THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, you say you can prove this.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can, you will have to prove it when you come to your defense. You can't prove it by argument with this witness.
DR. KOESSL: No, the witness did not enter into this matter to any further extent. I just happened to come to speak about this matter right now, and in my own case I shall prove to you that the reopening was done with success in several cases. May I proceed with the examination of the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, but no further along that line.
DR. KOESSL: All right.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, in the matter of the denunciation in regard to the malicious acts, was the defendant Rothaug participating?
A. Do you mean the denunciation against me?
Q. Yes.
A. I cannot say who made this denunciation.
Q. Which prosecutor was the representative of the prosecution during this malicious acts trial?
A. Prosecutor Markl.
Q. Was it the same prosecutor who has been present during the session before when you made this remark?
A. No.
Q. When was this offense which gave the cause for the trial according to the malicious acts law?
A. I believe in 1943.
Q. In the first of second half?
A. I can't remember that any more.
Q. Do you know, witness, that the brief periods that were allowed before the trial was opened had been ordered from above?
A. No, I only know that the prosecution, through this short period before the trial was opened, was hampered extraordinarily because they hardly had the possibility to discuss the matter with the defendants after they had examined the files.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a minute. Did the witness say that the Prosecution was hampered or that the defense was hampered?
THE WITNESS: The defense. The prosecution had already prepared the indictment in advance. It was the matter of the defense to take -they had to talk with the defendant in order to get evidence for the trial. In most cases this was not possible for the defense because the time was so short that they had only one or at the most two days.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Did you try to have the time extended?
A. Yes.
Q. With success?
A., No, without success. They were refused with a remark that the pressure of business did not permit it.
Q. Did you make use of the method of reopening a case?
A. No.
Q. You say in your affidavit that the scheduling of a case in Room 600 was always a sign that Rothaug or the Special Court in general was considering the death penalty.
A. Yes.
Q. Could that not be seen also from the fact that the defense counsel appointed by the court, which was required by law, was appointed in this case?
A. Sometimes defense counsel were also appointed by the Court in cases where there was no death penalty considered. If a summons for a trial in Room 600 was issued and the summons was given at the same time with the request to be duty defense counsel, Pflicht-verteidiger, then one know that the head of the client was at stake.
Q. But that could also be seen from the indictment.
A. Certainly. Then one looked at the indictment under these points of view and one saw then when one received the indictment.
Q. In courtroom 600, you probably also experienced trials where there was no death penalty?
A. Hardly.
Q. But you did experience it?
A. It may be, of course. Today after such a long time I cannot remember the individual trials any more.
Q. In how many cases about did you act as defense counsel?
A. That I really cannot remember. It could be 20, 30, 40, 50. I can't remember.
Q. However, it is correct that again and again you were defense counsel before the Special Court?
A. Yes, of course, until the end.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In direct examination, Your Honor, I have one question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Kroher -
A. Yes?
Q. In your entire experience before the Special Court in Nuremberg did you ever have a case that was reopened for the benefit of the defendant after the sentence had been passed and revoked by another court?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I believe I forgot to put a question. If I would be permitted --
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to further questions, Your Honor. The examination is finished.
DR. KOESSL: Then I will confine myself to these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is another witness available at this time. Have you some other witness available, Capt. Lewis?
THE MARSHAL: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us the name if you can.
THE MARSHAL: Ostermayer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, bring him in.
ROBERT OSTERMAYER; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Held up 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 BLAIR: You may be seated.
DR. KEOSSL (For the defendant Rothaug):
The affidavit of the witness Ostermayer is in Document Book 3-I in German on Page 13 and the English on Page 18, Document NG-738 -No, Exhibit 222, NG 378.
JUDGE BRAND: 738 it should be.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, 738.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, between 1938 and the end of 1940 you were at the Special Court Nurmberg?
A. Yes, all the time.
Q. As such from the very beginning you preferred to be in the civil chamber and you always stated that?
A Yes.
Q Witness, did you experience any case in which Rothaug charged the defendant with something that he had not committed at all?
A No.
Q The basis of the sentence as regards the facts, did they actually always correspond with the actual facts as they could be clarified during the trial?
AAs it was found out during the trial, so it was taken over into the sentence.
Q So, that you never saw a distortion of the facts? You never observed it?
A I have never observed it.
Q Can you confirm, witness, that Rothaug, in regard to the material in the trial, was in such excellent command of the facts as well as the legal questions involved that for the associate judges it was difficult to attack his conception with good reasons?
