A. I can conform that -- in particular I remember that the presiding judge did hear the defendant if the defense counsel asked that such questioning should be done.
Q. Could one describe Freisler as a typical judge of the People's Court?
A. I would not like to affirm that question because there were a number of very serious judges who, in the manner in which they conducted a trial, gave the defendant altogether an opportunity to defend himself fully.
Q. In that connection do you know anything about the presence of Lemmle, who in many cases deputized for Freisler?
A. Yes, in many resistant movement cases I saw Laemmle as an a associate judge and also as the judge who wrote the sentences and also later on in many cases I saw him act as presiding judge.
Q. What vi as your opinion of Laemmle?
A. Laemmle was a very sensible, calm, and a matter of fact person who was entirely the master of the conduct of the trial, who was fully informed on the subject matter of the trial, and who treated the defendant in an all together human way; he hardly over cut him short, but always let him have his full say.
Q. What are the relations between Freisler and Laemmle?
A. I do not know whether there were any difficulties, I do not know. I could not observe it; I do not know it.
Q. What conclusions would you draw from the fact that he was not promoted?
A. We defense counsel who worked for the People's Court were struck by the fact that Laemmle, who for years, had *een the presiding judge of the first senat, as a deputy, that he was never promoted to be a Senat President. Later on, for a while, he was provisionally in charge of another senat, but he was never given the title of senat president, that struck us because several other gentlemen were promoted.
Q. Is the German judge bound by severe evidence provisions?
A. According to the code of procedure he is not bound by any definite provisions, but has the right to establish evidence freely.
Q. Was the presiding judge in a position to reject irrelevant notions for evidence?
A. That night have been attempted in individual cases. I personally, however, when I put a motion for evidence, I also urged that the president alone should not make a decision, but that the senat as such should make a decision; and, as a rale, if the senat did not withdraw for consultation at the trial, at the session, -- I saw to it that the presiding judge had the approval of the associate judges.
Q. Is it against the Code of Procedure if the presiding judge reprimanded the defendant, naturally without using offensive expressions?
A. That is his right, because he has the authority of the police authority at the trials. If anybody, whether defendant, whether witness, or anybody else at the trial does not behave properly, it is his right to stop that and reprimand them.
Q. In the affidavit you deposed, you state concerning the question of the People's Court -- receiving instructions to proceed in a more severe manner, I did not hear about that, personally, but it was a fact?
A. That is correct. Among the circle of defense counsel who worked there during the years from 1944, particularly in 1944, I had the impression that particularly severe sentences were passed; whether that was due to the changed conditions of the war, and whether it was at the instructions of the Ministry of Justice, we do not know, naturally, but the fact as such, was established for cases of undermining defensive strength, t is became more and more freely as the war went on, usually ended with the death penalty, even when the defendant had made minor statements, which normally would have hardly any attention paid to them and which were made by the defendants when they were excited by the Military situation.
Q. The basis for such instructions, you do not know?
A. No.
Q. Were proceedings before the People's Couet held in open sessions or were they secret sessions?
A. In itself, they had to be public sessions, but as a rule, the People's Court was concerned with high treason or treason, the public was excluded at the publication of the Reich Prosecution immediately; after the persons who were present had been identified; that was in consideration of the defense situation. That applied in all cases of high treason and espionage.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand your answer there. Will you clarify that. Did you intend to say that in the cases of high treason, although the general rule was that the public should be admitted, nevertheless in high treason cases the public was excluded?
THE WITNESS, GRUENWALD: The public was excluded in all cases, when in the view of the Reich Prosecution, endangered the interest of the Reich, and that was so in high treason cases; in cases concerning the resistance movement, Czechoslovakia for example, Belgium, and so forth, and to all espionage cases, treason.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to exclusion from the actual trial?
THE WITNESS, GRUENWALD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q. Concerning the exclusion of tho public from the high treason cases, treason cases, and so forth, was there a provision governing the procedure?
A. In the code of procedure, there is a possibility when the interest of the State, the interest of the Reich or morale are endangered, the public can be excluded, so that it is based on a provision in the penal code of procedure.
