DR. SCHILF: I beg your pardon. May I ask the Tribunal to change the two numbers that the Tribunal is reserving for me in supplementary volume VIII? Instead of using 68-B, use number 69. They would then be numbered 68-A and 69.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, before we need to read Exhibit 71, which is Miethsam, I should like to point out that Miethsam, while not technically in Nurnberg, lives -- Dr. Schilf tells me that he will not offer it.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 70 is received.
DR. SCHILF: I skip Exhibit 71, because of the fact that the affiant Dr. Miethsam was here as a witness.
The next document, on page 12, is an affidavit by Mrs. Catharina Frohboese. It was given on the 16th of June 1947. Frau Frohboese was the secretary, first, of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, and, after he left the Ministry, she was personal secretary to Ministerial Director Letz. Letz was Division Chief for personnel matters in the Ministry and he was subordinate to Klemm in regard to certain personnel matters.
Frau Frohboese describes the contrast between the personnel policy of, on the one hand, Thierack and, on the other side of Leitzand Klemm. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 72.
THE PRESIDENT: 72 is received.
DR. SCHILF: The last document in Document Book No. 9 on Page 14 - is a law or let us say a decree, which is for the simplificiation of the legal state examinations. The Tribunal knows that Klemm, as Chief of Department II had to deal with the question of legal education. This decree supplements the affidavits which have been submitted before. I offer this law as Exhibit 73.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I have a supplement to Document Book 9 which contains two documents. I don't know whether they are available already in English. Will the Secretary-General find out whether Document Book 9 Supplement is available in the English translation? It does not seem to be available. Then may I request the Tribunal to reserve No. 74 and No. 75 for me?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will do that.
DR. SCHILF: I have thus concluded my submission of evidence as far as documents are concerned. I only want to make a reservation. I already mentioned that affidavits from Holland have been received today. I also expect a number of other documents from out of town. I ask for permission to be able to submit them later on at an appropriate time. Moreover, I beg your pardon that the document books were not quite in the proper form, especially as regards the pagination. I received them only yesterday and in part only today and I was not in a position to check on these technicalities.
May it please the Tribunal, on this occasion, since I have concluded my submission of evidence, may I introduce to the Tribunal my assistant counsel, Frau Dr. Lehmann, who will represent me in court?
THE PRESIDENT: You have made an order admitting her as your assistant, dated today. The Secretary-General will date it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is just one thing I would like to know, perhaps. I had a list from the defense center that there would be five document books from Dr. Mettgenberg. I thought Dr. Schilf said yesterday that there would be none. I mean, I probably misunderstood. I would like to know how many Mettgenberg document books there will be, if I may, so that I can plan my appearance in court.
DR. SCHILF: For Dr. Mettgenberg five document books will be submitted. However, none of them are available as yet. In accordance with the ruling that was made by the Court yesterday I reported it in writing to the SecretaryGeneral.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Wandschneider for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger): May it please the Tribunal, actually it would be my place now to submit the document books. Unfortunately, of the five document books I received two this noon at twelve o'clock and I received them in loose sheets and only in the English translation. I still don't have the German copies of those either, but I have already discussed the matter with my colleague, Dr. Grube. He concurred and can now begin his submission of documents. For me the situation is somewhat difficult because of the total of five document books I have to have at least four of my document books here which have been submitted more that a month ago, and I need them especially also in the German translation.
I would be grateful if I would not have to split up these documents again, but could submit them altogether as a whole.
I have not yet been told a definite date when the rest of the document books, especially the German translations too, will be finished. I made my report today in accordance with the ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, before we proceed further. At the suggestion of the Court, after your statement concerning the number of translators who were alleged to be sitting in a room doing nothing, the Court made some investigation. My only suggestion is that you will ascertain by inquiry that the situation presented to me was presented somewhat in error. There is no great necessity of going into it unless you desire it, but I think it is clear that the translation department had not neglected to assign work to the people in the room, which you mentioned. I don't remember the name of the room.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, a representative of the translation department called on me, your Honor. I have heard what they had to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the record should show that the criticism was made in error. That should be said in justice to the translation department.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor is convinced of that, of course the record will show.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it will show that.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, this afternoon I intend to introduce Document Books II-B, IV-B and IV-C. I have just found out that Book III-B has also been translated into English. I would like to introduce that too today. I don't know whether the Prosecution agrees to that.
MR. KING: Did I understand Dr. Grube to say III-C is on the agenda for this afternoon?
DR. GRUBE: 111-B.
MR. KING: I apparently misunderstood. It is III-B.
DR. GRUBE. I refer first to Document II-B.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last exhibit number? Was it 109?
