Presiding Judge: There is nothing to be added here in this
State Attorney Bach: With regard to the other two, Defence
Counsel has said that these two were trying to clear
themselves of the responsibility…
Presiding Judge: This is not the right time – that, too, is
superfluous at this stage.
State Attorney Bach: That is my reply to Your Honour’s
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, I should like to remind you
that in the case of a previous witness when the Attorney
General said that the witness would not be granted immunity
in this country, you replied – and in my opinion rightly so
– that, in fact, there was no practical purpose to go on
attempting, or examining the possibility, to bring him to
Israel. We have heard the same statement from Mr. Bach in
the case of Becher as well.
Dr. Servatius: I have no option, in fact, but to revert to
my previous position. No witness would actually come here.
I have to tell him: “You may go, but you will be arrested.”
I therefore have to reconcile myself to circumstances as
Presiding Judge: Is that your position?
Dr. Servatius: Yes, certainly.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, have you already received Dr.
Servatius’ application in connection with Juettner and
State Attorney Bach: It has been handed to me at this very
moment, and I was going to rise and mention it to the Court.
Decision No. 32
In the light of what we have heard from the representatives
of the parties, the statements of Becher, Grell and Juettner
must be dealt with as were the statements, the submission of
which was allowed in Decision No. 11. Accordingly, we admit
the statements of Becher, Grell and Juettner, as requested
by Mr. Bach. In conformity with Decision No. 11, we permit
the examination of these witnesses by a German court in
accordance with the Agreements for Mutual Legal Assistance
between the State of Israel and West Germany.
And now, it will be understood that the weight of these
statements is something that the Court is not called upon to
deal with. There is no need to add anything further.
Please submit these statements.
State Attorney Bach: I shall, first of all, submit our
document No. 774. As I have already said, there are three
copies here of the interrogations and the Hebrew
translations. The original has already been submitted to
the Court; as I have said, it was submitted together with
the statement (of the Accused).
Presiding Judge: Does this include the two statements of
State Attorney Bach: More than that – I believe that this
was a series of interrogations on various days, and some
continued for more than one day. Generally it was day after
day, in the morning and in the afternoon.
Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/689.
State Attorney Bach: I now submit document No. 827 which
contains three interrogations. I submit, here, a
Presiding Judge: Is this a copy of the interrogation of
State Attorney Bach: It is part of the interrogation of
Becher – it consists of three interrogations, together with
Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/690.
Judge Raveh: Is document No. 744 an examination under
State Attorney Bach: It was not under oath. Now I come to
Grell’s statement, our No. 985 – T/37(267).
Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/691.
State Attorney Bach: And here we have Juettner’s statement,
our No. 1297.
Presiding Judge: This will be Exhibit T/692.
We already have Dr. Servatius’ questionnaire concerning
Grell and Juettner. You will be obliged, or entitled, to
submit a questionnaire on your part, as usual.
State Attorney Bach: I believe that, in these two cases, we
shall be able to complete our submission by tomorrow
Attorney General: Perhaps I may refer to the entire
application by Defence Counsel, which he submitted this
morning and which has been handed to us, and which I have,
in the meantime, managed to read. With regard to Kappler…
Presiding Judge: Perhaps we might first finish with Grell
Attorney General: With the Court’s permission – despite Mr.
Bach’s optimism – perhaps we may be given an extension of
time for a day or two, since today we shall also be busy
providing directives and instructions to our representative
who will appear before the German court, Advocate Shomron,
and it will be difficult for us to find the time for that.
Presiding Judge: Until Thursday afternoon – will that be
enough for you?
Attorney General: Yes.
Presiding Judge: With regard to Becher – I think Dr.
Servatius ought to be the first to submit his questionnaire.
Dr. Servatius: I shall draw up the questionnaire without
delay and submit it to the Court.
Presiding Judge: Until when, Dr. Servatius? By tomorrow
Dr. Servatius: By tomorrow afternoon.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner – and you, thereafter, by noon
Attorney General: If I may be permitted to ask for an
extension until Monday, that would facilitate matters for
us, since we have a lot of questions here, especially in the
light of the Court’s directives that our interrogation must
be limited to the questions that we have drawn up – that is
how I understood the decision. At all events, the cross-
examination ought to be linked or restricted in its range to
the questions drawn up and must definitely not deviate from
them. We would, therefore, ask for an extension of time
concerning the questionnaire for Becher.
Presiding Judge: I only hope that we shall receive it by the
time fixed by us.
Attorney General: Judging by our experience so far, we have
received information that the German authorities are making
intensive efforts to accelerate the hearings. For next week
hearings have been scheduled daily before the German courts.
Presiding Judge: Very well, let it be by Monday, at noon.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I presume
there will be difficulties in Germany. The courts there act
quickly, and all of them have fixed the examinations for the
same day. Thus, an examination has been set down at Neuss
concerning von Thadden, and at Nuremberg concerning another
witness for the same day. I would have liked to avoid this
by concentrating the hearings in one court, but this
question has apparently not yet been settled. Each witness
resides within the jurisdiction of a different court, so
that the procedure will require ten to fourteen days’
travelling within Germany.
Attorney General: Perhaps I may reassure Defence Counsel,
since, according to information I received this morning, the
overlapping of hearings which had been expected has been
avoided, and now the hearings have been arranged one after
the other, commencing on the 17th and continuing until the
26th of May. Those hearings which had already been fixed
for tomorrow will apparently be deferred until after the
26th of the month.
