However, there does not exist any strong danger of flight on the part of the generals or the danger of their exerting unproper influence on any military or National Socialist elements of the population still in existence, or even the danger of their prejudicing the course of justice with regard to the material under discussion in the war criminal trial, all of which could give occasion to special security measures.
Therefore, the Defense respectfully requests in the name of the generals that the High Tribunal shall examine the legal conditions for this unusual imprisonment, which is permissible only under special circumstances, on the basis of the facts described above, and that it shall then order the generals to be quartered in some other place according to the rules of the Agreement, and indeed while taking into consideration the special circumstances which are present.
A part of the generals in this prison will of course be presumably needed as witnesses in the trial or admitted to legal testimony, but above all they will be continually interrogated by the undersigned defense counsel for their information for conducting the defense of the accused group.
The Defense, therefore, takes the liberty of proposing that all these generals be lodged in one house under guard which is inaccessible to civilians, as has happened in similar cases and is still being done. Quarters of this kind are especially desired for these generals who are urgently needed for the Information Department -- this particularly applies to Field Marshals von BRAUCHITSCH, KESSELRING, and von MANSTEIN, as well as to Generals HALDER and WESTPHAL. For there is no possibility for them to provide information in an extensive and responsible manner, and for their necessary mental concentration under the present conditions in the cell, which is not suitable for must discussions, the door of which must remain open in such cases according to regulations, which does not permit the necessary quiet for their important word. The Defense, however, is dependent to an outstanding extent on the cooperation the above-named generals and accordingly also requests for its own part that these generals in particular be given such accommodations as will enable them to perform the task set them by the Defense.
According to Article 2 of the Agreement prisoners of war are not to be given treatment which is in any way insulting, but are rather to be treated according to Article 21 with regard to their rank and age. The orders issued by the prison directors, even with respect to the generals, are contrary to these provisions.
Thus it does not appear to be in conformity with Article 3, which guarantees to captured officers that their persons and honor will be respected, if the latter, by way of example, are detailed for cleaning floors and stops and drawing water in the presence of American soldiers and have to remove the filth caused by the latter, in which connection no more detailed reference will now be made to quite specific instances of a particularly degrading nature which are known to the Defense.
In case the original request for other quarters is rejected, the suspension of the latter order above all would be indispensable, since such work cannot be expected of them not only because of their high military rank but also because of their age and physical condition.
Even if special considerations may have been decisive in issuing the above order the generals must regard it as a further slight on their honor that they are forbidden to wear their insignia of rank, which is permitted them according to Art. 19.
Above all it is the desire of the generals, absolutely justified according to Article 43, that they be given the possibility of choosing a spokesman.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
"in the person of the senior officer in rank through whom they can submit their complaints to the Commandant of the prison, and who as a change from his previous attitude is also willing to receive, investigate and if occasion warrants pay heed to these complaints, without this resulting in any prejudices to the treatment of the one making the complaints, as has happened in the case of Field Marshal Kesselring.
"With this petition the generals further request that the provision of Article 37 for receiving packages be observed, which, even if the prohibition against sending additional food appears understandable for explainable reasons, at least allows them necessary additions to their clothes and linen after a year's imprisonment, or the procurement of other objects of daily use. for example, toilet articles such as brushes, aponges, wash cloths, etc."
I shall skip the next paragraph, and I shall read from the bottom of Page 18.
"The generals also feel it to be a restriction of the privileges guaranteed them which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of Articles 16 and 88 that up to now they have not been allowed visits by members of the International Red Cross as well as visits and consolation by a German clergyman.
"They ask further that the right to mental and physical relaxation granted to them in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention in particular in accordance with Article 17, as well as the right to freedom of movement, be taken into consideration - a right to which is attached not merely freedom of movement in the building itself but also, at all times, in the court-yard reserved for the prisoners of war and liberty to stay together undisturbed in the cells, and in accordance with which guarding was to be limited to prevention of escape only.
