Prosecution.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think we will have, Your Honor. I can tell you better in probably fifteen minutes. We have two witnesses who both should be in Nurnberg, and of course the extent to which they will occupy the time will largely depend on the extensiveness of their examination. We do have some documents with which we may follow, just as soon as I can get the witness. May we consider ourselves in recess in chambers for just a minute until I find the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances we will take five minutes recess at this time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor. I am sorry about this.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecutions calls the witness Klees.
RUDOLF KLEES, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, will you please tell the court your full name and your place of residence.
A Rudolf Klees, Diez on the Lahn, Greteweg No. 7.
Q When were you born, Mr. Klees?
A On the 20th of May 1914 in Limburg.
Q During your life, what has been your main occupation?
A My main occupation was that from 1928 on I worked for a cattle dealer until 1937, or the beginning of 1938. It was a cattle business I took part in all the transports and I bought cattle and sold it again. He was a Jewish so-called "Viehhaendler"--cattle dealer.
Q Mr. Klees, do you have any brothers or sisters?
A Yes, I do. I have three sisters and five brothers.
Q Are your three sisters and five brothers alive now?
A Two of them are dead; one sister and one brother are dead.
Q Of your brothers and sisters which are now living, are any of them ill that you know of?
A No.
Q Is your mother still living, Mr. Klees?
A No. She died in 1939.
Q Do you know of what she died?
Q Yes. During the menopause she was in bed for a year end a half and after that she died.
Q How old was your mother when she died?
A She was 55 years old.
Q After your mother died, Mr. Klees, did your father marry the second time?
A Yes, he did. In 1941, he married again. He was married for four months and then he too died.
Q Was this second marriage of your father's a happy one, so far as you observed?
A No.
Q What was the reason why it wasn't happy, do you know?
A He married for the second time, and she spent all of his money. Then my father again had to take up his job at the railroad and he went there, and when he came home in the evening she had run away and had taken away all his money, and so he hanged himself.
Q Mr. Klees, how much schooling have you had?
A I only went to grade school -- public school.
Q How many years did you attend school?
A Eight years.
Q Eight years. After you left the eight year of school, what did you do?
A Then I went to a Jewish cattle dealer.
Q Between the years of 1933 and 1945, to what political party, if any, did you belong?
A I did not belong to any party from 1933 until 1945. Before 1933 I was in the Reichsbanner, in the Socialist Party of Germany--the SPD.
Q What political connections, if any, with regard to political parties did your father and your brother have? The same as yours or not?
A They were all in the Reichsbanner, the SPD -- the Socialist Party of Germany.
Q Can you explain, Mr. Klees, what this Reichsbanner is -or was.
A The Reichsbanner was a formation organized by the SPD; it was a security organization of the government. Severing had issued a regulation establishing a so-called Reichsbanner, and this organization worked alongside the security Police (Schutzpolizei).
Q Mr. Klees, was this Reichsbanner a Nazi organization?
A No, SPD - Socialist Party of Germany.
Q At any time after 1933 were you or your father or your brothers, ever members of the Nazi Party?
A No.
Q About how many people lived in this town of Dietz, where you say your residence was.
A Four thousand.
Q Mr. Klees, do you remember anything unusual that happened to you or your family in 1932, before the Nazi party came to power; and by "anything unusual", I mean anything of a violent nature?
A In 1932, before the Nazi government seized power, the SAentered our house during the night; they broke the windows and doors, and they made an attack on my father and one brother, who is in Russia, and me. And we beat them before they left -- in front of our house and in our house; they sustained injuries on the head, and during the night they were taken away in a car and turned over to the police.
Q Mr. Klees, you say that in 1942, at night, some SA men broke into your house -
THE PRESIDENT: Wasn't that in 1932? You said 1942 just now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe it was in 1932 that the witness said this happened.
THE PRESIDENT: You said 1942.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am sorry.
Q During this night in 1932 that you have described when the SA men broke into your house, did these SA men call you or your father, or any of your brothers, any epithets or names that you heard?
A Yes, they called my father a "red crook" and "red trash" and they said: "Where are they; let's kick them out."
Q You say that your family resisted these SA men who had broken into your house by force?
A Yes.
Q Did you or your father turn these SA men over to the Police?
A Yes, and to the constabulary -- to one trooper of the constabulary; they were altogether put into a car and brought to the police, and we went with them.
Q After you turned these SA men over to the police, did the police make any investigation of the matter?
