Therefore, it will be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged negligence depends on the existence of a duty of supervision and the right to give orders through other agencies. In every state the spheres of competence are separated, and it is not possible for everyone to interfere in everything on the basis that everyone is responsible for everything. The prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used his influence and availed himself of his intimate relations with Hitler to stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the facts as crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal, but only of a political or moral nature. Until now nobody has been held criminally responsible for the conduct of a superior or a friend; the question of criminal law, however, is the only one the Tribunal has to consider. As a matter of fact this close relationship did not exist. The defendant Karl Brandt was the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. Morell, the latter’s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the confidence placed in Karl Brandt so that he was given commissions which removed him further and further from the sphere of his medical activity. The alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation of a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted even a hearing on the charges advanced against him. If one sums up everything relating to the medical experiments and follows to a large extent the charges of the prosecution, it is an established fact that it is not shown that the defendant Karl Brandt participated in any way in experiments on prisoners of war and foreigners, or that he was cognizant of them. Therefore, no war crime or crime against humanity has been committed, and consequently punishment under Law No. 10 is excluded. I refer in this connection to the legal arguments in my closing brief. The second problem is euthanasia. The authorization of 1 September 1939 was issued before the period of the medical experiments, at a time when the defendant Karl Brandt was still closely attached to the Fuehrer’s headquarters and to Hitler as an accompanying physician. In my closing brief I have explained in detail that the defendant Karl Brandt did not participate in the Action 14 f 13, with the “special treatment” of prisoners in concentration camps, occurrences which were given the name of euthanasia only here in the trial. Neither did the defendant Karl Brandt take any part in the extermination of Jews in Auschwitz, which again has nothing in common with the idea of euthanasia.