German, Document NOKW-634, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 168. This is a report from the defendant Seibert, as the executive officer of Einsatzgruppe D to the AOK 11, dated 9 October 1941. In this report it is shown that 11 parachutists were "rendered harmless" by Einsatzkommmando 12. German, Document NO-3147 has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit 96. This is an excerpt from the Operational Situation Report No. 95, and is dated 26 September 1941.
satzkommando 12 was located at this time, several Soviet party officials and eight NKWD officials were rendered harmless: This report also shows that in less than a month the total number of executions for the group was 8890 Jews and communists, and that all told the group had at the date of reporting liquidated 13,315 persons. It seems reasonable to think that Einsatzkommando 12 contributed its share to these totals. Document NO-2837 which was offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 56; this document is an excerpt from an operational situation report number 67, dated 29 August 1941, and shows that approximately 27,500 Jews had been driven back into the Rumanian area, that 1265, mostly young Jews, were shot by units of Einsatzgruppe D. is in Document Book III-D, page 76 of the English, page 121 of the German, and is document NO-4149, we now offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 169. Ruehl confirms in part the facts in the operational situation report No. 67 just offered.
DR. LINCK: (Dr. Linch for the defendant Ruehl.) - The objections to this document and its submission are on the same line as were raised yesterday for Document NO-4314, Exhibit 29, by my colleague Dr. Bergold for the defendant Biberstein. We refer to the history of the affidavit as a part of a longer statement; as it has been mentioned yesterday, I may come back to this to take care of my case but I should like to make the following two statements. as it says in the English as well as in the German document book, but on the 26th of June, which a look into the original will prove. I do not emphasize this because I want to be righteous but because I want to state that it might be of importance during the taking up of my case.
The second thing is the following. There is a translation mistake which is not without significance; in the english document book page 77 in the middle of the page, on page 123 of the German document book IIIb, it becomes evident from this that the statement of the defendant Ruehl in the reports to Ohlendorf where he asks for a decision has been translated by "we decided" -- "Wir entschlossen." from that that Ruehl had any power of decision.
THE PRESIDENT: What should the word be instead of "we"?
DR. LINCK: "It was decided" that means Ohlendorf, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may recall that to the Tribunal's attention when you take up your client's case.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Court, the Prosecution desires that the official translator render an official translation of the contested part of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean now?
MR. WALTON: No, sir. When it becomes necessary for the Court to consider it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. That right will be reserved to the Prosecution.
MR. WALTON: Ruehl in paragraph 3 of his affidavit relates that he delivered a large transport of Jews to the area occupied by Einsatzkommando 12. In his affidavit which is in Document Book III-D, page 69 of the English, page 114 of the German, and is Document NO-4146, has already been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 167, this defendant relates what assignment he received when he reached Berlin. Thus, the defendant Gustav Nosske is shown to be personally implicated in the crimes through active command of Einsatzkommando 12. His criminal liability for the crime charged in paragraph 9-G under count 1 of the in dictment is shown.
Einsatzgruppen in Berlin as shown by the documents dealing with these activities while on duty at the RSHA there. As in the other cases, documents introduced by the Prosecution against this defendant, all refer to the period in which he was commander of Einsatzkommando 12, or as chief of the Kommando staff of the RSHA in Berlin. minal as charged in count 3 of the indictment is shown in Document Book III-D, page 69 of the English, page 114 of the German, Document NO-4146already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 167. These statements are confirmed in Document Book III-D, page 80 of the English, page 126 of the German by Document NO-3505 which is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 170. Nosske. It shows his SS rank, his membership in the SD, and the Gestapo, his party and SS serial numbers and other pertinent facts of life history.
The case against the defendant Felix Ruehl. In Document Book III-D page 76 of the English, page 121 of the German, Document NO-4149, has already been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 169. This is the affidavit by the defendant Ruehl. In paragraph 1 of this document, Ruehl states that from May until October, 1941, he was assigned to Sonderkommando 10-B in Russia. In paragraph 4 of this document, he states and I quote:
"Immediately after the arrival of Sonderkommando 10-B at Czernowitz, approximately 50 inhabitants were delivered to the Kommando with the order to shoot them, as they were said to have participated in a surprise attack against Rumanian troops, when these arrived at Czernowitz."