DR. GRUBE: 109 was the last exhibit number, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. GRUBE: In document Book II-B on Page 1, Document 225 is contained. May I interpolate? Document Book II-B is submitted for the general defense. The document No. 225 is an excerpt from the Reich Court of Criminal Procedure and deals with the question to what extent documents within the German criminal procedure can be brought into connection especially with the record. I offer this document as Exhibit 110.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: On page 4 of the same document book is Document 184 and is an excerpt from the decision of the Reich Supreme Court in criminal cases and deals with the question to what extent police records can be used in the trial. It is laid down there that this can be done only to a very limited extent. I offer this document as Exhibit III.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 226 on Page 6 of the Document Book is also an excerpt from the Code of Criminal Procedure and deals with the right of the defendant to ask questions of witnesses, experts, etc. I offer this document as Exhibit 112.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 227 on page 7 is also an excerpt of the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure and contains the various regulations about the final plea of the defense or the defendant or the defense counsel. I offer this document as Exhibit 113.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 35 on Page 9 is an excerpt from the Commentary to the Code of Criminal Procedure by Loewe-Rosenberg, which has been mentioned repeatedly here and deals with the question to what extent the court is bound by pleas made by the defense and the prosecution. It is laid down that the court, in regard to the submission of evidence and the evidence itself, is in no way bound to the petitions. I offer this document as Exhibit 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 229 on Page 11 is also an excerpt from the Reich Court of Criminal Procedure. It deals, above all, with the question to what facts in the case the opinion has to refer and it also goes into the question to what extent an extension of the decision is admissible if new facts result from the trial. I offer this document as Exhibit 115.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
DR. GRUBE: Document 33 on page 14 is also an excerpt from the commentary by Loewe-Rosenberg on the Code of Criminal Procedure. This document deals with the freedom of the judge to decide on the results of the of the evidence and that the judge may not go into files which were not submitted during the trial.
I offer this document as Exhibit 116.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document #28 on page 16 is an excerpt from the text book quoting the German criminal proceedings by Hippel. It says that there are no rules regarding evidence laid down by law and that the judge has to decide independently only on the basis of his free evaluation.
I offer this document as Exhibit 117.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 113 is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court in criminal cases from volume 66 and also deals with the question what is meant by the opinion of the judge and whether any influencing of his decision exists.
I offer this document a.s Exhibit 118.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 104 on page 21 is also an excerpt from the text book by Hippel and deals with circumstantial evidence.
I offer this document as Exhibit 119.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 228 on page 23 is an excerpt from the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure and discusses the different possibilities of making a decision by the court.
I offer this document as Exhibit 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 230 on page 25 contains the provisions of the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure about the decision and about the written opinion. It says that the judges who participated in the decision have to sign the opinion and the sentence.
I offer this document as Exhibit 121.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 231 on pages 27 and 28 is also an excerpt from the Code of Criminal Procedure and contains the provisions regarding the transcript that has to be made of the trial. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal, among other things, to Article 274 where it is extablished that concerning the contents of those records dealing with formalities only proof of forgery is admissible, Dr. Schwarz, when he was examined here, also referred to this provision.
I offer this document as Exhibit 122.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 232 on page 29 and the following pages contains the original provisions regarding the reopening of a case closed by virtue of a decision that has the force of law. May I direct the attention of the court to Section 359, paragraph 3.
I offer this document as Exhibit 123.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 274 on pages 35 to 36 of the German document book is again an excerpt from the commentary by Loewe-Rosenberg on the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is in connection with Paragraph 3, which I just mentioned, of Section 369. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to #15 of this commentary where it says that only a breach of official duty will furnich valid cause for the reopening of a case when a judge, a juror, or a lay judge are guilty of such offenses.
I offer this document as Exhibit 124.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 245 on page 37 contains Article 334 of the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure. I Introduced this provision because, in the preceding document, Exhibit 124, under #14, it is stated that the reopening of a case in regard to an offense which was a criminal offense, says that a violation of the official duty has to be the basis of this and this law provides for this.
I offer this as Exhibit 125.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 241 is an excerpt from the Third Decree for the simplification of the administration of criminal lav of the 29th of May 1943, and deals with the simplification of the reopening of a case. Article 359, which I already mentioned before, was changed by this decree to the effect that the reopening of a case was possible under simplified conditions. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to page 40 of this document where, following #3, it is said that the reopening which will be prejudicial against the defendent is only permissible if the new prosecution is necessary for the protection of the people.
I offer this document as Exhibit 126.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 165 on page 41 as an excerpt from the commentary by Anschuetz on the Weimar Constitution which has already been mentioned here repeatedly and goes into the constitutional bases of the clemency procedure.