A Rothaug had an excellent memory.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That question I object to for the reason that it calls for the personal opinion of the witness on matters to which he is not qualified as an expert.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection will be overruled.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I ask you to answer this question. I shall repeat the question.
A Yes, please.
Q Can you confirm, witness, that Rothaug, in regard to the material in the trial, had good command of the material as regards the facts and the legal questions involved so that it was difficult for the associate judge to attack his conception with good reasons?
A Rothaug -- this is what I wanted to say before -- already had an excellent memory, and probably he had very good legal abilities, and he also had long years of experience as presiding judge in criminal cases;
and so for these reasons, without doubt, he knew the material in the trial. I have to say "Yes," for the reason that it was naturally difficult for us to make any objections against his opinion.
Q I only have now this question: whether during your interrogation by the prosecution in regard to the case Wendel, the files were submitted to you?
A The files were submitted, to me; otherwise, I would not have been in the position at all to remember details due to the long time that had expired.
Q May it please the Court, since the files in the criminal case which have just been mentioned are available, I believe it would be best that I discontinue the examination, because I can submit my evidence and it would perhaps be clearer if I did it by means of documents. Therefore, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
Is there another witness available?
THE MARSHAL: Robert Rauh.
ROBERT RAUH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows?
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 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.)
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. We are concerned with the affidavit, Exhibit 225, NG-526 in Document Book 3-I; in the German on Page 67, in the English, Page 62.
Witness, do you know the circumstances under which Rothaug in 1934 was transferred from Nurnberg to Schweinfurt?
A I do not know any details about this.
Q Do you know, witness, why Rothaug in 1937 was retransferred from Schweinfurt to Nurnberg?
AAt that time, there was some talk that he had come to Nurnberg in order to be presiding judge in the Special Court. Whether that was absolutely correct, I do not know. That was just talk.
Q Thank you. In your affidavit, you say that Rothaug, in the course of time, became one of the most influential persons in the administration of justice. You probably were only thinking of Nurnberg?
A Yes, I was only thinking of the conditions in Nurnberg. Beyond that, I did not know anything.
Q May it please the Court, I have just been handed a piece of paper, according to which, I have overlooked to ask the witness what his name is. I ask you to excuse this mistake. I would like to make up for this.
Witness, please tell your name and your profession.
A My name is Robert Rauh.
Q And your profession?
A I was Landgerichtsrat, and according to the decree of the Military Government, I was discharged.
Q Witness, of what kind were the instructions which Rothaug gave to the members of the NS Lawyer's League in a dictatorial tone of voice? Were they only invitations and similar things?
A They were invitations; whether other regulations of behavior were also given, that I cannot remember at the moment. But usually, they were longer statements, and the dictatorial tone of these instructions was noticed by several other people, and his distatorial tone toward me was complained about by several other people.
Q Was that the form that was usual at the time?
A Yes, usually in the National Socialist state, they were definite orders.
Q Witness, between April 1940 and Rothaug's leaving in 1934, were you only active as an associate judge, and that is as substitute associate judge?
A Yes. I was substitute associate judge until about November or December 1944.
Q Thus you were not a constant member of the Special Court at the time of Rothaug?
A No.
Q Did you at that time constantly follow up the writings and procedures in the field of criminal procedure and war time criminal procedure?
A That was difficult in part. However, I did read up on it, especially as the Deutsche Justiz -- the Journal -- was at my disposal.
Q Did you experience any case, witness, in which Rothaug distorted evidence or the facts in a case in any way in the opinion that he stated them incorrectly?
A No; at least, I never became conscious of it. I always had the impression as though nothing was done to the facts, as if facts were not violated.
Q In your affidavit, you say: "To object to his wishes would have meant suicide." Did this phrase originate with you?
A Mr. Einstein dictated this passage to me, and at that time I also had misgivings about this expression "suicide," but I was told that these words would not be so put on the scales as they were in the Third Reich, and I then calmed myself because I thought: that is a moral suicide, so to say.
Q Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no redirect examination, the witness may be excused.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, the clarification which was made yesterday showed that it is possible for us also to submit affidavits of those witnesses, so, therefore, I would like to refrain from examining the witness in regard to the defendant Rothaug, and to content myself with affidavits; and I would like to inform the Court so that the woman witness can be dismissed -- the witness Rothaug. I was told only this morning that Miss Rothaug will be summoned.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be entirely agreeable. You may substitute an affidavit in place of your cross examination as to the witness Rothaug. In other words, you waive your cross examination as to this witness.
DR. KEOSSL: I waive the cross examination, and shall submit an affidavit later.