"Finally the generals ask leave to refer to Art. 23, according to which they are entitled to army pay as prisoners of war which, however, has not been paid to them up to the present here in prison. This does not concern themselves alone but, above all, their families, and, for that reason, appears to be an unfair hardship because other officers accommodated in officer camps, according to reliable sources, receive their army pay.
"The defense asks that all these points should be considered in justly evaluating the circumstances of the case from the point of view of the facts and the law. It asks leave to point out how important it is for an absolutely truthful clarification of all the facts of the case in the interest of the trial, that the members of the group and military witnesses who already show signs of physical weakness and mental break-down, due to long and increasingly difficult imprisonment, should be kept in a state of health which ensures their full contribution to the findings.
"In addition, however, as members of the Group "General Staff and OKW, which, for its part, counts as representative of the German Armed Forces, they must also be granted extensive possibility of unlimited activity to defend the Group and refute the serious accusations brought against the German Army, by release from prison or by a relaxation of the rules while observing the regulations of the Geneva Convention.
"The defense, in view of the urgency of the request put forward in the name of the Generals and the importance of the matter, would humbly express the wish for a very early decision.
"Signed: (Dr. Hans Laternser) "And:
(Dr. G. v. Rohrscheidt)" On 7 May 1946 another application was submitted to the IMT, and it reads as follows:
"Nuernberg, 7 May 1946 "To Secretary General International Military General.
Nuernberg "Following the petition of the defense dated May 1946, the undersigned Counsels for the defense for the Generals belonging to the Group as members or witnesses, ask leave to submit a short supplement as requested:
"The Generals here in the military prison suffer, above all, psychically from the conditions of their imprisonment to which they are all subject in general.
"This signifies encroachments on their ability to work, on which the defense relies to support them.
"If the gentlemen concerned are repeatedly reminded, as a result of complete failure to appreciate their legal position, that they are in prison here as prisoners and war criminals, then these continuous explanations must cause serious depression. Their treatment, too, is in conformity with these utterances which they quite justifiably consider unworthy in view of their age and position.
"In detail, the Generals refer to the following objections with a request for speedy redress:
"1. The summons to receive an order or instruction is always issued without indication of rank and addition such as "Herr', often even without mention of name, but only by an appropriate movement of the hand or sharp order.
"2. The corridors used by the Generals for common discussion have to be cleared several times a day on order under present conditions and the Generals have then to disappear into their cells.
"3. The cells, as soon as 2 persons are in them for discussion or work in common, must be left continually open. As a result, not merely is undisturbed work impossible but also the health of the inmates is endangered by the drought.
"4. The same danger to health and disturbance of quiet work already results from the fact that the hatch in the cell door has always to be open.
"5. Repeated inspection of the cells and the inmates' belongings takes place for the most part in the most inconsiderate manner as far as the person himself is concerned and, above all, as far as the things are concerned, clothes, under-linen etc. which are thrown down and scattered around the floor.
"6. Toilet articles as for instance, nail scissors, nail files etc. have bean taken away from the Generals.
"7. The receipt of packages is so limited that it amounts practically to complete prohibition. As a result, individual Generals in consequence of having been in prison for many months already no longer possess any wearable underclothing and garments and, for instance, have lent their shirts to one another. Also, receipt of permissible foodstuffs is made impossible by this.
"8. The unusually limited exchange of letters naturally affects the psychical well being of the Generals, too and indirectly their ability to work.
"9. The Generals as a whole have to clean the corridors in front of their cells and the stairs between the different floors day in day out in connection with which they themselves have regulated this work to be undertaken by individuals.
"10. The same applies for the so-called 'water-service'. Here too the Generals appointed among themselves have to clean the tubs daily that serve for washing the table utensils and fill them again with water, which has to be done 3 times a day even.
"11. As long as the Generals had an assembly room at their disposal, they had to clean it too and the toilet in it, as well, which even when they were present in this room, was used mainly and in fact exclusively by the guards.
"12. The collaboration for giving of information required by the defense and the co-operation necessary for this is no longer granted.