I offer this document as Exhibit 127.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document #166 also discusses the same question and it is an excerpt from the text book by Hippel concerning the German Criminal procedure.
I offer this document as Exhibit 128.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 181 on page 44 to 47 is an excerpt from the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure and contains the most important provisions regarding the execution of penalties. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to Article 453 on page 45. This is a provision which has been mentioned here very often and says that the execution is permissible only after the decision on the clemency has been made by the competent office.
I offer this document as Exhibit 129.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE Document 255 is an excerpt from the law concerning passing an execution of death sentences of 29 March, 1943.
I offer this document as Exhibit 130.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 173 on page 49 and the following pages is an excerpt from the so-called provision concerning the execution of penalties. In Article 2 of this document it is pointed out what agencies are to be regarded as agencies for the execution of penalties. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to Article 12 of this order, on page 52 of the document book? In this article it is provided what prisons are competent for the execution of prison sentences which have been pronounced by the peoples' court or the district court of appeals as first and last instances.
I offer this document as Exhibit 131.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 193 is an excerpt from the commentary by Ebermayer regarding the Reich Penal Code. This document discusses whether the executing authority, the official executing the penalty, is authorized to review the order for execution which they got from the Reich Ministry of Justice regarding its proper jurisdiction and, in order to have uniform jurisdiction, this right of review is denied to the executing authority.
I offer this document as Exhibit 132.
Document 154 on page 55 is an excerpt from the regulation concerning administration of punishment of the Reich Ministry of Justice. May I direct the attention of the Court to the fact that under figures 8, 9 and 13 of this regulation it says what authorities have the supervision over penal institutions, prisons, penitentiaries, penal camps etc. From this document it can be seen that the two Senior Reich Prosecutors had no supervision over these penal institutions.
I offer this document as exhibit 133.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 268 on pages 60 to 62 is also an excerpt from the ordinances regarding the execution of penalties of January 1944 and contains the provision to what extent the inmates in the prisons of the administration of justice were allowed to receive visitors and letters and allowed to write letters themselves. It is furthermore evident from this document that the supervision in that respect was up to the directors of the institutions. I offer this document as Exhibit 134.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: The following documents within the frame-work of the general defense states the position in regard to the extraordinary objections. The first document in regard to this complex or group of questions is document 7 on pages 63 and the following pages. The decisive regulations regarding the extraordinary objections are enumerated in article 2 of this document. From Article 3 it is apparent that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court merely could raise an extraordinary objection on the decisions made by the People's Court and in those cases, which as such, belonged to the competency of the People's Court, but the so-called less serious cases were handed over to the district courts of appeal. The competency for making extraordinary objections regarding the various courts were not with the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court, but with the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the Supreme Court.
I offer this document as Exhibit 135.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 8 on page 68 contains an executive order for the provisions contained in Exhibit 135 regarding the extraordinary objection. I offer this document as Exhibit 136.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 27 on page 69 and the following pages is an excerpt from the commentary by Grau-Krug-Rietzsch in regard to the regulations issued during the course of the war. May I direct the atten Court No. III, Case No. 3.tion of the Tribunal to this statement made on pages 70 and 71 regarding the constitutional basis of the extraordinary objection, especially in the status where on the basis of Hitler's authority as the highest legal authority and the supreme legislator in the application of the extraordinary objection Hitler alone was competent for making an extraordinary objection.
Furthermore it is stated on page 71 in particular that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor could not make an extraordinary objection independently but only on special instructions from Hitler.
Here it seems especially important to me the statement on page 71, under No. 4. It begins on about the eighth line from the bottom, the indication that Where paragraph 1 states that the extraordinary objection may be entered by the Reich Chief Public Prosecutor. This does not mean that the Reich Chief Public Prosecutor may decide himself independently whether he should avail himself of the opportunity. As the Tribunal can see the word "may" is that an extraordinary objection is permitted to be entered upon the superior authority but in the final analysis that is Hitler, who must give the order for it.
On Page 72 it states especially that the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court can make an extraordinary objection only on instructions directed by Hitler, which have been given to him by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
I offer this document as Exhibit 137.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 42 on page 72 is an excerpt from the commentary by Niethammer, regarding the extraordinary objection. Here, too, the constitutional basis of the extraordinary objection is discussed and it is established that the authority to order the extraordinary objection to be made rested alone with Hitler and not with the Minister of Justice or a prosecutor who was subordinate to the Administration of Justice.
I offer this document as Exhibit 138.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 72 on page 75 is an excerpt from an article Court No. III, Case No. 3.by Freisler, which was published in the journal "Deutsche Justiz". Here, too, it goes into the discussion that the constitutional basis for the extraordinary objection was mainly vested in Hitler as the highest legal authority and supreme judge.