DR. JOSEF BRUEB? a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug)
Q. We are concerned with Document NG-672, Exhibit 179, in Book III-I. Witness, please state your full name and your profession to the Court.
A. Dr. Josef Grueb; my last position was Oberlandesgerichsrat.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's get the record clear -- its Book III-E, page 95; III-E, page 95.
DR. KEOSSL: E. It is page 106 in the German, and I don't know the English at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 95.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, please state your full name and your profession.
A Dr. Josef Grueb, my last position was Oberlandesgerichsrat in Nuernberg, District Court of Appeals counsel.
Q Witness, you worked for the General Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg?
A Yes.
Q When did you start and how long were you working for the General Public Prosecutor, Nuernberg.
A From the first of January, 1937 until the collapse.
Q Thus, during the entire time of the activity of the defendant Rothaug at the special court, you were working for the General Public Prosecutor?
A I don't know when Rothaug began his activities.
Q The 1st of May 1937, until the first of May, 1943.
A Yes.
Q Which special field were you working on with the public General Prosecutor?
A General penal matters, with the exception of political penal matters; political penal cases, were cases against priests, those who belonged to that order, and against Jews.
Q That did not belong to your field?
A No.
Q That is in your division, the purely criminal matters, did crimes of Poles belong to that field too?
AAs such not; matters of Polish cases could be among them because it depended upon the nature of their criminal case; if they were of a general, merely criminal nature, they belonged to my field.
Q In the case of a Pole, thus the same situation existed as with the Germans--it just depended upon what crime he had committed that the treatment of the case then belonged to your referat, your special department, or to another?
A Yes, regarding the competence giving into a special department, I can say yes.
Q. Witness, please state whether, when the Prosecution arrived at the opinion, that possibly during the main trial, the death penalty should he asked for, whether in such a case the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice was asked for.
A. One did not always request the opinion of the Reich Ministry cf Justice, but it was reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice that the Oberstaatsanwalt had the intention to request this or that penalty.
Q. With this report was there also a description of the facts connected with it?
A. The indictment was submitted of which the Chief Public Prosecutor had two copies, to the General Public Prosecutor, one of the copies was submitted.
Q. In this application was there a remark made as to which application for penalty the Prosecution was going to make, or intended to make during the session -
A. Well -
Q. Just a moment. If the facts proved to be correct during the trial, on which the indictment was based.
A. That was the natural requisite.
Q. Did the Ministry of Justice then issue a special agreement, an approval of this intended application, or did the Reich Ministry of Justice give its agreement by silence?
A. That differed. In most cases, no opinion of the Reich Ministry cf Justice was given. In some cases supplementary opinions of the Reich Ministry of Justice may have taken place.
Q. In any case, the silence of the Reich Ministry of Justice meant the approval of the application of the prosecutor.
A. That is how it would have to be taken.
Q. Did it belong to your task also to examine whether legal aides against sentences of the Special Court, Nurnberg, should be admitted or refused by the prosecution?
A. I did not understand your question.
Q. Let me repeat. Did it belong also to your duties, to examine whether legal aids against sentences of the Special Court in Nurnberg should be made by the prosecution or should be denied or refused by the prosecution?
A. It was part of the duties of the General Public Prosecutor to examine whether in individual cases a clemancy plea should be suggested, or whether because of lacks in the sentence the nullity plea should be initiated.
Q. Did you have to examine whether possibly a reopening of the case by the prosecution should be undertaken?
A. That, of course, was included probably in the tasks.
Q. Thus, there was an examination of the sentences extensively so that the facts which were determined, as well as the application of tho laws, were considered?
A. One has to make the limitation that the facts which had been found out could not be examined by the General Public Prosecutor; only the sentence was submitted to him, and he had to forward it to the Ministry of Justice; thus, he could not examine whether the facts in a case had been determined correctly.
Q But, you undertook an examination of the applications of the laws and you found out whether there were misgivings on legal grounds?
A Yes.
Q Can it be supposed, therefore, that from the legal point of view, there was no reason for contesting of a sentence if you did not make use of any legal aid?
A No, one cannot absolutely say so. In some cases, it was much more advisable to make a suggestion for a clemency.
Q But, in any case, it was supposed that the General Public Prosecution undertook some kind of steps if any misgivings of any kind against the sentence existed?
A Yes, if we discovered mistakes in the application of the law in the sentences, then, of course, in the report to the Ministry of Justice we called the attention of the Ministry to this mistake.
Q How often do you estimate that you had calls to contest the sentences of the Special Court of Nurnberg which were issued under the presiding judgeship of Rothaug?
