Q. Professor Jahrreiss, for the purpose of this trial we are interested in establishing whether an official himself was confronted with the question that international law deviated from the state law. If he himself was confronted with that situation, I want to ask you in what direction did he have the choice, or did he have any choice at all? Was he restricted to one norm according to the general view or to the view of the Reich constitution as far as it was still in force under the Hitler regime? Was he bound by that? A. First of all, I have to explain the underlying facts of your question. Apparently you have in mind the case where a law or an individual decision exists which, in the view of the official, is inconsistent with international law. Q. Inconsistent with international law, but which unilaterally is the law of his country, and this official now is confronted with the question to what norm is he to adhere? A. I have already said that under the Weimar system which on that point was not changed under the Hitler regime the official had to apply the recast international law as an ordinary Reich law, and now he had to solve that problem of collision which you have mentioned, in the same way in which he solved the problem of collision between two ordinary Reich laws which were contradicting each other. In effect if the law under Hitler had been issued and afterwards the Reich assumed a new obligation under international law which was recast, then that had to be applied and not the former law, and vice versa. Have I answered your question? Q. Yes, but there was one more possibility for the imaginary official. If the law of a country perhaps intentionally deviated from international law, what norm did the official then have to apply? A. I have already said that in the Weimar era already the moral background or the background of international law of a legislative act was removed from the scrutiny of the official and even removed from the scrutiny of the judge and of the Reich Supreme Court. The background of international law could not even be examined by the Staatsgerichtshof, [supreme constitutional court]. The supreme constitutional court was only allowed to examine whether it was constitutional, but it was not allowed to examine it from the point of view of international law. To express it differently, whether the law had been passed by the State in such a way that it was inconsistent with international law on purpose or not, that could not play any part at all; and that was the legal state of affairs, regrettable as it may be. Q. For the purpose of our trial we are particularly interested in the norm of the Hague Convention of Land Warfare. May I ask you to explain to the Tribunal with special reference to whether the principles of transformation which you have explained apply to the Hague Convention of Land Warfare as well?