"Sturmbannfuehrer Alois Prestera refused at first to carry out the executions but in the end he gave into the wishes of the Rumanians and had 12 or 15 of these people shot by the Kommando.
Additional 20 or 30 persons were then shot by the Rumanians, later. The executed people were Jews for the most part. I did not attend these shootings but got my official notice thereof in the time of my service."
In this connection and in confirmation that the defendant's statement is credible, the Prosecution cites Document Book II-D, page 45 of the English, page 48 of the German, Document NOKW-587 already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 92. This document, dated 9 July 1941, is a report of the commanding officer -- sorry, report to the commanding officer of Army group South and shows that on 6 July 1941, this Kommando 10-B reached the city of Czernozitz. However, the defendant's contention that only a few Jews were shot is not borne out by this report.
This report minces no words when it says "Immediately after arrival we contacted the competent commander, Military Police Major Luzansky, as well as the other Rumanian posts which were present here, and started a search of the town for politically suspected elements. On the 7th of this month, the arresting of the communists and Jews on the basis of the search lists that were already made out and of the newly made up lists. On the 8th instant a major raid was carried through, in the course of which the Jewish leadership could be caught almost completely. The following day about a hundred Jewish communists were shot by the Kommand, together with the execution of Jews by the Rumanian Army and police force, a total of over 500 Jews have been shot in the course of 8 and 9 July. One kommand was sent to Hole for a search. A report has not yet been received."
Five days later, by operational situation report No. 22, dated 14 July 1941, this Kommando was able to report on events that took place in the town of Katyn or Hodyn.
cution's Exhibit 91. Kommando 10-B reported that in this town all intellectual Jews were arrested and treated accordingly.
May it please the Tribunal the words "arrested and treated accordingly" do not appear on the English translation. That will be on page 43. However, a check of the German copies shows that that phrase appears in German in their books.
It should be where his word "and" is, and next to the last sentence -- the third sentence from the bottom, and the word "and" should come out, and the period be substituted, and in the previous sentence "Arrested and treated accordingly" should be added, to that previous sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: You are sure that those words do appear in the German text?
MR WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, I have had three German speaking persons checking on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in that event I think we can take the liberty of adding those words. to the English text.
MR WALTON: To the English, yes, sir. After all details were in, and more evidence was avilable, operational situation report No. 40, dated 1 August 1947, which is in Document Book II-D, page 37 of the English, page 40 of the German, and is Document NO-2950, already has been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 91. This shows the activities of Einsatzgruppe D to B --- correction, may it please the Tribunal, it should be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 90, Document NO-2950. And I quote: "In cooperation with the Rumania Police there have been shot dead in Czernowitz 682 of the approximately 1200 arrested Jews." And in the further paragraph it says and I quote: "In the area of Czernowitz, Hotin has been passed, whereby 150 Jews and Communists have been liquidated." The defendant Ruehl, SS-Hauptssturmfuehfer, or captain, shows was in a position of staff responsibility, even second in command of Einsatzkommando 10-B, in accordance with his own statement compared with his commanding officer as representative of Sonderkommando of Einsatzkommando 10-B. the German, Document NO-4149, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 169, he gives an account of his conferences with his commanding officer, and the action which he took following the conference with his Chief, Ohlendorf.
Two things can be noted, his position, at least in this incident entitled him to command function so that he could confer with the general, and give orders to Obersturmbannfuehrer Lippert, a man who held a higher rank. Second, that this incident here related by the defendant took place in the Mogilew-Podolsk area. situation report No. 45, dated 7 August 1941, which is in Document Book II-D, on page 33 of the English, and page 27 of the German, and is Document NO-2948, already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 89. This document shows that Sonderkommando 10-D was then stationed in the Mogilew-Podolsk area, and prevented the mass departure of Jews into territory under the domination of Germans.
