Q. Later, by circuitous routes, you came to Carpatho-
Russia, from there to Hungary and then to Austria, to
Yugoslavia, to Italy; you tried to reach Palestine, but
you were exiled to Cyprus and you came from Cyprus to
Q. Radun – was that the town of the Hafetz Haim?
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any questions?
Dr. Servatius: I have no questions.
Presiding Judge: Thank you very much, Mr. Aviel, you have
concluded your evidence.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, The Presiding Judge, may I
submit a number of applications?
Presiding Judge: Please hand them to the Clerk of the
Court. We shall now adjourn for twenty minutes.
Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, I regret
that a delay has been caused in proceeding with the
session. This delay has been caused due to the fact that
the witness Rivka Yoselewska, who was to give evidence,
did not appear this morning. At first we were informed by
telegram sent on her behalf that she wasn’t feeling well.
We ascertained whether she would be able to come and it
appears that she has suffered a heart attack.
Presiding Judge: An actual heart attack?
Attorney General: An actual heart attack. I notified
Defence Counsel of this, and he agrees to my reading her
statement to the police which had already been submitted
to him, and that this would be regarded as if she had
testified here. I ask the Court’s permission to admit the
statement in this way, for I am not sure if and how I
shall be able to produce Mrs. Yoselewska. In view of the
contents of her testimony, perhaps the Court will also
understand why I am requesting this.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, this is, nevertheless, a
rather serious matter. Perhaps you would first of all
clarify whether the witness would be able to appear here
in order to testify up to the end of the stage of taking
the evidence. And if she cannot, provide us with a
medical certificate, and then we shall see.
Attorney General: As the Court pleases. In that case I
should not read the statement now?
Presiding Judge: No.
Judge Halevi: Possibly, if she should not recover by the
end of the stage of the prosecution’s evidence, she would
be able to make a sworn statement and perhaps this can be
submitted in the form of an affidavit.
Attorney General: As Your Honour pleases. But this is a
statement that was taken down…
Presiding Judge: On what subject?
Attorney General: On the operations of the Einsatzgruppen.
Presiding Judge: Very well. But you will do this at the
end of the stage of leading evidence. If she will be able
to testify here, this would clearly be preferable.
Attorney General: Very well. We shall act in accordance
with the Court’s decision.
Dr. Servatius: Although I have not yet received the
statement of this witness to the police in German, but
only in Hebrew, I nevertheless am of the opinion that if
her examination here is likely to cause her to be
emotionally upset, I would agree to the admission of an
affidavit instead of her oral evidence.
Presiding Judge: On this point, too, the doctor will be
able to testify. He will be able to tell us whether she
will be able to give evidence up to the time when the
taking of the evidence will have been completed – a time
which you, Mr. Attorney General, know better than the
Court; or whether the excitement is likely to harm her.
In the latter case, too, we shall certainly take this into
Attorney General: Arising out of this development I have
tried to secure three other witnesses for today –
witnesses with whom I wanted, on Monday, to conclude the
evidence, at this stage, on the subject of the
Einsatzgruppen and the operations in the East, since we
intended, commencing at noon on Monday or in the
afternoon, to introduce the chapter of extermination in
North and West Europe. These witnesses – so I am told –
are on their way here, and if they arrive before the Court
concludes this session, possibly we may manage to hear one
or more or them. If not, we shall attempt, meanwhile, to
submit a number of documents.
Presiding Judge: We have to discuss the application of Dr.
Servatius to take evidence abroad. Perhaps we can talk
about this first. Meanwhile have we received from you,
Dr. Servatius, the address of von Thadden?
Dr. Servatius: Yes.
Presiding Judge: And the Attorney General’s questionnaires
have been submitted to us concerning Dr. Merten, Krumey,
Dr. Six and von Thadden. Have you received a copy of
Dr. Servatius: They have not yet reached me.
