If these affidavits contain imputations they can only be used, according to the Tribunal’s statement, against the affiants themselves. As far as they involve the defendant Karl Brandt, however, they have been clarified in respect to the decisive issues. But in spite of this correction the first statements may prejudice credibility unless good reasons justify such correction. Here the result of interrogations made in the initial proceedings is in contradiction to the evidence given before the Tribunal. On the basis of practical experience, German law considers as valid evidence only the result of an interrogation made by a judge. The reason is the lack of impartiality which may be found, quite naturally, in the case of an interrogating official who is to conduct the prosecution. The capacity of the interrogator to elicit the truth impartially depends on his character, his training, and his professional experience. The qualification of the interrogators has been attacked here by the defense, but the prosecution has made no effort to substantiate it. In order to form a judgment it is also important to know the general lines on which the prosecution carries out its interrogations. Under German law the prosecutor also has to ascertain and put forward exculpating material when investigating a case personally or through assistants. As to American procedure, Justice Jackson clearly rejected this principle during the trial before the International Military Tribunal and said he could never serve two masters. This critical view of the affidavits is confirmed by their contents, which frequently show the struggle between the interrogator and the interrogated person. He is no classical witness who says, “I believe,” “I presume,” “as far as I remember,” and so on, for he shows thereby that he can give no positive information. And such testimony becomes completely worthless if conclusions are drawn in the form of, “It would have been impossible for him,” “he might have known,” “perhaps he was the highest authority,” and so forth. Not only individual words thus demonstrated that the testimony is composed of conclusions, but whole parts of the reports show the same character. In view of all this, the defendants’ contentions are to be believed, that they raised objections but succumbed to the weight of the prepared record presented to them and signed, trusting that they would have an opportunity later to clarify deficiencies and to state their true opinion. This criticism of the defendants’ affidavits is also called for in the case of the affidavits given by the witnesses for the prosecution. Facts are recorded therein which the witnesses did not know themselves, but which they had only heard about, and which they presumed after having been made to believe them by persuasion. The individual cases in which objections are to be raised on these lines have been dealt with in the closing brief.