The next operational situation report No. 64, dated 26 August 1941 which is in Document Book III-D, page 24 of the English, and page 46 of the German, and is Document NO-2840, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 154, shows that Mogilew-Podolsk area, Godasr area, approximately six-thousand Jews who had been deported from Rumania, were interned and forced to work. This report further shows that plans were already made to concentrate the Jews in Mogilew in a separate part of town. In this proof which shows that the defendant Ruehl had command functions in Sonderkommando 10-B, during the time the offenses occurred, as shown by the documents I cited here, and, upon these facts the Prosecution charges him with criminal responsibility; only Rosterer had outranked him in this sub-unit of Einsatzgruppe-D. The membership of this defendant in criminal organizations as charged in Count 3 of the Indictment, is shown by paragraph one and two, of Ruehl's affidavit, which is above cited document, and is found in Document Book III-D, page 76 of the English, being Document NO-4149, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 169. This information is confirmed in Document Book III-D, page 90 of the English, and page 136 of the German, and is Document NO-4808, now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 171.
That latter document shows excerpts - -
DR ASCHENAUER: Mr. President. I beg your pardon, Your Honor, if at this time I interrupt you in asking would it be possible for the Prosecution to come to its end as quickly as possible, considering the shortness of our preparation and lack of time for our submitting our case, it is absolutely necessary that at six o'clock we should speak with the defendants, which is hardly possible if the proceedings are not finished before six o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: It was only to allow you additional time to prepare your case that we thought that if we were to terminate the prosecution today, because if they finish today, then you have all of tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday and Saturday for preparations, whereas, if we must come back tomorrow, naturally, you lose just that much time for your preparation. I don't think Mr Walton has very much more.
MR WALTON: Three pages.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will finish very quickly.
MR WALTON: Only the case against the defendant Schubert, Your Honors, and then I will finish.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR WALTON: I was quoting from Document NO-4804, which is found on page 90 of the English book, and page 136 of the German book, and is Prosecution's Exhibit No. 171, which are excerpts from the service record of Felix Ruehl, which gives his rank in the SS, his membership in the Gestapo, his Party and SS serial numbers, and other pertinent information about his life history. Case against the defendant Heinz Schubert. The defendant Heinz Schubert was assigned for duty in Einsatzgruppe-D in October 1941; his co-defendant Otto Ohlendorf as his commanding officer made Schubert his adjutant and this defendant served in this capacity during the entire time Ohlendorf remained in command, until June 1942. Schubert left for Berlin when Ohlendorf relinquished command of Einsatzgruppe-D. It is shown by paragraph 2 of Schubert's affidavit, dated 24 February 1947, which is Document NO-3055, in Document Book I, page 108 of the English, page 141 of the German, and is already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 28.
I might also point out there, if it please the Tribunal, that there is a typographical error in the German which states that Schubert was on duty with Einsatzgruppe-D until June 1944. It whould be 1942. Authority for same is as stated previously.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR WALTON: The duties of the adjutant of the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe-D are described several documents. In Document Book III-D, page 34, Document NO-2859, which has been introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 158 in paragraph 2 of this document, which is an affidavit by Willy Seibert, it shows that the defendant Schubert composed certain reports of Einsatzgruppe-D from time to time. His duties as adjutant, are however, clearly outlined in Paragraph two in the affidavit of Ohlendorf, made on 2 April 1947, which is in Document Book III-D, page 1, Document NO-2856, already introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 148. There is no point in detailing his duties.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR WALTON: That can be skipped. Occasionally, however, the adjutant of Einsatzgruppe-D was assigned to more important duties. In paragraph three of the same document just cited Ohlendorf states that he sent Schubert as his representative to inspect executions. The inspections of an execution is admitted by the defendant Schubert's own affidavit of 24 February 1947, which has been often cited before.