I offer this document as Exhibit 139.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 47 also discusses the same subject. It is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Tegtmeyer in the journal German law "Deutsches Recht". I offer this document as exhibit No. 140.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 128 also discusses the same subject. May I again direct the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that here again it is pointed out that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor was merely authorized formally to raise an extraordinary objection. The competency for an extraordinary objection was bound to be a directive from Hitler. Here again it is expressed that as such the extraordinary objection could be considered only in cases which were of importance for the general public. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 141.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 44 is again an excerpt from Niethammer's commentary and also discusses the legal basis of the extraordinary objection and especially relates to the question as to what extent the extraordinary objection is related to the prosecutor and the reopening of the case. In that document again it is expressed that the extraordinary objection can only be raised on order from Hitler.
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 142.
THE PRESIDENT: That is document 44?
DR. GRUBE: That was document Mr.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 43 on page 82 also deals with the question which we already discussed before, namely, to what extent article 3 of sub-article 2 can be misunderstood, as it says the Chief Reich Public Court No. III, Case No. 3.Prosecutor can raise an extraordinary objection.
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 143.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 45 is again an excerpt from Niethammer's commentary on the same subject. Here it states that in every individual case the express order is necessary and general authorization cannot be given. I offer this document as Exhibit 144.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 144 is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 48 is an excerpt from the article by Dr. Tegtmeyer already mentioned before, which also states that the individual. Chief Reich Public Prosecutor could not raise an extraordinary objection on their own, but only on order of their superior offices. I offer this document as Exhibit 145.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 46 is an excerpt from the commentary by Niethammer mentioned before and refers specifically to the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the People's Court. This document states: "The Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the People's Court could not raise an extraordinary objection on its own, except on authority and must have a directive from the Reich Ministry of Justice." I offer this document as Exhibit 146.
THE PRESIDENT: At the appropriate time we might be interested in your comment on the Prosecution Exhibit 136 to the effect that the court is not entitled to demand proof whether the Hitler order has been given or not." That may be a matter for argument later.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 48- I beg your pardon -- Document 125, on page 88, is also an excerpt from an article, this time by Schickert, from the journal "German Law" ("Deutscher Recht"). Here, too, it says that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor can raise an extraordinary objection only on a directive by the Reich Minister of Justice . I offer this document as Exhibit 147.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 49 discusses the same subject. I offer it as Exhibit 148.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 83 is an excerpt of expert opinion by Professor Niethammer who worked on the regulations, on the provisions, for the extraordinary objection in the official penal commission, and here states his opinion on the constitutional basis as well as on the fact that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutors are not authorized on their own to make the extraordinary objection. I offer this document as Exhibit 149.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The last document in this volume is Document 108, and this is also from Niethammer's commentary, and states an opinion under question as to what relationship the nullity plea, which is known, that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court could not make and in what relation it is to the extraordinary objection. I offer this document as Exhibit 150.
MR. KING: The Prosecution's lack of objection to Exhibit 149 is not intended to suggest that we find that document is agreement -- in actual agreement with Rule 21. However, we are not objecting to it, but we don't waive our right to object in the future to documents that we may not wish to have admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 150 is received.
DR. GRUBE: I did not quite understand before whether the Prosecution agreed to it that I can submit Document Book III-B now.