Q. In your affidavit, you state that during tho last time, the period between the indictment and provisions had been made too.....
A (Interposing) Yes, that is correct.
Q. When you say the last time, what period are you referring to?
A. I can only give you an approximate, approximately since the spring of 1944; for what technical reasons that was so, I can only assume; it may have been the particular difficulties of the war situation, the technical difficulties of transport of defendants, and other things may have been decisive, whether that was a particular intention, I cannot say. I would not like to assume that. It seems at any rate, of fact, that during the last few months the indictment took a longer time t o arrive than it used to in the past; of course, that can be due to technical difficulties.
Q. The right to see the files and to have a discussion with the defendant, was that guaranteed sufficiently, if these technical difficulties did not exists?
A. I can confirm that in all cases which I have defended, I had the opportunity to see the files and also I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the defendant. Particular difficult cases arose when the defendant had to be brought up for the trial from somewhere else; perhaps that was due to the fact that Berlin prisons were overcrowed and. that it was not possible to have the defendants in the Berlin prison from an earlier date after that; therefore, they remained at the place were they had been arrested until the trial was due and only then they were taken to the place of the trial. It also happened frequently that the defendant did not reach Berlin on the date of the trial and the trial had to be postponed --
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I must interrupt the witness. The time for a recess has come, and the sound film is expiring. Fifteen minute recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Commission is again in session.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. You confirmed, witness, explicitly, that the danger of air raids played an important role in regard to the procuring of defendants and the setting of the time of the trial.
A. I should assume so, and that the technical difficulties increased.
Q. Do you happen to know, witness, from what circles or from what groups the lay judges were taken?
A. I do not know any details about the selection of these lay judges. It is a fact, however, that all of them were Party members who were in prominent positions.
Q. What about members of the armed forces who were first lieutenants, who also were lay judges?
A. I remember that first lieutenants too, at times, were also members of the group of judges, but that happened only in isolated cases. At any rate, they were staff officers.
Q. But staff officers only begin with the rank of major, witness.
A. Major, yes.
Q. So they were not all Party members?
A. No, but it seems that it could have been conceivable that even these staff officers were Party members.
Q. Not according to the law, witness.
A. No.
Q. Do you know what that is based upon?
A. No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to argument with the witness about a matter which he is stating he does not know about, namely, the appointment of lay judges.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement of counsel as to what the law was will be stricken.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Did the lay judges participate very actively in the proceedings?
A. I never noticed that. Apart from rather unessential questions which wore probably based on difficulties in hearing, the lay judges were usually quiet and just listened to the proceedings.
Q. From your affidavit it can be seen that you defended Czechs.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember individual cases?
A. These wore a large number. I could not at the moment recall individuals cases unless I would be confronted with them.
Q. Can you remember the case Chalupa?
A. Because of that I called my office yesterday on the phone and determined that in the case against Chalupa, on 21 September 1944, a trial took place whore the representative for the Reich prosecution demanded ten years in the penitentiary. The court decided upon five years, taking into account the imprisonment during investigations prior to trial.
Q. In the affidavit you state that the penalty for undermining of military strength was the death penalty, on principle.
A. Yes.
Q. Was it so that only in specially serious cases the death penalty was pronounced, and in less serious cases it was the penitentiary?
A. Since the defection of Italy the cases of undermining of military strength accumulated in a noticeable way and we, the defense counsel, were of the opinion that the basic penalty, that is the death penalty, was always pronounced. Only later there was gradually a certain moderation as, upon the initiative of the Reich Prosecution, less severe cases were transferred to the Penal Chambers of the District Courts of Appeal.
Q. You testified that in cases of high treason the public was excluded. Was that only the case where elements of national security required this and if that was possible on the basis of the regulations governing procedure?
A. In such cases of high treason I assumed, as did the Reich Prosecution, that a danger to the national interest, at any rate, existed by public proceedings, at least to an increased degree. I personally had no objection against the exclusion of the public, but these are matters which an outsider could not see clearly enough.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz): I ask to be permitted to start my cross-examination concerning the same document.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, you stated before that in some cases the cases were transferred by the Reich Prosecution to subordinate offices.
