At the same time we had approached the then director of the Radio Corporation. At that time we had telephoned General Speidel's office, who knew the director of the Radio Corporation very well. In fact, he harried away somewhere, I don't know where he went, and between ten and eleven o' clock he went into the office of the brother of one of the Greeks where, in the meantime, all the relatives had gathered. He took me aside and he told me that, in fact, all seven together who were taken away from the prison, had been shot this morning at six o' clock; that is to say, Greeks were shot who had not been sentenced to death by a German court-martial, and in whose case the German courtmartial had ordered a Quashing of the proceedings.
We sent the relatives home. We did not want to tell them at once that their people were no longer alive. I must also mention here, what I should have done before, that I talked to the director of Radio Corporation a couple of days before the shooting and I had asked him to intervene either with General Speidel or with Captain Stoeckle. I also asked for the Hungarian delegate, at that time Develich, who had social relations with General Speidel and Captain Stoeckle, to do the same thing Their efforts were unsuccessful.
Even the director of the Radio Corporation repeated to me the talk he had with Captain Stoeckle concerning this case. I recall this quite clearly because I made notes every evening and at present I can make them available.
Stoeckle on this occasion told the director, "The Greeks must leave us in peace, otherwise I will have recourse even to the upper classes of society the next time." That is the second case.
These two cases I have particularly mentioned, and almost in every detail, because I considered them severe violations, not only of international law, not only of German inner military law, but of international ethics, and this because people were shot who had been acquitted by the German court martial.
I believe this case is even more serious than the mere shooting of hostages.
Q. Witness, if we have understood you correctly, the shooting took place in the first days of January 1943, is that correct?
A. Yes, indeed, on the 2nd of January.
Q. Witness, was there SS and SD in Greece at that time?
A. There was no SS in Greece at that time.
Q. How do you know that, witness?
A. Well, there is a way of telling. We know exactly that the SS in Greece started its activities in the beginning of October 1943.
Q. Witness, can you give us other examples falling in this period, and which you have taken part in yourselves?
A. After the arrival of the SS? It was only before the arrival of the SS.
Q. Well then give us those first.
A. A second category of severe violations of international law, and I might even say of international ethics, I experienced as defense counsel before court martial as the Commander Southern Greece the following cases:
Many officers, after the occupation of Greece, Greek officers of the army, of the navy and of the air force, tried to escape to Egypt in order there to unite with the forces still active of the Greek Army and the Greek fleet. Many were arrested while trying to escape in this manner. I have conducted the defense in many such cases before the court martial. General Speidel well remembers those cases.
First of all, that was on the 25th of January 1943. I defended three officers before the court martial, two of the navy and one of the air force. Later I defended a Greek colonel; still later I defended a first lieutenant; and in the spring of 1944, if I remember correctly, I defended two naval officers. In all of these cases the defendants were sentenced to death.
I wouldn't object to the fact that they were sentenced to death if there had been a special directive of the German commander, but that was not the case. They were sentenced to death on the strength of Article 91 B of the Reich Penal Code, "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
We know well - that is, the lawyers know well - that giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a crime, or a kind of a crime, which belongs. to the category of treason. The provisions regarding treason and high treason rest on a firm principle, on the principle of loyalty toward one's own country. How could they ask the opponents, or enemy in this case, to be loyal to Germany? That is to be loyal to the enemy. That is against any view. Nobody can deny that.
Secondly, the defendants in these cases were obliged and bound by their military rank or military oath to join forces with those formations still fighting. To the utmost they could have in this case been con sidered as prisoners of war.
No, the court martial did not want to hear anything about it. It did sentence, all without exception, to death. General Speidel, of course, could not confirm these sentences in all cases; he did not confirm these cases, but now we are coming to the violation of international law. He did not look upon them as prisoners of war but he simply changed the death sentence to a term of penal servitude.
All of these officers were treated as common prisoners, and taken to Germany. Here they were not kept in a prisoner of war camp but were imprisoned in the ordinary prisons as ordinary convicts.
And that, I repeat, was a violation of international law, and of international ethics, but also a violation of inner German law. As a witness I have not the text before me of Article 91-B, but I know that the crime of aid and comfort to the enemy in a foreign country - according to the German law - can only be committed by a German. Only within Germany also a foreigner can commit this crime. This shows that also the German law has been applied wrongly in these cases.
