The Soviet Union drew a clear inference from the intervention to which it had been exposed by the Entente at the end of the First World War and obtained an alteration in the text of the London Charter, under which intervention would have been possible, by insisting that the text, which was ambiguous in consequence of the punctuation, be altered by the insertion of a comma. This comma was so important that the representatives of the four signatory powers met on purpose to discuss it. It results therefrom that the internal affairs of a country cannot be affected by the London Charter and, consequently, by Law No. 10. Punishment by this Tribunal of acts committed by Germans against Germans is therefore inadmissible. The prosecution further discussed at length this morning another question, that is the question of conspiracy. I have also commented on that in my closing brief. I will merely make a brief reply here to the prosecution. The point of view of the defense, that a charge of conspiracy as an independent offense is inadmissible, was confirmed by the Tribunal’s decision of today. In that way the leak in the dike, so to speak, was stopped, and one cannot let the ocean pour into the land from the other side by declaring the conception of conspiracy admissible under common law. The conception of conspiracy is really only a technical expedient of the jurists. Its purpose is to effect, beyond the number of accomplices in the true sense of the word, other persons who are considered deserving of punishment, but who cannot be proved guilty of complicity. This may be done where the law against conspiracy is common law. If, however, this law is introduced in Germany after the event and applied to facts which have occurred in the past, this would mean that by a detour of the law of procedure new conceptions of offense would be introduced into material law. This would amount to an _ex post facto_ law and is, therefore, illegal according to legal principles generally recognized. The purpose of enlarging the circle of participants cannot be attained under Law No. 10 by breaking up the conception of conspiracy into its component parts and introducing forms of complicity hitherto unknown in Germany. Now, I shall read my statement proper: In the closing statement against the defendant Karl Brandt the prosecution discussed very little the counter-evidence brought forward by the defense in the course of the proceedings. They relied to a large extent on evidence already advanced in the indictment. The affidavits of the defendants themselves play a special part in support of the prosecution. For the defendant Karl Brandt they are important with respect to his position and consequent knowledge of the event referred to in the indictment.