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you, did you yourself achieve such decisions?
A. I had at least one case that was transferred to the Kammergericht, since it was a less serious case.
Q. That was before the indictment was filed with the People's Court?
A. The indictment was filed later by the General Prosecution at the Kammergericht.
Q. Witness, if, before the indictment was filed, you were successful in having the case transferred, then that means that first you were well informed about the facts and, secondly, you had the possibility to present evidence for the defense to the Reich Prosecution?
A. In principle that was the case, but in all my experience I only had one such case.
Q. Did you hear of any other such cases?
A. Some of my colleagues told me about them.
Q. If that is the case, witness, then it is only conceivable if the Reich Prosecution did not take the investigations by the police at their face value.
A. Well, at any rate the Reich Prosecution did listen to the motions by the defense, and then the investigations started.
Q. Witness, is it known to you that the People's Court, in preliminary proceedings, installed investigating judges in numerous cases?
A. Yes, I even remember two investigating judges by name: One was a Mr. Wolff, and the other was Reetz. Reetz later became a member of a Senate of the People's Court.
Q. Witness, did you ever hear that these investigating judges, by transgressing the regulations, just automatically accepted the investigations made by the police as being correct?
A. That I could not examine in detail. At any rate, I remember quite a number of files where, in addition to the transcripts of hearings before the Gestapo, there were transcripts of investigations made by the investigating judge, so that the defendant was not only heard by the Gestapo, but also by that investigating official.
Q. Witness -
A. (Interposing) And I should like to add that in the case of these transcripts of the hearings before the investigating judge, there were some differences between the results of the investigations produced by the investigating judge and that of the Gestapo.
Q. Witness, you have already stated in your affidavit -and you also repeated it before -- that in several cases you achieved acquittals.
A. Yes; in high treason, and even in some espionage cases, I was fortunate enough to achieve acquittals.
Q. Then the same applies here as was mentioned before, that is to say, that such acquittals were only possible if, first, you had the possibility to submit evidence in favor of the defendants, and secondly, if the court did not automatically accept the results of the investigations of the police and the investigating judges.
A. That was certainly the case; otherwise it would not have come to an acquittal.
Q. Thank you.
Another question. You have already stated in your affidavit, and have repeated before, that before the People's Court it was possible to file an oral indictment.
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, may I ask you, isn't that a mistake? Don't you confuse that with the speedy proceeding before the local court?
A. No. That I think can be seen from the special rules of procedure for the People's Court. I don't remember that in detail now, but as far as my recollection goes, there was a possibility that the Reich Prosecution could do so.
Q. Can you tell me the regulations on the basis of which this was possible?
A. No, I could not do that now.
Q. Can you tell me a case where this occurred?
A. No, in my experience it did not occur. At any rate, we defense counsel only discussed that possibility.
Q. So you have it only from hearsay?
A. Yes.
Q. Don't you mean the fact that first a written indictment was filed and then the indictment was read in court?
A. Yes, that is what I mean.
Q. In other words, a written indictment was filed first.
A. No, that the fact of the indictment was announced previously, the date of the trial was set and then the indictment was delivered orally by the Reich Prosecution.
Q. Without a written indictment having been filed first?
A. Yes, without a written indictment having been filed first. In my opinion it was possible, but it did not occur to me in my practice.
Q. And you don't know of any specific case?
A. No, I don't know of any specific case.
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III)
Q. Witness, I refer again now to the question of exclusion of the public in certain cases. You admitted before that under certain circumstances on the basis of legal regulations that was possible and admissable.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you confirm that that regulation in the same form existed before 1933?
A. I believe I recall that that possibility of exclusion of the public existed already in the old rules of procedure of 1878.
Q. Now, another question pertaining to the same subject. If the public was excluded on the basis of that regulations, wasn't the public again admitted when the sentence was pronounced?
A. The sentence was pronounced in open session. The opinion was given in secret session again. Only in cases where the participants had to premise secrecy was the sentence, too, pronounced in secret session.
Q. Does that also apply to the sentence itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give me any cases?
A. At any rate, the public was , as far as I know, not admitted again. That secrecy had to be maintained also during the pronouncement of the sentence.