A I cannot answer that question, but repeatedly the General Public Prosecutor suggested the nullity plea.
Q In favor of the defendant?
A Yes, in favor of the defendant; whether this happened especially at the time of Rothaug or at the time of Oeschey, that I do not know.
Q How many cases are you concerned with here?
A I cannot say that, even approximately or to the best of my conscious; I cannot say that.
Q Do you know Rothaug personally, witness?
A Yes.
Q How often did you speak with him?
A Very seldom.
Q Can you approximately state how often?
A I cannot say that, approximately, even.
Q In any case, it was very seldom and very little?
A Yes.
Q How often were you present in his court sessions?
A I estimate, but this is just an estimation, about, perhaps, five to seven times.
Q Do you have, approximately an estimate how many cases Rothaug handled during the course of a year?
A No.
Q Perhaps you gained insight into how many cases were tried at the Special Court during the years?
A I have no idea about that at all.
Q In the few cases in which you were present, did you gain some impressions during those cases, that you can say that you know Rothaug?
A Yes.
Q Can you remember, witness, that an associate judge of the Special Court in Nurnberg approached you once, and complained to you because in some way or another, in some form, you made a certain reproach to him that he was working for the Special Court?
A I do not remember that any more.
Q Of course; you cannot remember any case?
A No.
Q You do not know either that Rothaug was informed that this happened?
A I do not know that, either.
Q When were you promoted to become an Oberlandesgerichtsrat?
A In October 1942.
Q Did Dr. Rothaug put any difficulties in your way at that time, to your promotion?
AAfter my promotion I heard that Rothaug had addressed a very vivid protest to the Reich Ministry of Justice because I who was an enemy of the Nazi was promoted.
Q Who told you that, please?
A The then, Ministerialrat Dr. Miethsam, told me that only some months ago. At that time I did not know of that.
Q Did Rothaug not have enough power with the higher authorities to prevent your promotion or did he not voice his objections with enough intensity?
A I do not know that. Dr. Miethsam said in an affidavit that, at that time, when the suggestion for my promotion was submitted to the Party Chancellery, a gentleman of the Party Chancellery or from some other Party office appeared in his office, that is, Miethsam's office and in the name of the Party, objected protested, against my promotion because I was religiously tied and politically unreliable. Thereupon, Dr. Miethsam said that he represented the point of view of the Ministry, that because of my official achievements, I was due for a promotion and should be promoted. The negotiations with the Party Chancellery had then extended over several months, and in the end the Party Chancellery had approved the promotion, but had maintained their political misgivings when the promotion was made public in Nurnberg. The Gauleader of Frankonia addressed a sharp protest to the Ministry about the promotion. That was one of the reasons that Oberlandesgerichtspreisent Doebig, as a penalty, was transferred to Leipzig.
Q Is the affidavit which you just mentioned, one of the many affidavits which were taken at the time of the denazification court hearing?
A Yes, that is an affidavit which was given to me in the framework of my denazification court proceedings. It was put at my disposal by Dr. Miethsam in order to prove that I was not promoted in consideration of my Party membership.
Q Did you also make an affidavit for Dr. Miethsam?
A No.
Q Did you obtain an affidavit for Dr. Miethsam?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to this continuous line of questions about one Dr. Miethsam, who is completely beyond the scope of the affidavit.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, in this case apparently there is again a question of denazification court proceedings, and in my opinion, it is absolutely an opinion of the credibility of the witness. If one can refer to the testimony of a denazification court.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My position is, Your Honors, this witnesses credibility can be adequately tested in the material contained in the affidavit and questions relating thereto.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the answer of the witness which was given before the objection was made might determine this entire matter. May we have that answer. One of the Reporters can read the answer, if he will.
Thereupon the Reporter, Mr. Beard, read the following questions and answer:
Q Did you also make an affidavit for Dr. Miethsam?
A No.
Q Did you obtain an affidavit for Dr. Miethsam?
JUDGE BRAND: There was no answer to the last question?
MR. BEARD: (Reporter): No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: It pertains to a matter that goes to his credibility; he may answer the question.
Q All right, I asked you whether you had obtained an affidavit for the denazification trial of Dr. Miethsam?
A No.
Q You said, witness, that the sentences were also tested on legal grounds, these legal grounds were always examined; did you, thus, in each case use any legal recourse or, at least, by means of a clemency plea, undertake anything against a sentence, if there were legal misgivings in your mind?
A Yes.
Q Now, I want to ask you now how you can say that Rothaug had almost given the impression, that perhaps, also, due to his ambitions, he tried to establish his career at the expense of the defendants?