"a) because the necessary larger assembly room for discussions held in common is lacking, "b) because when several persons are together in a cell the door of which has to be left open, peace to work is disturbed by the continual coming and going and noise in the corridor, "c) because, at night too, when the guard is being relieve, on account of loud talking, often singing and whistling - which happens unconsciously and with no evil intent - there is no peace, "d) because meeting of the members of a group is prevented from time to time, as for instance, now on account of separate housing of General Halder and General Westphal.
"The undersigned Defense Counsel pass on these preceding objections with the reiterated request to grant, for reasons of unlimited defense and to make the difficult task easier, not merely unhindered co-operation of the Generals among themselves by appropriate arrangement, but, over and beyond that, to make possible facilitated collaboration between them and the defense counsel of the Group.
"This, in the opinion of the defense counsel, is possible only by accommodating elsewhere the Generals at present in the prison here.
"Signed: (Dr. Hans Lateraser) "And:
(Dr. Guenther v. Rohrscheidt)."
Now, when these applications were handed in the generals then in Nurnberg, including Field Marshal List, were released from their status as prisoners of war.
I shall now submit LI Document 550, which will become Exhibit No. 2. It is an unattached document; and, if the Tribunal please, it reached me only a few days ago. It is the release powers, as you may see from Page 3 of 31st of May 1946. I shall not read this document, but I beg to draw the Court's attention to the fact that above the signature which Field Marshal List gave there is a note in handwriting which reads: "Under protest against my release."
May I ask the Court that the Tribunal make a mental note of this handwritten note?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I should also like to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that on the second page there is a notation that Field Marshal List received a discharge pay of 80 marks.
DR. LATERNSER: But not now; please don't do that now! I never interrupted the Prosecution in the middle of a document. If the Prosecution wishes to read something from this document, then please only after I am through.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give the translation of the statement written by Field Marshal List again please?
DR. LATERNSER: Certainly, Your Honor. May I ask the Court Interpreter to translate this?
THE COURT INTERPRETER: "Reserving my protest against my release."
THE PRESIDENT: Again, please.
THE COURT INTERPRETER: "Reserving my protest against my release."
DR. LATERNSER: This protest which the Field Marshal announced was later submitted. It is contained in Document Book VI, on Page 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, where should this be inserted in the Document Book, and what exhibit number should be given it?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, I meant to say that. I would like to see it attached to Page 20 of Document Book VI. If the Tribunal please, this protest which the Field Marshal has announced in his release papers has been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number?
DR. LATERNSER: It is Exhibit No. 2. This protest announced in the release papers was submitted later, and it may be found in Document Book VI, on Page 25. I submitted it at the time on behalf of Field Marshal List. I shall read it:
"Nuernberg, 6 June 1946.
"To Commander in Chief of the 3rd American Army Heidelberg "The Defense Counsel of the group 'General Staff and OKW' indicted in the Nuernberg War Criminal Trials takes the liberty of submitting the following statements on behalf of the Field Marshals and Generals represented by it as members of the group, with the motion:
1. to examine the legality of the measures taken against the officer prisoners of war detained in the Military Prison of this place, 2. to annul the issued orders concerning their discharge from the Armed Forces and their release from captivity, and to apply to them the regulations of the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929 as prisoners of war as up to now.
"Reasons:
I.
"As members of the group "General Staff and OKW", indicted in the Nuernberg War Criminal Trials, a number of Generals and officers are in the Military Prison of this place, among then as highest military leaders:"
And then there is a list of names which I need not read not. To continue on Page 26, after the list:
"Since the Generals consider the treatment given to them in the local Military Prison to be unworthy of their position, their military rank and their age and to be contrary to the regulations of the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929 (Art. 3), they requested the undersigned Defense Counsel to raise legal objections against the treatment of the prisoners of war with reference to the Geneva Convention.
"Thereupon the Defense Counsel lodged a complaint as per attached copy with the International Military Tribunal on behalf of the members of the group represented by it. We beg to refer to the individual points of the complaint in the attached petition as traceable violations of the special regulations of the Geneva Convention.
"The undersigned did not receive a reply to this complaint up to now.