Attorney General: I am ready to give the questionnaires to
Presiding Judge: I would ask you to do so, for I should
like to dispose of this matter by the end of today’s
Attorney General: Certainly. I would merely ask that the
content of the questionnaires, both of Defence Counsel’s
and of ours, should not be handed over for publication,
for it is not desirable that the witnesses should know
from the outset, or in advance, what are the questions we
intend to put to them.
Presiding Judge: Sir, you may act in this way in regard to
your own questions. The point is what Dr. Servatius has
already done. I do not know, but this we can hear from
Attorney General: To the extent that the matter relates to
my questions and also to the extent that it relates to
those questions of Dr. Servatius which have not yet been
put to those witnesses, I would ask that, from now on,
this material should be preserved – both by the
secretariat of the Court and by the parties – as material
not intended for publication.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner – where is your authority for
prohibiting this publication? I assume that such an
application may be heard in a Judge’s chambers or in the
Court Registrar’s office and then it would be possible to
prohibit the publication of remarks that were made in the
Judge’s chambers. But to prohibit one of the parties to
publish a questionnaire which he himself has prepared – I
should like to see your authority for that.
Attorney General: The Court is generally empowered,
according to the Courts’law, to forbid certain
Presiding Judge: Certain publications – yes.
Attorney General: In general we are acting in accordance
with a special procedure – a procedure for the taking of
evidence abroad, which the Court has permitted to us in
this instance. And if the Court has permitted it, I ask
the Court to permit it on condition that the
questionnaires should not be published beforehand, at
least as far as my questions are concerned. If Dr.
Servatius wishes to publish his questions – he can do as
Presiding Judge: That is a different matter. In regard to
these questions, it may be said that they have come to the
notice of Defence Counsel only as a result of the
deliberations in Court. I merely failed to understand
this in regard to his own questions.
Attorney General: Defence Counsel is entitled to submit
his questions to his witnesses in any way he pleases.
According to our practice he is allowed to make contact
with them and to inform them what he intends to ask them.
And I have no objection to that. I am talking of our
questionnaires, since I am revealing, this time in
advance, to Defence Counsel something that I would not do
in respect of a witness who would be appearing here. I
ask that these should not be published.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, what do you have to say on
Dr. Servatius: I am ready to reach an agreement with the
Prosecution that we should not publish the questionnaires.
I think this would be very useful.
Presiding Judge: That is to say, that there will be no
publication of either your questionnaires or those of the
Dr. Servatius: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Of course, by consent you can do that.
Dr. Servatius: Certainly.
Presiding Judge: If that is the case, there is no need for
Attorney General: Except to the extent that the file is
open to the press, under the Archives Law.
Presiding Judge: I do not believe that it would be open
Attorney General: But there is a certain usage whereby it
open to the press for inspection.
Presiding Judge: We hand down our
DECISION No. 15
With the consent of the lawyers of both parties we hereby
decide that the content of the questionnaires submitted by
them and the measures taken by this Court in overseas
Courts shall not be released to the public for the time
being, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the
examination of the witnesses abroad.
I would suggest, Dr. Servatius, that you look at the
questionnaires which have been submitted by the Attorney
General, so that we can finish this matter and prepare the
papers for dispatch overseas. You have now received this
Dr. Servatius: May I bring this to the Court’s notice in
writing shortly after the session?
Presiding Judge: Yes. I would say that, if you have some
comment to make on these questionnaires – and I am
assuming that you will not have any comment – but if you
do have something to say, you submit your observations in
writing to us during the course of the day.
Dr. Servatius: Yes – I am ready to do so.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, you said that you were
prepared to speed this up by sending a courier abroad?
Attorney General: This is what we have said, and we shall
Presiding Judge: I think that, if the courier can be ready
on Monday, I hope this will be approved by all the
required authorities, namely first of all this Court and
thereafter the Courts Administration and our Foreign
Office. Regarding the additional applications which were
submitted by Dr. Servatius – numbers 5-7 which were
submitted this morning, and numbers 8, 9 and 10 which were
submitted at noon – are you ready to reply to these
applications at this stage?