A Not very much; they said that we would be informed, and afterward we heard rumors that they had been given a fine of forty marks, but nothing was done about it.
Q Did any particular police official that you remember make the investigation of the matter?
A No.
Q Mr. Klees, I believe you said that after you left school you went to work for a cattle dealer.
A Yes.
Q Was your employer Jewish?
A Yes, he was.
Q While you were working for him, was he ever mistreated that you know of?
A Yes. He was called for during the night and he was beaten up too; I was living there; and they also took me along during the night, and on along way they chased me back. It was the SS who took this man -- my boss, the Jew -- and they beat him up so badly that you couldn't recognize him any more.
In 1937 the Jew went to America. But he had been so mistreated -- they had beaten him up so much, to such an extent that he was unrecognizable; it was terrible to look at him.
Q Mr. Klees, during this night that you have just described, in which the SS beat up, as you say, your employer, were you involved in the affair in any way?
A Yes.
Q Could you describe, Mr. Klees, how you were involved during this night that you have described?
A I was living there with my boss, and when they called for him during the night and said he would have to be taken along and put into protective custody, I, of course, went downstairs and looked into the matter, and when things were ready they said I would have to go along too to the city hall at Freiendiez. One of the policemen went and took him over a bridge -- across a bridge -- and I went along on my bicycle; and shortly after we had crossed the bridge three SS men came with sticks -- with the handles of spades -- and then they mistreated him.
Q You say that you followed along on a bicycle that night, Mr. Klees?
A Yes.
Q Did at any time did these SS men mistreat you or call you any names?
A Yes.
Q What did they do or say?
A First they said: You dirty servant of a Jew; hurry up and get away from here, otherwise you will get it; but I did not obey their order, and in spite of that, I followed them on the bicycle, and so they took me and also beat me up and then I ran away.
Q Mr. Klees, did this occurrence happen in the same town of Diez in which -
A Yes.
Q You described the breaking into of your house by the SA men sometime before that? They both happened in the same town; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Mr. Klees, did you ever apply for a driver's license?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A In 1934 I made application to receive a driver's license, and the Jew paid for it, and after I finished drivers' school at Limburg, a drivers' school's name was Moebus, they later told me that I would also have to have a report on my behavior.
Q One moment, excuse me. Then you applied for your drivers license, did you do that in this same town of Diez?
A Yes.
Q Did you -- or rather to what official did you have to go to, to apply for this driver's license?
A To a police official named Richter.
Q Had you had any dealings with this official Richter before? Had you ever seen him before?
A Yes, when we were marching in the Reichsbanner organization and had our parades, and later when our organization was dissolved and we did not care about it any more, he was still in office as police official.
Q Did this police official, to whom you had to apply for the driver's license, did he have anything to do with the investigation? -
A Yes.
Q Of the breaking into your house by the SA men sometime previously?
A Yes, he knew about that too. He had taken down the record of this case and later on when I made application for my driver's license and wanted to find out what was going on there, he told me that I did not have the right to receive a driver's license.
Q. You said that this police official refused you your drivers license; is that correct?
A. Yes, he refused it; and as a reason for the refusal, he gave that I was a danger to the public. Thereupon I said they were all a bunch of rascals.
Q. In addition to refusing your drivers license, and telling you that you were a danger to the community, did the police official tell you to do anything else?
A. He told me that first of all I would have to go to the Kreisphysician in Limburg. I went there and they asked me -- they told me that they would have to examine me because of my drivers license.
Q. When this district physician or medical officer, examined you, of what did that examination consist?
A. Everything, a physical examination, my health, and they asked me about drafts and checks. And, when we were almost finished, he said that in ten days they would let me know about the outcome, and whether I had ever heard anything about sterilization.
Q. Mr. Klees, during this physical examination that you have just described, did the examining physician ask any questions of a political nature?
A. Yes, he asked me whether I belonged to the Hitler Youth or the SA, and if I was active in either of these organizations. I answered, no.
Q. Did the examining physician have anything to say about the fact that you worked for a Jewish employer?
A. I only said that I worked for a Jewish cattle dealer and therefore I could not be in the Hitler Youth -- I was not in the Hitler Youth or the SA. We had all been in the Reichsbanner-SPD, the Socialist Party, and I was not interested in this business.
Q. After this physical examination that you have just described, were you summoned before any court?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please describe what court it was, and where?