that he sent Schubert as a representative to inspect executions. The inspection of an execution is admitted by the Defendant Schubert's own affidavit of 24 February, 1947, which has been often cited before. For the record it is in Document Book I, Page 108 of the English, Page 141 of the German, Document NO-3055, Prosecution's Exhibit 28, in which he states in December 1941 he witnessed an execution near Simferopol. I should like to call the Tribunal's attendion to Schubert's assertion in Paragraph 7 of his affidavit of 4 February 1947, which is in Document Book I, Page 17 in the English document book, Page 19 of the German, and is Document NO-2716, already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 4, in which he states that the precise totals of executions were not known to him. However, I am speaking of the contents of the reports concerning activities of the group that were regularly sent from his headquarters to Berlin. He states that these reports contained exact details and desreiptions of the places which the actions had taken place, the courseof the operations, losses, the number of places destroyed and persons killed, arrest of agents,report on interrogations and reports on the civilian sector. criminal as charged in Count 3 of the indictment is shown by Paragraph 3 of the Defendant's affidavit of 4 February 1947, above cited as being in Document Book I, Page 17 of the English, Page 19 of the German, and which is Document No-2716 already offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 4. Statements of this Defendant concerning his membership in these criminal organizations are confirmed in Document Book III-D, Page 99 of the English, Page 146 of the German, and is Document NO-3244, now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 172. This document shows certain excerpts from the SS service record of Heinz Hermann Schubert, a defendant in this case. It shows his membership in the SS and in the SD, his party and SS serial numbers, and other pertinent facts about his life history.
Document Book III-D on the personal responsibility of the defendants in Einsatzgruppe D.
MR. FERENCZ: May it please your Honors, I would like to thank the Tribunal for their patience in remaining longer than the usual session, and I would like to point out that we have only one more item in the presentation of our case in chief. This is a documentary film which is now ready to be shown in Courtroom I, and which lasts about thirty minutes. In order that the defense counsel may be given full opportunity to confer with their clients and to meet their objection that an additional running of the court at this time would prevent that, I would like to join in their request that the court be in recess for a period of several days after the presentation of the Prosecution's case in order to enable them to have sufficient time to prepare their defense, and I would like to request the court to remain for another thirty minutes so that we may conclude our case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you intend to show that exhibit in this courtroom or Courtroom No. I
MR. FERENCZ: We expect to show it in Courtroom No. I, your Honor, and we would first like to introduce just the certificate which precedes the showing of this exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, just before you do that I would like to ask, have you presented all the documents in all the document books?
MR. FERENCZ: We have, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: (For Defendants Naumann and Seibert, your Honor, I object to the showing of this film, and I would like to ask the Prosecution to tell us what the probative value of this film would be? This film has been shown, and in my opinion this film has no probative value whatever.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it has been shown?
DR. GAWLIK: The film has been shown to the defense counsels last week in order to give them opportunity to raise objections.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, we invited the defense counsel to see a showing of the film before we cut some of the film, inasmuch as part of it had no relation to this case. We are introducing this film for the purpose of showing some of the mass graves which were found by the Russian soldiers when they returned to territories which had been occupied by the Einsatzgruppen. The films were taken by Russian troops of places where the Merman troops had been, and they opened the mass graves in the cities in which we charge these defendants with having committed crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: It would appear to the Tribunal from what you have said that this exhibit could well form part of the res gestae of the case, and whatever comments you wish to make on it later, of course you are free to do so. whether you may not have the opportunity of seeing your clients after the showing of this picture, even if it is one-half hour later, and I have been assured that this may be done. I would like to know in which room you usually interview your clients so that the necessary arrangements can be made.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, in Room 57 and in the gymnasium, in Room 57 and in the gymnasium.