Q. These things which you have related to us here, witness, in connection with your request - did you mention all of these reasons in order to achieve a mitigation of sentence?
A. I quoted all of these reasons and I knew of such attitude. We had the right, according to the provisions of military penal law -we had the right after the verdict was announced to make known our views to the Supreme Judicial Officer and to ask him not to confirm the sentence, but to mitigate it or to issue a pardon.
All of these reasons we listed, and I will make them available to the Tribunal if it should prove necessary.
Q. Now, witness, to leave this period
A. I have to mention something else.
Q. Yes, please do.
A. I am now coming to the category of the cases of sabotage. It is known to all German lawyers, and to all who understand something of German law, that according to German military law the crime of sabotage
Q. Witness, tell us the facts and what you did. We do not want to have any lectures from you at this time. Please tell us the facts, and after you have told us the facts, please tell us what you did.
A. The violation of a legal provision is not a legal question.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I want to point out the same thing and join in what the prosecutor has just said. The witness should testify to facts and not make speeches.
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest to the witness that it is the desire of the Tribunal that you state facts. Perhaps under certain circumstances it may he necessary for you to give some explanations, but, generally, restrict your comments to what you may know and what you may have seen, rather than commenting upon them in detail.
THE WITNESS: I certainly will.
A. I now come to the third category of the violation of penal law, those cases belong where a summary court martial sentences people to death for sabotage without considering weather in the case under discussion there was an intention of endangering the war potential of the German army or not. In my practice before the court martial, I experienced between 25 and 30 death sentences of this type. That is all that I have to mention.
Q. Witness, when you talk of cases of sabotage here, please give us a typical example of a so-called case of sabotage, which, for instance, took place before your court, where you appeared as defense counsel, without giving any further explanations.
A. Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. The question cannot be material. I do not know of a single count of the indictment saying that in cases of sabotage a wrong verdict was given.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, We submit that it may be of some importance to have two witness testify as to the type of offense that was handled by these courts and the ultimate results and/or disposition of those who stood either as defendants or were found not guilty before such tribunals. I believe that this has some bearing on our case.
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: The witness nay testify, restricting his comments solely upon the facts that he knows, and as to his observations that he personally made.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
A. Example of sabotage cases: Cutting of telephone wires, in order to interrupt the telephone communications of the German authorities.
That is a typical case of sabotage which we had in Athens, and the defendants were sentenced to death in complete conformity with the the law. Also blowing up of motor cars. I also had such cases. Motor cars of the German Wehrmacht. They were legally sentenced to death. Setting fire to a camp. A typical case of sabotage, which I also had the defendant was legally sentenced to death. But a kid goes into a German camp, steals two liters of gasoline and is sentenced to death for that reason. This was illegal, because it was never his intention to impair the war potential of the German Army.
Q. Very well, Witness, will you continue, from this period of time and relate further facts of your experiences from that time on, during the period of the occupation?
A In spite of the violations which I have mentioned, until September, 1943, I could not assert that we found ourselves in a state of complete lawlessness. In the last analysis, there were cases which came into court, which came into the German court, and in some of these cases the people were shot on the basis of a legal verdict. This state, however, ceased completely after the arrival of the SS in Greece. I cannot speak for the whole of Greece. I am only talking of Athens. The SS, as I have already mentioned, arrived in Athens about the end or beginning of October, 1943. The Greeks, were now hardly over prosecuted by the GFP. The GFP dealt mainly with the minor cases, and the SS took over the major part of the prosecutions, through the notorious SD, Security Service, that is.
Of course the Summary Court Martial of the Military Commander for Greece did not stop functioning all of a sudden. Some serious cases came before this court martial, but in the course of true this also ceased. I might say that about February or March, 1944, the Summary Court Martial of the Military Commander for Greece had became a shop without customers. It only dealt with minor offenses. The ........... was only carried out by the SS.
The SS, of course, had no court martial, Their tortures, were, of course, a daily occurrence, and the people were not shot on the basis of a legal verdict; they were not ever shot singly, but on masse. 40, 100, 25, 30, etc., There were so many cases that I cannot remember them. Of course I was not an actual eye-witness of these events, but I was an eye witness of a part, that is to say, the following case.
On the 1st of May, 1944, I heard from the Arch bishop's office, -- (I must make here, an explanation). I get the assignments of the arrested Greeks from a department of the office of the Arch bishop of Athens. That is, the relatives went to the Arch bishop's office and the Arch bishop's office gave me the assignment to defend these people, and for that reason I had a connection with the Arch bishop's office). I learned from the Arch bishop's office that a policeman had brought clothes and suits of about 200 shot Greeks to the headquarters of the 21st Police District of Athens.