"On the contrary, the Field Marshals enumerated under No. 1 to 5 and the Generals named under No. 8 to 11 were notified a few days ago that they were discharged from the Armed Forces and with this simultaneously released from captivity and that they will be held in custody as civilian internees from not on.
"By their being discharged from the Armed Forces the Generals named above are deprived of the privileges legally granted to them by the Geneva Convention as officer prisoners of war. As civilian internees the regulations issued by the Military Court Prison of this place for civilian prisoners are now applied to them.
II.
"The Defense Counsel takes the liberty of submitting and proving its opinion to the effect that the issued orders have no legal foundation.
"The Convention of the Treatment of Prisoners of War dated 27 July 1929 contains regulations to which the signatory powers are bound absolutely and without reserve since these are stipulated articles.
"The soldiers taken prisoner, consequently are not only entitled to be given treatment according to the regulations of the convent by the State in whose hands they are (guardian State), but the latter has above all the unalterable duty of applying to the prisoners of war the laws of the Geneva Convention and can by no means repeal this obligation partially or arbitrarily.
"According to Article 75, when signing an armistice, the belligerent powers have as a matter of principle to stipulate conditions concerning the sending home of prisoners of war. If stipulations of this kind do not exist, the sending home of prisoners of war has to be performed after conclusion of peace without further delay. However, prisoners of war can be detained as prisoners of war in case of prosecution because of a major or minor crime against common law, up to the date of termination of the proceedings or the time of expiration of the sentence.
"From this stipulation results that the guardian power is allowed to release the prisoners of war at any time before conclusion of peace, however, according to the meaning of the convention, only if this leads to an improvement, but by no means to a deterioration of their situation in a continued detention by the enemy power.
"The release from captivity of the Generals as prisoners of war and the simultaneous ordering of their further detention as civilian internees in a Military Court Prison, whereby they are deprived of the privileges accorded to prisoners of war, signifies without doubt a deterioration of their situation and is consequently an obvious offense against the purpose and aim of the covenant dated 27 July 1929.
"The measure of their further detention as civilian internees cannot be motivated either by the possibility of the Generals released from captivity being tried by a national tribunal of one of the enemy powers as war criminals, not even by their being scheduled as war criminals for trial. For, also in this case the prisoners of war must be tried as soldier prisoners of war before the national tribunal because of the crimes they are charged with, as results from an analogous application or interpretation of Article 75 of the Convention.
"The release from captivity so as to be tried as civilian internees resembles the measures formerly taken by the National Socialist regime for trial of the officers involved in the "Putsch" of 20 July 1944 who were discharged from the Armed Forces in order to be sentenced as civilians by the People's Court.
"This of all orders of Hitler which was absolutely unjust and lacking in any legal basis was that which rightly provoked the disapproval of the whole world.
III.
"It is extremely doubtful to what extent the victor States are entitled to perform discharges validly on behalf of the own State, presuming and stating that a central German government which would have to order the discharges from military service for the soldiers released from captivity does not exist any longer. This applies above all as to whether a victor State is entitled to enforce the discharge from military service also for such soldiers who are not prisoners of war of its own but of another guardian State.
"But also in the case of the legal admissibility of discharges from military service by the guardian State because of non-existence of a concerned, authorized German governmental office, it is inadmissible that the discharge from military service by the guardian State results in the prisoners of war being deprived of the rights laid down in the Geneva Convention.
For, otherwise the guardian State would be in a position to withdraw from the obligations agreed to in the Geneva Convention and to make the latter arbitrarily illusory.
"The Defense Counsel "(Dr. Hans Laternser) Attorney at Law."
On 21 June 1946 I received from the IMT the following reply, which can only be understood if one has read the preceding letters. May I ask the Court Interpreter to read it for me because it is available only in English. Would you please read it into the record as read by me?
MEMORANDUM TO DR. LATERNSER 1. With reference to your letters of 1 May and 7 May concerning the treatment of German generals brought here as prospective organization witnesses and who are confined in the Palace of Justice Prison, the Tribunal has had this matter investigated by the military authorities who are responsible for the custody and treatment of prisoners.