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have another suggestion about the film. I should like to suggest that the film should be shown without any commentary, as a mute film, because any oral statements can only be introduced by witnesses, or by the way of witnesses, or there should be a witness who explains the film so that we have the opportunity to crossexamine this witness. We do not know who this person is who explains the film or who makes the statements, and we have no opportunity to rectify these statements. Then this film should be shown as is done by a silent film, without any commentary.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honors please, this film was introduced as an exhibit before the International Military Tribunal. The Tribunal there accepted it with the English commentary. I believe the Tribunal is in a position to judge what is evidence and what is not evidence, and we ask therefore that the film be shown as it was accepted by the International Military Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I can assure Dr. Gawlik that the Tribunal will not be emotionally disturbed by any commentary made by any narrator. We will merely view what is shown to us, and whatever is to be said about the film can be said by defense counsel and by Prosecution. It would require too much of a mechanical alteration to attempt to remove the audible accompaniment to the film at this time, and I think it will be much simpler if we will now recess and reconvene immediately in Courtroom No. I. Is there anything further to be said?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor. I would just like to offer the exhibit which is the certificate preceding this film. I offer now as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 173 Document No. USSR-81. This is the certificate of the Russian cinema operators and has already been given to the defense counsel in German. The English copy will be made available to the Tribunal very shortly.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for the Defendant Biberstein. original of these documents are only available until tomorrow exclusively, because after that they will be transported to Berlin. It appears to me that on the basis of today's proceedings it seems necessary that stipulations about various points should be made with our clients, and I should like you to make it possible for us to keep the documents, the original documents, a little longer, at least a day longer.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know whether Colonel Helm would object to remaining over one more day, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Unfortunately, your Honor, Colonel Helm is not here. I know that he has important business in Berlin. However, I believe I can persuade him to leave the documents here one day longer if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess only momentarily and reconvene in Courtroom No. I. The defendants will be escorted there, of course, under guard.
(A recess was taken in order to reconvene in Courtroom No. I.)
THE MARSHAL: THE Tribunal is agian in session.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honors please, the translating system is not functioning and we will therefore translate directly from the floor to the defense counsel. The sound track is in English and the defense counsel have a German translation of the sound track in their possession. Therefore, it will not be necessary to translate as the film is being shown. We have a copy of the the sound track for the Tribunal and it will be in English.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
MR. FERENCZ: The prosecution is now ready to show the next document.
(prosecution Exhibit No. 173 was then shown.)
MR. FERENCZ: If Your honors please, that is the conclusion of the prosecution's Case-in-Chief.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess and reconvene next Monday morning at 9:30 o'clock in Courtroom No. 11, Room 581. The Tribunal will now rise.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 6 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II-A.
Military Tribunal No. II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purpose of the record, it will be noted that Otto Rasch and Eduard Strauch, because of illness, are not present in Court and will be excused from today's session. and reconvened in Courtroom No. 1, Dr. Gawlik, I think, made an objection to the showing of a motion picture exhibit, which was about to be projected in Courtroom No. 1. We overruled the objection, because by the very nature of things, it was impossible for the Tribunal to know just what the exhibit consisted of. We did witness the motion picture and we ere now convinced that the objection was in order and should have been sustained. It was not apparent to the Tribunal how this motion picture exhibit in any way implicated individually any of the defendants. Therefore, the objection is now sustained and the motion picture will have no effect upon the disposition of this case.
I might add, personally. that I could not in any way use that exhibit in the disposition of this case, because I closed my eyes after the first five minutes.
Dr. Aschenauer, you may now proceed with the opening statement.
Mr. President High Tribunal! the Case of the United States versus Ohlendorf, at al, it will be the task of the Defense to make their comments concerning the documents themselves. The Defense will be able to point out errors, to make clear to the Tribunal points which are contradictions in themselves, thus destroying in some cases the value the documents possess as evidence, as well as reducing the value of the entire evidence brought forth by the Prosecution.