I went to this office in the Arch bishop's Palace. He sent a motor car, and about 11 o'clock in the morning all of these things were brought to the ground floor of the Arch bishop's Palace. In the meantime the population got to know that on this morning a mass execution had taken place of people who had been brought from the concentration camp at Heidari (?). The relatives, of course at once hurried to the Arch bishop's Palace, as often happened in these cases, and they gathered there.
The picture was awful. All of these people pushed their way into the ground floor. I cannot describe the crying of the women as they went in and when they started looking for the clothing of their loved ones. They searched the pockets in order to find some kind of identification, or a letter. The pockets were completely empty.
Suddenly, I saw an old women from the suburb of Pentelli (?). She had noticed the jacket of her oldest son, and she took it, and she pressed it against her breast, and began to cry.
After a few seconds she turned around, and this time she found the clothes of her second son. She fainted. That is the only picture of the terror of the SS of which I was an eye witness. This state continued until the end of August or beginning of September 1944 -- Athens had became a hell - until the liberation. That is to say, until the 12th of October 1944. That is all I have to report regarding facts.
Q. Witness, in order to return quite briefly to the court trials in which you took part, I'd like to ask you how long, on the average, did these trials last - that is, individually.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot give you an exact answer. There were cases of trials lasting one, two, or three hours, or even a whole day, when there were more defendants than one. There were cases where the trial took only a quarter of an hour, but that doesn't mean a thing. This was a case of a spy who had been caught in flagranti at the broadcasting station with a radiogonometer. It was quite clear, and he was convicted immediately. It was quite legal. In any case, whether law was spoken in a proper manner always depended on the judge. In the beginning and, to be just, especially in the case of the court martial of the Military Commander for South Greece, in the beginning there were good court martial judges who came to Athens. There were judges who were professional judges.
Q. Witness, I did not ask you regarding these things. My question was precisely what was the average duration of the three hundred cases in which you took part as a defense counsel.
A. I am telling you, Mr. Prosecutor, there were cases which took one, two, or three hours. I want to tell you that exactly. Later some proceedings - and that was illegal - had become "blitz" trials, but I can't say that this was true in all the cases.
Q. All right. Now, the next question: In the cases in which a death sentence was announced, what was the average duration between the announcement of the verdict and the execution of the verdict?
A. Sometimes two weeks, sometimes a whole month, sometimes more than a month, sometimes only three days.
It was like this: The president of the court always gave a time limit for making an appeal. There were cases where he gave us a limit of ten days. There were cases where in 10 or 24 hours we had to make an appeal for mercy and to give our reasons for it. The execution, of course, there were cases where the verdict was executed in three days, two weeks, a month, and in some cases perhaps even more than a month.
Q. All right. Now, witness, did you at any time personally, in Athens, read or see public announcements which were issued in connection with the taking of hostages?
A. In the beginning such reports were published in Greek papers. In the case of a sabotage it stated so many Greeks will be shot for the killing or wounding of a German soldier. That was in the beginning. Later these announcements stopped.
Q. When you say "in the beginning", can you give the date more accurately?
A. I cannot do that; I don't recall that exactly.
Q. Are you talking of 1941, 1942?
A. Perhaps in 1942 such announcements were still made public, but I don't remember that exactly.
Q. Now, witness, in connection with your testimony you spoke, I believe, about so-called security custody (Sicherheitsverwahrung), is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What was that?
A. Security custody was, so to speak, a police measure, on the strength of which an arrested person could not be released, but, in fact, the people who were shot without a legal verdict came from this category of people who were in security custody.
Q. Witness, do you mean to say that when these public announcements mention was made of hostages these people were actually people taken into security custody?
DR. LATERNSER: I object to this question. This is a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, would you kindly explain to us whether there was a difference between hostages and people in security custody?
A. In fact there was no difference.
Q. What do you mean by "in fact"? Will you kindly explain this in more detail?
A. The fact that all these people who were shot without legal verdicts were taken from these people who were in security custody. There were also shootings without legal verdicts of people who were not in security custody.
Q. Was the word "hostage" as such ever used before the summary courts martial?
A. Yes, before these courts martial hostages could never be mentioned, because "hostage" was an administrative question. That was hot a legal question.
