Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIIVarious
History
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
Q. The passage in the opinion of the International Military Tribunal,
to which the witness referred, is contained in the English transcript
on page 16,813.[170] Witness, the prosecution charges you with the fact
that the Ministry of Justice was in an official contact with these
offices which you have just mentioned. What can you say about this?
A. I believe that that contact is inherent in the structure of the
State: the distribution of tasks to the various agencies. A cooperation
with the police was certainly to a certain extent unavoidable.
According to German law of criminal procedure, the prosecution is not
in a position at all, without the cooperation of the police, to carry
out the required investigations pending trial. If a denouncement has
been received by the prosecution, the prosecution has to conduct the
necessary investigation first of all. That the prosecution should do
all that itself, considering the large number of things to be done,
is quite impossible. The prosecution, therefore, has to turn to the
local police and, for good reasons, in the German Judicature Act and
the German Code for Penal Procedure, the police are designated as an
auxiliary organ for the prosecution and directed to cooperate upon
request of the prosecution.
Apart from the police, frequently the SD is mentioned in the trial. On
the part of Hitler, the SD apart from its function within the Party
had received important tasks, such as the delivery of information to
various Reich agencies, and therefore even the court authorities had to
refer to that source of information.
Q. In this connection, may I refer to Document NG-219, Prosecution
Exhibit 42.[171] Please continue.
A. The position of the Party Chancellery, was regulated legally in
a way that changes of personnel, that is to say, promotions and
appointments could only take place with the cooperation on the part of
the Party Chancellery. That I have already pointed out. Added to this
was the fact that in 1942, the Chief of the Party Chancellery was given
the position of a Reich Minister participating in legislation. It was
therefore necessary to let him participate in the preparation of every
law.
Q. The decree of 16 January 1942, to which reference was just made,
I shall submit as Schlegelberger Document 23, Schlegelberger Exhibit
63.[172]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account