However, all this does not alter the fact that executions took place. It is therefore the duty of the Defense to discuss how this gruesome drama in the East come to pass. they committed I. The acts with which they are charged
a) in presumed self-defense on behalf of a third party(so-called act for the presumed protection of third parties (Putativnothilfe) is the established technical term of the German legal language).
b) under conditions of presumed emergency to act for the rescue of a third party from immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger (socalled "Putativnotstand" according to German manner of speaking). This defense is legally of importance as there exist no national legal code and no national penal system in which the exonerating reasons advanced by the defendants do not carry some weight. How these reasons are designated in the terminology of the individual national penal systems is irrelevant; irrelevant is also, for the time being, to what extent these reasons constitute exemption from punishment or extenuating circumstances, whether they can be regarded as eliminating the prerequisite of unlawfulness, as eliminating the prerequisite of guilt, or as extenuating circumstances; essential at the moment is only the very general assertion that these reasons may influence "whether" and "how" to punish and must therefore be examined. possible when the legal principles have been clearly established according to which the conditions and consequences of the reasons for exoneration from guilt or instigation of punishment are to be judged. This point must be cleared up first. 1) The so-called General Regulations of Law No. 10 laying down the constituent elements of a crims. On the contrary, every national penal code contains a great number of regulations which determine the general conditions which make an act a punishable offense, conditions which are fundamentally common to all crimes, be this in the form of a definite decree, be it in the form of a common law brought into a system by decisions of trial courts or by publications of members of the legal profession.
Into this group fall among others the regulations pertaining to causality, intent and negligence, attempt and preparatory acts, perpetration itself, and mere participation, soundness of mind and age limit, periods of limitation, further, which is of importance for the following, the regulations concerning self-defense, including presumed self-defense (Putativnotwehr) and the regulations concerning acts committed for the protection of other persons in danger, including the cases where this danger is only presumed.
None of this applies to Law No. 10. Apart from instituting by implication the principle "nulla poena sine lege poenali praevia" to the negative, it merely contains regulations stipulating the nonlimitation of certain acts, the legal irrelevance of the fact that the acts were committed by responsible officials and the instigating fact that the acts were committed upon orders. Other regulations which normally form part of the "General Regulations" of every penal code are not contained in the law.
There can be no doubt (and on the occasion of actual cases the Military Tribunals themselves made statements to this effect) that the silence of Law No. 10 is not to be interpreted in such a way as if the reasons, circumstances and conditions which make an act a punishable offense or exclude punishment should have no bearing. There is no question of that. Circumstances such as the regulations concerning soundness of mind, age limit as far as guilt is concerned, selfdefense and acts committed under the pressure of emergency, etc. regardless of whether they are ruled by written law or by common law, are simply indispensable.
The question is merely which sources are to be drawn open for the problems not settled by Law No. 10.
If Law No. 10 were a so-called special national law, it would be very simile to answer this question. One would only have to fall back on the general regulations of the Penal code of that country which enacted this law, just as the so-called penal by-laws of the German law forge "General Regulations" of their own and refer to the corresponding general regulations of the German Penal Code. However, Law No. 10 is barred from the use of this possibility. The reason is that this law, owing to its origin, is an international agreement, made by the four signatory powers for the detailed implementation of the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 and the London Declaration of 8 August 1945. However, this agreement was made by four sovereign powers of equal rights, each of which had its own penal system. Thus it is impossible simply to use the pertinent regulations of the Code Penal, the Soviet penal Code 1926, the English or American Penal Law as "General Regulations" of Law No. 10. 2) Which legal system is to form the basis of the "General Regulations" of Law No. 10?
Here the following fundamental possibilities exist:
a) Applicable is the law of this state which administers justice in the actual case. In the case at hand the Tribunal would therefore have to draw upon the general regulations of the penal law of the United States of America to fill the gaps of Law No. 10.
This solution would have one undeniable advantage: namely, an exact knowledge of the applicable laws on the part of the Tribunal which will make the decision. On the other hand, these advantages are outweighed by considerable disadvantages. There is, first of all, the question whether Federal Penal Law or the penal law of one single state would be applicable. As the latterpossibility is excluded, the gaps of Law No. 10 would have to be filled by the Federal Penal Law of the USA. To judge acts under the pressure of emergency end in self-defense in accordance with the Federal Penal Law of the USA, however, calls forth the same doubts as those which speak against the supplementary use of the Angle-American legal system when judging European continental legal conditions.