Q. Could you kindly explain this in more detail?
A. Well, how can I explain it? For a person to be designated as a hostage does not require a legal verdict. You don't need a verdict for that. That's merely an administrative measure.
Q. All right. Did you ever protest against the fact which you have mentioned to us here?
A. Yes.
Q. That hostages were taken from people who were in security custody? Or that hostages actually were people in security custody?
A. First of all, we could not dare to do that, and secondly as defense counsel we had the right to turn only to the court, and, of course, we would have received the answer that the summary court martial was not competent in this matter.
Q. You said at the beginning of your answer that you could not do that, that is to say, protest.
Why could you not do that?
A. We could not do that because--- Well, how can I tell you that? Well, of course, from fear of the GFP. Only once I remember when the SS came to Athens, and the cases were not all brought into court. Only once I, together with two colleagues, protested to the president of the summary court, Kriegsgerichtsrat der Luftwaffe, Dr. Kirchberger, and we discussed this state of lawlessness. And we told Dr. Kirchberger the opinion that at least those cases would have to be brought before the court martial which were in direct connection with the interests of the German Wehrmacht. Dr. Kirchberger, at that time, promised us that he would deal with this question, but we did not have any success. That is to say, he did not do anything.
Q. Witness, now to come to a finish. Concerning the shootings or murders carried out by the SS you said that the summary court martial was, so to speak, shelved. Did you try to have these cases brought back before the summary court martial? Can you tell us anything in this connection?
A. We always tried to bring these cases before the summary court martial because we thought if there were only a small -- even if it were only a chance of ten persons, it was always better to have a legal verdict rather than having the people shot without a legal verdict.
Q. Whom did you approach?
A. Dr. Kirchberger. We did not have the right to go to any other authority.
Q. Now, witness, do you know who, at that time, was the highest SS officer in Greece?
A. At that time it was universally known that General Strupp came to Greece first, and then,after about a month, his place was taken by Schimana.
Q. You knew, witness, that the SS carried out these shootings, is that correct?
A. Which shootings are you talking about?
Q. These shootings about which you told us that took place after October 1943.
A. No. There were also shootings - the execution of the court's sentences, death sentences - for those the SS was not competent - rather the regular army.
Q. I'm talking about the extra-legal shootings.
A. The SS.
Q. Now, why did you approach the summary court martial, which was, after all, a military authority?
A. Would you kindly repeat this question?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will take its afternoon recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE MARSHAL: The persons in the Courtroom will be seated.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, at this time I would like to distribute to the defense counsels eleven copies in German of various documents which we propose to offer, which are reports of the Greek National war Crimes Office, and it will not be necessary to refer to them further at this time. We are just distributing them for the purposes of getting them to them sd that the 24 hours can correctly run.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Yes, your honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q: Witness, shortly before the recess, you were telling us that you and quite possibly some colleagues of yours had tried to prevent the shootings carried out by the SS or at least to direct them into decent channels or to bring about further trials by the Field Court Martial in order to give an extra chance to your client in this manner and under certain circumstances obtain a milder sentence than the death sentence. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct. That is corrects
Q: Now let me ask you whether these Field Court Martials had an institution -- were an institution of the military?
A: Yes, these Field Court Martials were an institution, a court which came under the military.
Q: But then, shy did you address a military department in order to, shall we say, stop these shootings, if the shootings were actually carried out by the SS?
A: Well, there was a reason for that but what we were trying to do was to ask the President of the court martial to put the whole affair before his superior, and that of course was the Military Commander in Greece. He was of course only a subordinate source, and it was in the police department and we thought that the Commander, that is to say the highest officer in Greece, would act, and might have success with the SS. He could, after all, give them orders.
Q: You say the supreme Commander, the highest commander in Greece, the Military Commander could give orders to the SS?
A: Whether in fact he could do so or not that is a question which I can't possibly answer, but at any rate he was the commander in the occupied territory. He was, shall we say, the highest ranking authority in the occupied territory and he had responsibility for the application of measures of the Hague, land warfare, conviction, etc. And as responsible highest officer, he could even give instructions and orders to the police department.
Q: Did your complaints -- or shall we say your representations actually have success?
A: No, they had no success.
Q: Do you know whether your representations were ever put before the Military Commander?
A: That I can't possibly know.
Q: Upon your representations, did you receive any type of answer at any time?