Attorney General: On a few of them, yes, but on some I
must ask for time, Your Honour. In regard to the last
ones to reach me – Otto Winkelmann, Erich von dem Bach-
Zelewski, and Dr. Edmund Veesenmayer, I am able to state
that, in our opinion, the three are criminals.
Winkelmann, according to what is said in the application
itself, was the Senior Commander of the SS and Police
Commander in Hungary, and we have no doubt that he was a
party to the Accused’s crimes in connection with Hungarian
Jewry and the holocaust there. Veesenmayer was the German
ambassador in Budapest. In our view he was one of those
who instigated the German authorities to enter Hungary, so
that, inter alia, he might harness the Hungarians, too, to
the destruction of the Jewish people. Also from the
questionnaire it appears, and this is what the Accused
seeks to prove, that the instructions to deport the
Hungarian Jews were issued by Veesenmayer. This is what
Defence Counsel wants to hear from Veesenmayer. This is
one of the purposes of the examination. And even though I
do not agree with this generalized statement, yet I have
no doubt that in my view Veesenmayer is guilty of crimes
against the Jewish people.
Von dem Bach-Zelewski was the commander of an
Einsatzgruppe and he murdered Jews. According to what is
stated in the application, he is in gaol in Germany, and
naturally I also cannot agree to his being brought here,
and even if I agreed, it would be an empty gesture since
he is in gaol this is what it says in this application.
Presiding Judge: Theoretically, this does not rule it out.
Attorney General: In order not to evade the subject, I
want to make it known that these three, if they enter the
State of Israel, will be arrested and will be brought to
trial under the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment)
Law of 5720-1950. At the same time I agree that if the
three are able to give evidence which is relevant to the
offences ascribed to the Accused, it concerns the
questions at issue. Consequently I shall request the Court
to deal with them in the same way as it dealt with the
Presiding Judge: And when will you be able to submit your
questionnaire in regard to these?
Attorney General: By whatever time the Court may decide.
We ask for a short extension of time – until Tuesday.
Presiding Judge: Until Tuesday?
Attorney General: We shall try to do so by then.
Presiding Judge: Very well.
Attorney General: As far as the middle application is
concerned – that is to say, we have now dealt with the
first and the last – I can say the following: Baer is in
gaol. He was the last commander of Auschwitz, and he is
an offender against the Jewish people. What I said about
the others applies to him as well. I would ask for a
short time to reply on the subject of Huppenkothen and
Hoettl. I shall be ready to give my answer by Monday
Dr. Servatius: I have not yet formally submitted my
application at the Session here. I now do so.
Judge Raveh: Is the address of Huppenkothen sufficient
in order to summon him? It says here Muehlheim an der
Ruhr. Is that sufficient?
Dr. Servatius: I believe that the address has been
determined meanwhile in greater detail, and if not – I
shall transmit this directly to the judicial authorities
in Muehlheim on the river Ruhr, after obtaining his
address through the local Office of Population
DECISION No. 16
We decide, in regard to the applications of Defence
Counsel, to hear the evidence of the witnesses Winkelmann,
Veesenmayer, von dem Bach-Zelewski and Baer, in the same
manner as we decided in our Decision No. 14 concerning
Six, Merten and Krumey, and for the same reasons as were
given there. The Attorney General will hand in his
questionnaires regarding these witnesses by next Tuesday
We have received another application. I do not know
it is an application – yes, an application by Defence
Counsel relating to the manner of summing up. I do not
know whether you have transmitted a copy of this.
Attorney General: Yes – I received it during the
adjournment. But I think it is too early to consider the
Presiding Judge: Yes, it is in fact early, but I do not
know whether to take a positive decision on it. It would
perhaps be as well for Dr. Servatius to know about it
before the end of the evidence stage. He may possibly
want to work on it.
Attorney General: Perhaps the Court would be good enough
to arrange a meeting – this could also be done in chambers
there is no need to discuss it in public.
Presiding Judge: Next week – please go into the matter.
Attorney General: Meanwhile a witness has arrived and I
would ask the Court to summon him.