2. Based on the report of the investigation submitted by the military authorities, it appears that the prisoners are being treated in accordance with the regulations pertaining to the treatment of prisoners. Wherever a discrepancy was found, the military authorities have reported that correction has been made. From this report it appears that the main misunderstanding regarding privileges for certain individuals was due to a misinterpretation of the regulations pertaining to the status or category of the individual. It is reported that this has been corrected so that all prisoners are now in their proper status and that a notice setting forth the privileges to which prisoners are entitled has now been published.
3. Based on your request, the military authorities state that tho generals you mentioned have been quartered together so as to facilitate your work. The Tribunal requested from the military authorities that no prisoners' status be changed due to the fact that he was brought here as a witness and the military authorities report that they are complying with that request.
FOR THE TRIBUNAL;
(gez. ) W. I. Mitchell, W. I. MITCHELL Brigadier General, U. S. Army General Secretary
DR. LATERNSER: According to this Field Marshal List is still a prisoner of war.
I shall now turn to the Balkans.
MR FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, before we leave this complex I should like to ask Dr. Laternser whether these documents are to be considered as the answer of the Defense to the Prosecution's brief which holds that this whole question of the status of these defendants is conclusively determined by the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Yamashita case, and, also, whether the Tribunal intends to rule upon this question prior to the conclusion of the case and presentation of the final arguments.
DR LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, first of all, I think that this can scarcely be debated now because I am just presenting my evidence at the moment; but I shall be glad to do so in case the Tribunal wishes me to. I need hardly say that it will be about what the Prosecution have said. About the question of their status of prisoners of war an opinion will be submitted at least in the final plea. With these documents I merely wish to furnish a fundamental on which I can later on build my argument by these various documents submitted just now. That is why I submitted them.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, we might all save ourselves a lot of time if these apparent pleas under the Tribunal's jurisdiction were determined as speedily as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will decide that question at the proper time and at its pleasure.
DR LATERNSER: If Your Honors please, I shall now turn to the Balkans. I wish to submit evidence concerning the channels of subordination. For that purpose I submit List Documents, 149, 150, 151) and..
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly repeat again, Dr. Laternser; and may I suggest that you be a little more deliberate in your preliminary statements as to the documents, giving the document number, the page number, and the exhibit number which you are giving to the particular document--and that you did not rather deliberately support the identifying statements you made?
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much, Your Honor, for this. I shall certainly pay attention to this.
I now submit documents 149, 150, 151, and 152. They will become Exhibits No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, and No, 6. They are charts.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give the book again?
DR, LATERNSER: Those are photostatic copies which I shall have handed to the Court, and I would ask the Tribunal to number them pages 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c, in Document Book I. There is a remark to that effect contained in Document Book I. on Page VII, Exhibit No. 3 shows the operational position held by Field Marshal List during the campaign; subordinate to him at the time were only troops in combat. Exhibit No. 4 shows also that field Marshal List's operational position was, until 25 June 1941, not subject to any change. As from 25 June 1941 a change occurred. Exhibit No. 5 shows the territorial conditions of subordination between 25 June and 19 September 1941, and it shows those agencies which were subordinate to Field Marshal List. I would like to draw attention to the special position hold by the Commander in Chief Serbia. Exhibit No. 6 shows the change. After the 19th of September 1941 the position of the General Plenipotentiary for Serbia was instituted. There the agency which I just mentioned was interpolated between the Commander in Chief Southeast and the Commander in Chief Serbia.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its morning recess at this time.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, your Honor.
If your Honors please, these four exhibits, 3, 4, 5 and 6, I have also offered because they may be of importance for the evaluation of the question whether or not the Armed Forces Commander Southeast could have gained knowledge of certain documents presented by the prosecution. Now, I would like to prove how these channels of command and of subordination affected particularly the Military Commander Serbia. For this purpose I shall, first of all, submit List Document 201. This is contained in List Document Book IV and on page 70. This document is an excerpt from the enclosures to the War Diary: "Military Commander Serbia --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, I fear you have been so far removed from the presentation of these documents in the last month or so you have forgotten the procedural end of it. If you will always start out and give the volume, the page and then the exhibit number, it will he very helpful to the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, certainly, your Honors; I apoligize and I shall from now on observe this.
