Rose wrote to Haagen 13 December 1943, saying among other things “I request that in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment, you request a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also appeared in the Buchenwald experiments, that the test of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their value than the test of one vaccine alone.” There is much other evidence connecting Rose with the series of experiments conducted by Haagen but we shall not burden the judgment further. It will be sufficient to say that the evidence proves conclusively that Rose was directly connected with the criminal experiments conducted by Haagen. Doubtless at the outset of the experimental program launched in the concentration camps, Rose may have voiced some vigorous opposition. In the end, however, he overcame what scruples he had and knowingly took an active and consenting part in the program. He attempts to justify his actions on the ground that a state may validly order experiments to be carried out on persons condemned to death without regard to the fact that such persons may refuse to consent to submit themselves as experimental subjects. This defense entirely misses the point of the dominant issue. As we have pointed out in the case of Gebhardt, whatever may be the condition of the law with reference to medical experiments conducted by or through a state upon its own citizens, such a thing will not be sanctioned in international law when practiced upon citizens or subjects of an occupied territory. We have indulged every presumption in favor of the defendant, but his position lacks substance in the face of the overwhelming evidence against him. His own consciousness of turpitude is clearly disclosed by the statement made by him at the close of a vigorous cross-examination in the following language: “It was known to me that such experiments had earlier been carried out, although I basically objected to these experiments. This institution had been set up in Germany and was approved by the state and covered by the state. At that moment I was in a position which perhaps corresponds to a lawyer who is, perhaps, a basic opponent of execution or death sentence. On occasion when he is dealing with leading members of the government, or with lawyers during public congresses or meetings, he will do everything in his power to maintain his opinion on the subject and have it put into effect. If, however, he does not succeed, he stays in his profession and in his environment in spite of this. Under circumstances he may perhaps even be forced to pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is basically an opponent of that set-up.”