A. In Limburg, at the Landgericht, the district court. I was summoned together with my father. The presiding judge there was a Dr. Dannhausen, Roesgen, Boesch, and Herr Roesgen.
Q. Mr. Klees, when you were summoned before this district court in Limburg, what happened at your hearing; can you describe what happened the day you were before the court?
A. I entered the courtroom; there, the presiding judge asked me -his name was Dr. Dannhausen -- he asked me about my intelligence test, about drafts and checks, and asked where I was working, and where I had gone -- traveled, and where I had traveled for the purpose of buying cattle. And, then he told me I could sit down.
Q. What was the result of your hearing before this court?
A. The decision was that Dr. Dannhausen in Limburg, who today is the Landrat of Limburg, district counselor, said that the court session was invalid, because it was out of the question to have a person like that sterilized.
Q. Then, are we to understand that your hearing before this court resulted in your not being sterilized? The court refused to order your sterilization; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have stated, Mr. Klees, that this court was the district court there in Limburg, the Landgericht?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it so far as you know or could see, was the district court itself or was it some other kind of court held at that place?
A. No, it was the district court of Limburg.
Q. What year was that?
A. That was in October 1934, September or October -- I cannot remember the exact day anymore.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I refer now to page 48 of the English document book 8-B* which is part of document NG 832.
I now -
JUDGE BRAND: (Interposing) Is that in evidence?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, that is not in evidence.
I show now to the witness a piece of paper and ask him to describe it.
(The paper was delivered to the witness.)
Q. Mr. Klees, do you recognize that piece of paper you now hold?
A. Yes, that is the decision at Limburg of Dr. Dannhausen, Grosskind, Roesgen, and the district physician, Dr. Boesch. It is the decision where it was refused.
Q. Is that the decision of the court refusing your sterilization that you have just described?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please read the first paragraph?
A. "In the eugenics case against the unmarried worker Rudolf Klees, born on 20 May 1914, at Limburg, resident in Kiez Schlaeferweg 7, the Eugenics Court at Limburg (Lahn) in session on 21 June 1934, and composed of the Judge at District and Local Court (Landund Amtsgerichtsrat) Dannhausen, as president, the County Doctor (Kreisarz't)--"
Q. (Interposing) Mr. Klees, that will be sufficient. I only want to make sure that was the same document as the one before the Tribunal. Thank you.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Klees, after the court in Limburg refused to order your sterilization by the opinion which you have just identified; after that happened, did you appear before any other court on this same matter?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe how that came about and where you went to appear before the second court?
A. Four weeks later, I got a letter in which the County Physician, the Kreisarzt, made an appeal against this judgment, and gave me a summons to the district court of appeals in Frankfurt on the Main.
When I arrived there I was asked about my personal history, my name and so forth, and one of the gentleman asked me the following question: When was Adolf Hitler born? I answered to that question, I do not know that, and I had never been interested in it either. The other gentleman put the question to me; and he requested me, when was Dr. Goebbels born? Thereupon I answered in the same way, I did not know. And the third gentleman asked me when was Herman Goering born. Thereupon I answered I had never been interested in this. Thereupon they said that in about ten days I would be informed and in about ten days, and after about ten days the opinion about the sterilization was passed.
Q. Mr. Klees, at this hearing, this trial you have just described, in which they asked you the three questions about the birthdays of Hitler, Goebbels and Goering, did the court ask you any other questions? Did they examine you any more?
A. He asked that the (Der Apfel Faellt Nicht Veit vom Stamm) children are very close to their parents in the hereditary characteristics. -- I laughed at that heartily.
Q. How long, Mr, Klees, how long did the trial last?
A. About not quite fifteen minutes...until my turn came until all the gentlemen had gathered...all of it was finished within fifteen minutes.
Q. And after the trial I believe you said that your sterilization order was issued by that court some ten days later, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I now show the witness another document, and I invite the Tribunal's attention to page 49 of Document Book 8-B.
Q. Mr. Klees, have you ever seen that piece of paper before?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please describe to the Court was it is?
A. That is the opinion regarding the sterilization that was passed by the District Court of Appeals at Frankfurt.
Q. Mr. Klees... (pause) I am sorry, your Honors, I Can't seen to hear at the moment... Mr. Klees, you state that the piece of paper you now hold is the order of the Court of appeals in Frankfurt ordering your sterilization, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please read the first part of that document, please just to identify it?
A. "In the case concerning sterilization of the worker Rudolf Klees of Diez, born 20 May 1914 in Limburg-on-the-Lahn--"