A I make this statement because I witnessed the methods of the defendant Rothaug, that he applied during the trial, and I repeatedly had an opportunity to observe him. The conduct of the trial was organized in such a way that, in my opinion, it was not correct. It was cynical to such an extent, and psychologically affected the defendants to such an extent that it could hardly be said to be an ordinary trial any more in many cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness finished his answer?
THE WITNESS, DR. JOSEF GRUEB: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding any further, we will take our usual recess; before doing so, I would like to inquire about witnesses for this afternoon session. The have made fine progress this morning and we are running out of material.
I think at this time I would like to withdraw a little lecture that I gave a few days ago. I thought perhaps the Defense Counsel had not been as experienced in cross examination as the American lawyers might be, but they have either had lots of experience or they learn their lesson rapidly. I think if they took an examination now on qualification in cross examination the grade would be one hundred percent.
And, now what will we do about this afternoon. How many witnesses are available for this afternoon?
DR. KOESSL: There is a Dr. Brem that has been announced; and, otherwise, as far as I know there are no other witnesses. However, as far as I know, the afternoon will be taken up by the examination of the witness Dr. Brem and the conclusion of the examination of this witness here.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think to complete this examination and to conduct the cross examination of the witness Brem, will largely consume the afternoon?
DR. KOESSL: I shall not ask this witness many more questions; however, Dr. Grube, perhaps can give you, can inform you, as to how long we are to deal with the defendant Brem. Not at all, I can say that right now.
THE WITNESS, DR. JOSEF GRUEB: I do not know what the witness Brem is to Me.
DR. GRUBE (for defendant Lautz): I think I shall need about an hour and a half for the examination of the witness Brem.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf has the examination of this witness, may be we bad better hear from him?
DR. SCHUBER (for defendant Oeschey): May it please the Court, I only want to mention I have to address a few question to this witness, too, and that I also want to cross examine the witness Brem.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that we have work enough for this afternoon, so we will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1330 hours, 22 May 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (Hearing Reconvened at 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug): I ask to be permitted to continue with my cross-examination.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, is it known to you that not the Lawyers League established political qualifications, but the Gau Personnel Office, and that the Lawyers League besides other agencies was only asked to give their opinion?
A. About that I am not informed.
Q. Witness, is it known to you that the Lawyers League, the NSRB- at that time, definitely, gave its approval-that you should be first to be put into the position of Oberlandesgerichtsrat, so that the difficulties could have derived only from other sources?
A. No I don't know about that. I don't know about the other matters either from my own knowledge, but I was later informed by Dr. Miethsam.
Q. I see. Witness, in your affidavit you also mention the court doctor, court medical export, Dr. Schamachre. Can you confirm that the medical exports already at the time of the investigation were called by the prosecution, and that these written opinions were available to the prosecution before the main trial?
A. That was probably the case- as a rule.
Q. Is it correct that these written expert opinions were made on the basis of those regulations, and could not be submitted as evidence to the court immediately, and that, therefore, the doctors wore summoned to the main trial and there gave n oral opinion usually in connection with the written opinion that they had given- but that they deviated from their written opinion if the trial had produced essentially new aspects?
A. Yes. That method as defense counsel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please. If the Court please, the question arises in my mind at this time, just how far you can lead a witness.
I object to the question as being so misleading as to practically tell the witness what he is supposed to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, on cross-examination you can ask a loading question.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I realize that.
THE WITNESS:
A. It was according to regulations concerning procedure if tho export was called in the main trial, but I think that an expert opinion was not handled as the statement of a witness. The court could not base itself on written expert opinions, according to the regulations of the Code of Procedure.
Q. Did the prosecution over object to the manner in which Dr. Schumacher gave his opinions?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Do you happen to know that Dr. Schumacher handled his opinions in the same manner in other courts, for example at the penal Chamber, as he did in the Special courts?
A. I could not state that positively, but I believe so. That was his way of doing it.
Q. Witness, are you able to remember that you were confronted with the Lopata case in your activity with the General Prosecutor?
A. I cannot remember that.
Q. Can you remember that you over saw the Kleinlein case and Schaller?
A. That I don't know, either. I can neither deny nor affirm it.
Q. Do you remember, witness, that as far back as 1943 and 1944 pardons were granted to poles because there were reasons for a pardon?
A. Whether Poles were pardoned I do not know. I remember one single case. A Pole was pardoned, who had saved the life of a German girl. Maybe that was tho reason for the pardon, but I don't know whether that was the case because the reasons which led to the pardon we never know.