Q. If the public was excluded from the trial then but readmitted when the sentence was pronounced, then there shouldn't have been any reason why the relatives should not have been notified about the result of the trial.
A. Only as far as the exclusion of the public was concerned and there was no demand for secrecy, one could notify the relatives of the gist of the sentence and I also did that in about 95 percent of the cases.
Q. In this connection, another question. Were foreigners in a worse Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) position before the People's Court than the German defendants?
A. I never had that impression.
Q. Now, to another point. Did you ever meet the defendant Lautz as a representative of the prosecution in the People's Court?
A. As far as I can remember, there were only two cases concerning the 20th of July on which I was working when the Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz was the representative of the prosecution.
Q. Would you care to describe to the court what his behavior was?
A. I personally had the impression that in an absolutely objective and quiet manner he presented his plea and did not in any way insult the defendants.
Q. He remained quite objective?
A. Yes.
Q. What was Lautz's reputation in general? Was he considered a very severe man?
A. That was never discussed among the colleagues.
Q. Did you ever observe that any other representative of the Reich Prosecution acted in an unfavorable manner toward witnesses of the defendants?
A. I never noticed anything like that in the sessions. I have no criticism to offer as far as that is concerned.
Q. Witness, I should like to put the question to you concerning the undermining of military strength. Cases of undermining of military strength were introduced by the special penal regulation for wartime, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know to what year that dates back?
A. That special penal regulation dates back, if I remember correctly, one year before the outbreak of the war; if my recollection is correct, I believe it was 1938.
Q. Is it correct that in such cases first the courts of the Armed Forces, the Wehrmachtsgericht, had exclusive jurisdiction?
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III)
A. The courts of the Armed Forces were not competent for violations-only the civilian courts; and the other cases against civilians for reasons of undermining military strength had been taken away from the authorities who were competent up to then, and transferred to the People's Court.
Q. Wouldn't you remember whether it was a late as 1940 that the many courts became competent?
A. I didn't understand you.
Q. Couldn't you perhaps remember whether it wasn't as late as 1940 that civilian courts became competent for cases undermining military strength which were committed by civilians.
A. No, I cannot remember that.
Q. Can you remember when the People's Court became competent for cases of undermining military strength?
A. I am sorry. I don't have the code of Penal Procedure here which would make it possible to tell you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court has the record. There is in evidence in the Court already the record of that enactment so it will be unnecessary for you to inquire about the date of it.
Q. Witness, were such cases of undermining of military strength in the People's Court since 1943?
A. Yes, especially during the year of 1944.
Q. And is it correct that since the enactment of the special penal regulation for wartime, until the time when the People's Court became competent a definite jurisdiction had already been developed concerning the question whether a statement had been made in public and, secondly, whether that statement actually tended to weaken or undermine the defensive spirit of the German people?
A. As regards the statements having been made in public, I had quite a clash with Presiding judge Freisler once which I remember quite well. I had to defend a case where it was obvious from the files that the Chief Reich Prosecution had already filed an indictment because it was Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) assumed that the statements had not been made in public, and I took the liberty to point out in my plea as to the question of whether one could assume the fact these statements were made in public, that it was at least doubtful; taking into consideration that the Chief Reich Prosecution had already stated it's opinion.
On that occasion I had quite a clash with the President who interrupted my plea and pointed out to me I had no right to speak about that. That was one thing.
As to the other question, I know only that undermining of military strength cases during the preceding period were not considered as severely and usually ended with prison terms, whereas afterwards -- that is, since the People's Court dealt with it --- on principle, it resulted in death sentences.
Q. Witness, isn't it known to you that in the official Gazette of the Ministry of Justice, that is in "Deutsche Justiz" -- of 1940, on page 939, three decisions by the Reich Military War Court (Reich Kriegsgericht) were published, where that argument is discussed?
A. I don't remember having read these statements and, if I may be permitted to explain this further, I have pointed out repeatedly that that question as to whether the statement had been made in public was at least doubtful, because the Reich Supreme Court had in earlier times already established the concept of statements weighed in public, President Freisler told us what the Reich Supreme Court said does not concern us here and we are the highest political court and we decide according to our own opinion and our own findings.