May I ask the Secretary General whether Document Book III-B is ready for distribution? It is. Document Book III-B also belongs to the general defense insofar as the public prosecutors are concerned who are indicted in this trial. Document Book III-B is an opinion regarding the fact which has been mentioned here repeatedly that the prosecutor in Germany was bound by directives and instructions. The first document which I offer is Document 206. I offer it as Exhibit 151. It is from Hippel's text book, and contains descriptions of the historical development of the public prosecution. In that connection it seems important to me in footnote 3, on page 2 of the document, where it is pointed out that although the German prosecution is historically based upon the French system -- it is distinguished from it; that the legality principle was applied in German law and still is applicable whereas in French law, it is not. I offer this document as Exhibit 151.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 236, on page 3, contains Article 146 of the Judicature Act. This provision gives the legal basis for the so-called obligation to being bound by instructions of the German public prosecutor. I offer this document as Exhibit 152.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 30 on pages 4 and 5 is an excerpt from the commentary by Loewe-Rosenberg regarding Article 146, which I have just introduced as an exhibit, and explains that general instructions as well as instructions regarding the individual case can be given to the public prosecutor. I offer this document as Exhibit 153.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I am not quite clear on that. Your document is 30?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Document 30. Exhibit 153.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 153 is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 10, on page 6 and the following pages, is an excerpt from the ordinance for the uniform regulations of the Judicature Act of 20 March, 1935. Article 13 also discusses briefly the right to issue instructions by the superior authorities. However, it seems important to me to call the attention of the Tribunal to Article 14. There it is laid down who has official supervision over the individual prosecuting offices. May I first direct the attention of the Tribunal to No. 1 where it says that the Reich Minister of Justice as the highest authority exercises official supervision; and No. 5 then states that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor has official supervision over the Reich Prosecuting authority; and No. 6 says that the general public prosecutors and the senior public prosecutors have official supervision over the prosecutors of their own districts. In explanation may I perhaps say that this ordinance dates from 1935. At that time , as is know here, there was only one Chief Reich Public Prosecutor, namely, the one from the Reich Supreme Court, and that is why in No. 5 they say only the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor. It is also important, I think, that in No. 6 it is stated that the General Public Prosecutors have official supervision over the penal institutions of their district. This is in agreement with the document that was submitted before which showed that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor had no supervision over the penal institutions. In Article 16 of this (document it is stated that the person who exercises official supervision is also the official superior, and in the last analysis this indicates that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court was merely the official superior of the official Reich Prosecution. Thereby this refutes the remarks the prosecution made about German prosecuting authorities. I offer this document as Exhibit 154.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 102, on page 9, is an excerpt from the commentary by Loewe-Rosenberg, and deals first with the right to issue instructions of the Minister of Justice, and then it says that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor has no supervisory or guiding authority over the other prosecuting offices. I offer this document as Exhibit 155.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 12, on page 10 of the document book, is an excerpt from the text book by Hippel which has been repeatedly mentioned and also states a view regarding the prosecutors being bound by instructions. It is noticeable, or it should be noted, that footnote 2, on page 11 of the document book, were from the point of view of National Socialism the point of views it stated regarding the prosecutors being bound by instructions. I offer this document as Exhibit 156.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 261 is an excerpt from the third general ordinance of the Minister of Justice regarding the uniformity of the Public Prosecution. It regards the reports of the Prosecutors to the Reich Ministry of Justice. During the examination of the witnesses here it was repeatedly stated that the Public Prosecution was obligated to report to the Minister of Justice. This was the actual basis for the instruction of the Minister of Justice. I offer this document as Exhibit 157.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 270 on page 55 deals with a special case regarding the duty to report of the Public Prosecutor. It deals with cases to what extent reports had to be made in cases dealing with criminal proceedings against clergymen. I offer this document as Exhibit 158.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 258 on pages 16 and 17 also are an excerpt from the ordinance about making more uniform the public prosecuting office, which was mentioned before. In this regulation it is set down that in the case of the larger prosecuting offices, as for instance the Reich Public Prosecution, divisions are to be created, and in this connection it seems to be important to me on page 17 where it says in the beginning of the next to the last paragraph, there it says that the Chief of the Department basically has to carry on the business himself. I offer this document as Exhibit 159.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 259 S 18, is also an excerpt from the general ordinance for the Minister of Justice which I have just mentioned regarding the uniformity of the Prosecution and also deals with the unification of the Public Prosecuting authorities and also deals with instructions of The Minister of Justice. I offer this document as Exhibit 160.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 183 on page 20 is an excerpt from the decision by the Reich Supreme Court on criminal matters of 1910, who held it is explicitly laid down by the Reich Supreme Court that the Prosecutor, contrary to the Judges, are bound to the official directives by their superiors, and not only instructions of a general nature, but also instructions in regard to criminal cases. I offer this document as Exhibit 161.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 97 on page 21 and the following pages is an excerpt from an article by Reichsgerichtsrat Dr. Schwarz from the German Legal Journal, "Deutsche Juristen Zeitung" of 1928, and also discusses the question of being bound by directives. I offer this document as Exhibit 162.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 257 is a copy of sub-article 89 of the Bavarian constitution which was promulgated by the American occupying authorities and I ask for permission that in view of the importance of the matter I point out it is expressly stated in 89 that the Public Prosecutor before the penal courts are bound by the directives of their superior authorities. I offer this document as Exhibit 163.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 254 is a copy, or rather it is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Radbruch, which appeared only a few months ago in the newspaper "Rhein Neckar Presse". This article is of interest because it states an opinion on the question as to what extent an abortion is admissible for social reasons. According to the present German penal regulation it is admissible for social reasons. Radbruch suggests in this article that the directive should be issued to the Public Prosecutors as far as possible in cases where for a social reason abortion should take place to describe these cases as abortion for medical reasons so that these cases would not fall under the law.