A: No, he promised that we would one day be able to see the General, that the matter would become a matter for the General to see to.
Q: But you never had an answer?
A: No we never did.
Q: Would this mean that the existence of Field Court Martials ceased de facto?
A: Neither de facto nor de jure. It merely limited the activities of the Field Court Martials.
Q: After that time?
A: Yes, after that time and gradually step by step not all in one gulp.
Q: What type of cases did the Field Court Martial deal with after that?
A: Usually with minor matters -- bagatelles.
Q: I thought you told us earlier that these bagatelles matters, these minor affairs, had been dealt with by the Court Martials of the Field Kommandantur?
A: Yes, that I did say but the less serious cases, for instance thefts of gasoline, were a matter came before the Field Court Martial of the Commander. Of course, there were some exceptions. There were cases where some serious matters went before the Military Court but they were merely exceptions.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross-examination on behalf of defense?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER: Witness, I have only very few questions to put to you. You said earlier at the beginning that you were a professor at the University at Athens. What lectures did you give?
A: Roman law and civil law.
Q: And you also said that you were a professor at the University of State Science?
A: Yes, and that is an independent school in Athens.
Q: What were you reading there?
A: Civil law.
Q: You have passably showed to us also that you are an experienced defense counsel and that during the time of the occupation you defended many of your fellow countrymen. Did you -- looking at your activities from a broad point of view, were you successful?
A: Yes. In some of them anyway.
Q: Could you, for instance, talk to your client before the trial?
A: Yes, I could but only after the procedure had been laid down. Before that, no. During the preliminary investigation it wasn't permitted at all.
Q: When you say the preliminary procedure, do you mean the indictment?
A: That is it. That is something different. It is the trial in order to impede punishment. I am talking about the indictment now.
Q: Now during the actual trial, did you have the possibility of stating such facts as you considered necessary as a defense counsel, generally speaking?
A: Yes, and no. If you are speaking generally, then I will tell you that I can't give you an exact answer. That is to say, as I told you earlier, in the case of Boros, there was, shall we say, an excellent system of defense because we could ask the question whether the defendants had been subjected to more severe pre-trial investigation and that we received in answer to that the statement that he had actually been beaten up during the pre-trial investigation, that they had been subjected to such methods. That of course made an impression on the court.
It was an excellent means for our defense but it was the last time when we had it at our disposal and could state it. After that, we had been prohibited to put such questions to the prosecutors who were, of course, Gestapo and police officials. This was the last time.
Q: But at that time you could?
A: That was on the 30th of November, 1942 , you know. You have got to think of two more years.
Q: Yes, I know, but I am merely asking you about this case which you have related to the Tribunal. Now did you after the trial had finished and when, no doubt, illegal threats were uttered to you or by the GFP, did you tell that to the President?
A: No, we didn't. We immediately hastened to see the Archbishop and he took the essential steps.
Q: Did you later on tell the President of the Tribunal about that, that you had been exposed to such treatment?
A: He knew it. He was the President.
Q: Did he tell you what he thought about it?
A: I cannot remember that he did. I cannot remember.
Q: Then let me put another -- well a general question to you regarding your defense counsel activities. In developing your defense counsel's work, did you find considerable restrictions being imposed upon you or could you contribute to it that facts were properly investigated?
A: Not in detail. First of all, because time was limited, which was necessary for the preparation of the defense. For instance, we received a telephone call saying tomorrow that such and such a case will he heard. We didn't know it at once. Secondly -
Q: But if such a call came through -
A: Let me answer your entire question. Maybe that will help you. First of all, that was the first point. Quite suddenly we found ourselves having to defend a case in the morning.
Secondly, in many cases time was very restricted in order to prepare the so-called opinion of ours. That was an important means at the disposal of the defense, in order to prepare for the case and that was often restricted sometimes very restricted, and then we couldn't ask the defendant really when police officials were about. For instance, this question which you as an attorney and defense counsel would put and know the importance of to the defense -- you couldn't tell the judges that such and such means were employed to obtain a testimony. That is an important means for the defense which we however could not employ at a later stage after this famous date of November, 1942. The Tribunal prohibited us from doing so and I am telling you that under my oath.
Q: Were you expressly prohibited from doing that?
A: What do you mean "prohibited?" You Germans often use the word "prohibit" and "forbid". Maybe it was a recommendation but we considered that recommendation to be a prohibition.