Q. Witness, wasn't it known to you that in the year 1942 in particular, that is, before the People's Court became competent for cases of undermining of military strength -- that the Reich Supreme Court pronounced a decision concerning the question of statements having been made in public which was different from its own previous decisions and identical with the the decision of the Reich Military Court and where the Reich Supreme Court explicitly pointed out that the Ministry of Justice, in its official explanation of 1940, ii which the civilian Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) courts were made competent, stated the jurisdiction of the Reich Military Court was the guiding bases for civilian courts.
A. I do not know of that pronouncement, that statement. At any rate, this is the way it worked out.
Q. Witness, is it correct that German prosecution end the Chief Reich Prosecution had to abide by the directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, that is known to me.
Q. Then they would have had to abide also by the Reich's directives of Justice concerning undermining of military strength.
A. I should assume so.
Q. One last point, then. On page 11 of your affidavit you set forth, and I quote: "Particularly increase in severity of justice and the administration of justice resulted after the decree against Jews and Poles was issued, according to which Jews and Poles were not to be tried before the regular courts but in administrative procedure." The preamble to that quotation is not quite correct, you say that the administration of justice had become more severe. Were there any German Justice authorities who after this decree had to deal with cases concerning Jews?
A. I only know that individual indictments which were filed during that critical period and some of whom were directed against Jews and Poles, when it came to the trial, were only concerned with the other defendants, no more with the Poles and Jews, that the Poles and Jews had been separated; and, as we assumed, were dealt with by administrative procedure.
Q. Were these cases before the People's Courts?
A. Yes, these cases were before the People's Court.
Court No. 3, Commission 3 Q.- And what was the case, if a case was pending before the police, was that case still transferred to the prosecution, that is to say, the Chief Reich Prosecution, after the decree against the Jews and Poles?
A.- No, they didn't get there any more. They were simply dealt with by the Gestapo administratively.
Q.- So it wasn't so that the prosecution filed an indictment with the Gestapo?
A.- No, that wasn't the case.
Q. - Thank you. I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBOSCHOK.Q.- Two short questions, witness.
At the end of your affidavit, you mention the proceedings against the former Check Prime Minister Eliaze. Did you obtain knowledge about that trial from your own observation?
A.- No, the information which I have given in my affidavit results merely from informations received by way of conversation from Justizrat Hercher, who at the time happened to be defense counsel for that defendant.
Q.- You mentioned in that affidavit that you had been informed by hearsay that the indictment against Eliaze was filed upon the initiative of the Reich Ministry of Justice by the Gestapo, that the charges were raised by the Gestapo. Can you chock the accuracy of this statement?
A.- No, that is not the case, because as I have said already, that was based only on informations which I have received from Justizrat Hercher and passed on. I consider it at least improper that the case was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Gestapo in order to raise charges, because as far as I can remember, Justizrat Hercher at the Court No. 3, Commission 3 time told me that the First Senate was to be in session in Prague and that he had been brought to that First Senate in Prague by airplane, so that it could be seen from there that a regular proceeding took place before the Senate.
Q.- Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF : (For the defendants Klemm and for Mettgenberg) Q.- I have only a few brief supplementary questions.
Dr. Gruenwald, you mentioned the so-called lawyers' letter.
A.- Yes.
Q.- And one of my colleagues put a passage to you which you have read. I don't know whether you remember that Lawyers' letter with reference to other points concerned, particularly the one that the Reich Ministry of Justice in that letter expresses severe criticism to those lawyers who did not handle their pleas seriously enough and pleaded very briefly. Do you still remember that ?
A.- In detail, I could not remember these points any more.
Q.- Then I may show you that Lawyers' letter, and may I use the same procedure which was used before ?
A.- Yes.
(Witness is given the letter)
Q.- First, the Figure 14, that is this part?
A.- Do you want me to read this ?
Q.- Yes.