This exhibit will be offered under Exhibit No. 7, List 7, and I shall read from page 91:
"Military Commander Serbia, Headquarters, Chief, Belgrade 24 July 1941. To the Headquarters Staff Office" for information to various agencies:
"A. The Chief of Staff of the Commander of the Wehrmacht in the Southeast writes:
"The organization of the Commander of the Armed Forces in the Southeast seems to be not generally known. Orders to the agencies subordinated to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast are still given directly over the head of the Armed Forces Commander South-east.
In those cases which became known, the Armed Forces Commander South-east asked to observe the prescribed official channels.
"I ask the Chiefs of the Staffs to make sure also for their part that.
"1. orders within and from their areas of command are given in accordance with the rules laid down in the basic order of the Wehrmacht Commander South-east, "2. that the Commander of the Wehrmacht South-east is immediately informed about orders which were received directly, "3. that deviations from the proscribed official rules by personal conferences, trips, etc.
are avoided.
"The Generalfeldmarschall attaches very great importance to these points. I ask that the Commander, and the commanding generals are informed about this matter."
"B. It is the duty of all Headquarters agencies to observe the above comment most scrupulously. The office of the Armed Forces Commander South-east was created in order to relieve the OKW in Berlin and the Berlin offices; in future it is, therefore, no longer necessary to contact the Berlin agencies directly. On the occasion of his stay in Belgrade, the Generalfeldmarschall again asked me personally to give my attention to the view-points outlined in the above letter of the Chief."
It is signed "Gravenhorst, Lieutenant Colonel in the General Staff."
I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this order is dated 24 July 1941.
I shall now further submit List Document 15 which will become Exhibit 7, List Document 15. That is contained -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, before we pass from the preceding document I should like to read two things further into the record, in Document Book IV-a on page 86 at the top of the page:
"The example of the 6th mountain Division, billeted in and around the, capital Athens, proves that timely action prevents more harm."
This, of course, goes into the question of whether or not Italian troops were in Athens.
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, for the moment I have to object to this procedure. The part which the prosecution just started to read I shall want to read myself however in a different context, because I am presenting this evidence in a certain order. I have not yet finished reading this Document, Exhibit 7. I have only finished it to the extent to which I needed in this connection.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I am not quite sure how I should proceed then with respect to reading certain excerpts into the record from documents, excerpts which we are interested in. Perhaps if Dr. Laternser could tell me when he is finally through with the document, that is satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: That, I believe, is the better procedure and, Dr. Laternser, when you have completed a document you will by some indication to Mr. Fenstermacher indicate that fact so that if he wishes to make any additional statements or read any additional statement into the record he may have the opportunity before we get too far away from the particular document in question.
DR. LATERNSER: I am very ready to do that, all the more so because it is in accordance with my own suggestion which I just made.
I shall now offer to the Tribunal Document List 15 as Exhibit 7. This is contained on wage 2 of List Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Dr. Laternser, if you did not give Exhibit 7 to 4a, page 79?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, this one should be Exhibit 8; I beg your pardon. It is contained in List Document Book I on page 2. This is an affidavit executed by Army Judge Gruen and I shall read this affidavit from the second paragraph onwards:
"From the beginning of the war until August 1942 I was an Army Judge of the 12th Army and at the same time legal advisor of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. During the years 1941 to 1942 I was Chief Judge.
"After General Boehme had been appointed Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia the position of the Military Commander Serbia was made considerably independent. In court procedures against the population of Serbia all the Armed Forces Commanders Southeast retained was the clemency right whereas all other functions were transferred to the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia.
"I also know that in the case of administrative matters the military commander of Serbia received his directives directly from the OKH and that he also reported directly to the OKH.
"The Reich Fuehrer SS, respectively the Reich Main Security Office, issued direct orders to the Military Commander of Serbia as far as police matters were concerned."