A.- Figure 14. "Before a Special Court, several defendants were charged with tobacco robberies in tobacco shops and cellars of houses. Most of them were young French laborers at the age of about 20. Five of the defendants had an appointed counsel. Although the facts were not quite simple, Court No. 3, Commission 3 three of the appointed counsel read their final pleas in about ten minutes.
The other appointed counsel, who among other points had to examine the question as to whether one of the defendants should be considered a juvenile serious criminal, made more extended statements and more appropriate statements which gave the impression of a serious attempt.
Q. May I explain this as a description of the facts, and what the witness is going to read now is the criticism voiced by the Ministry of Justice.
A.- "Opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice. The problem contained in the attitude of the counsel which is based upon the fact that the counsel appears on the one hand as a representative of his client by whom he is chosen and paid on the other hand, as a man to whom the task of guarding the law is entrusted by the community which has appointed him for this job, has always at all times become apparent in the administration of justice. The change which occurred in civil law from a time when the individual was"-
Q.- Doctor, I think you better interrupt because that was the wrong passage. I wanted to ask you to read point 14 the opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice?
A.- Yes, I see. "The task -
JUDGE BRAND : One moment, please, Mr. Witness may I inquire, isn't that an exhibit which has already been introduced in evidence ?
DR. SCHILF : Yes.
JUDGE BRAND : I think we recollect that. It should be unnecessary to read it again. We have already read it.
BY DR. SCHILF :
Q.- Witness, may I ask you just to glance through it because I should like to have your point of view concerning Court No. 3, Commission 3 this document.
A.- I definitely confirm the accuracy of this point of view, but I should like to say that in my experience such a neglect of the duties of a defense counsel has never occurred. I, personally, at least never witnessed such an undignified manner of conducting a defense. It may have occurred in other cases, but as far as I am concerned I have never observed it.
Q.- In conclusion, may I say then, what the Reich Minister of Justice wrote here is according to your opinion also?
A.- Correct.
Q.- That it should be criticized rather severely if a defense counsel submitted an inefficient plea for his client?
A.- Yes.
Q.- In your affidavit, on Page 4, there is a sentence concerning the question of clemency pleas ; that in a case of a death sentence, it was not the duty of counsel to submit a clemency plea. Literally, you have stated in answer to the question and I quote "No, a duty of that kind did not exist. Just the same I submitted clemency pleas, but was not successful." Dr. Gruenwald, I should like to ask you whether in cases of death sentences, according to legal regulations, the question of clemency pleas did not have to be examined officially ?
A.- It is known to me that to each death sentence, an opinion of the Senate to the clemency question was attached and that a special report went to the Reich Ministry of Justice with the inquiry as to whether the competent authority wanted to avail itself of the right to clemency, quite apart from any activity on the part of defense counsel.
Q.- Therefore, a death sentence could only be executed Court No. 3, Commission 3 and the execution was only ordered after the appropriate highest office of the administration of justice had examined the sentence and decided the clemency question.
A.- Yes, in principal, that was the case.
Q.- May I ask you what do you mean "in principal" ?
A.- Whether or not there were any exceptions, I could not tell.
Q.- Are you familiar with Paragraph 459 of the Code of Legal Procedure ? Would you kindly mention it. I don't want to examine you here on that, but it says there literally that execution of a death sentence is only possible after the clemency question has been decided.
MR. WOOLEYHAN : I object to the question just asked on the ground that if he doesn't want to examine the witness on it, why does counsel ask it ?
BY DR. SCHILF :
Q.- I only wanted to aid your memory. That is why I asked you whether you read that.
A.- Well, I didn't remember it at the moment, but at any rate that was the way it was handled.
Q.- The last question, purely for clarification. On the bottom of Page 10, with reference to the question whether in all cases the death sentence was pronounced by the People's Court if there were serious cases of undermining of military strength, you answered, "Yes, in cases on the undermining of military strength, in principal the sentence was death." And the lawyer asked you, "Do you mean all cases of undermining of military strength or only such cases which were not considered less serious cases by the People's Court and had not been transferred to another court ?"
A.- During the critical period of 1944, all cases of Court No. 3, Commission 3 undermining of military strength were considered extremely serious and were tried before the Senate of the People's Court.