Presiding Judge: Have the hearings not been concentrated in
Attorney General: Apparently the German Ministry of Justice
did not find it possible to comply with the request of
Defence Counsel, despite the fact that we also supported his
Presiding Judge: At any rate, this arrangement allows for
the appearance of the representatives of the parties before
each one of these courts.
Attorney General: Yes – by a special effort and by utilizing
the most effective means of transportation, I must say.
Presiding Judge: We do not have the addresses of Grell and
Dr. Servatius: My assistant, Advocate Dieter Wechtenbruch,
will try to trace them in Germany and to take all necessary
steps in order to have them summoned before the competent
Presiding Judge: That means that the application from here
will simply be sent to the competent court, without
indicating the place.
Dr. Servatius: I would suggest that the application be
directed to the Federal Ministry of Justice, together with a
request that it be forwarded to the competent court as soon
as the address is ascertained.
Attorney General: I agree to that.
Presiding Judge: Now we have Dr. Servatius’ application
Attorney General: I would ask that the Court instruct
Defence Counsel to do what it instructed us to do – namely
to hand in, if he is able to do so, the names of all or the
majority of the witnesses he desires to hear, because I am
afraid that the investigation is indeed beginning to acquire
global dimensions. We are now leaving the sphere of
interrogations in Germany and Austria and passing on to
Italy. Dr. Servatius wants to examine Kappler in Italy
because he is detained there, in an Italian prison. I am
not opposed to questioning Kappler there. But I should like
to know to how many additional countries we shall be obliged
to wander, and this will perhaps determine our attitude.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, it would be desirable that,
already at this stage, you should give us all your
applications of this nature, so that we may manage to
receive the material back within the proper time.
Dr. Servatius: The significance of Kappler’s evidence
arises solely from the account of events which we heard from
the Prosecution. I have no intention of prolonging the
trial by mentioning the names of innumerable witnesses.
Presiding Judge: At any rate – to the extent that you have
already summoned or intend to summon witnesses abroad to be
questioned – I would ask you to submit the list already at
the present stage. If something will arise for you only as
the result of the examination of witnesses here – we shall
always be ready to hear further applications at a later
stage as well. Of course, the question of time will then
arise, which is important to us.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I am
somewhat overburdened with work, so that I do not have an
overall view as yet. But the moment I am able to survey the
full scope of my work, I shall submit the necessary
applications at once.
Presiding Judge: Now, with regard to Kappler.
Attorney General: I agree to the request that the
arrangements for mutual legal assistance between the State
of Israel and the Republic of Italy should be put into
Presiding Judge: Do such arrangements exist?
Attorney General: To the best of my recollection at the
moment: yes, Your Honour. But if the Court wishes me to
supply this information after I have checked the matter, I
am prepared to go into it and give my reply at the beginning
of the afternoon session.
Presiding Judge: Yes. It would be important to know that
before we proceed.
Attorney General: I shall find out. With each country there
are other arrangements, and it is difficult to remember
by heart all the data concerning each country. I shall
clarify the question and advise the Court at the beginning
of the afternoon session.
May I be permitted to add a few words in connection with our
applications and the various statements?
Presiding Judge: Before you do so, let me ask: Dr.
Servatius, is this the best address that you have –
“Kappler, who is under arrest in Italy”? Do you know where
Dr. Servatius: No, we do not know that. But the Minister
of Justice in Italy ought to know that.
Presiding Judge: Yes.
Attorney General: If I may, Your Honour, it seems to us that
these are all the statements which we want to use and which,
as far as the Defence is concerned, are likely to give rise
to a problem of examining the witnesses.
But there is still one man whose name we have not mentioned
and whose statement we have not submitted, since we are
still investigating whether we are able to summon him at
this time – that is to say, whether he is not involved in
offences against Section 1 of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law. If it should emerge that
such is the case, we shall also be obliged to ask the Court
to admit the statement made by this man. If it should turn
out that it is possible to bring him here, and that his
evidence appears to us to be most substantial and important,
we shall bring him here directly and not make use of his
statement. I would, accordingly, still ask for permission,
regarding this one man, to apply to the Court at a later
stage. I hope it will not be later than next week.
Presiding Judge: Next week?
Attorney General: In the middle of next week there are
holidays, both here and abroad, and the enquiry has to be
made not only within the State of Israel – that makes it
Presiding Judge: In other words, by the end of next week?
Attorney General: Yes, by the end of the week.
Presiding Judge: Very well. We shall allow you to do so by
the end of next week.
Now, there is another matter, with regard to Hoettl and
Huppenkothen. Dr. Servatius I think we have to ascertain
soon whether these witnesses are ready to come to Israel or
not. Because if they are not, we shall have to make use
here, too, of the same process of questionnaires. By when
do you think you will be able to clarify this?
Dr. Servatius: I have asked my assistant to start
immediately with investigations to trace them. There are
conflicting newspaper reports on this subject.
Presiding Judge: My question was: by when? When will we
receive authoritative information on the subject – not
Dr. Servatius: I shall make the appropriate application by
tomorrow afternoon, to cover the eventuality that either of
them will not come. Perhaps it would already be possible to
submit the application here.
Presiding Judge: Such applications are not before us, if I
am not mistaken.
Dr. Servatius: Yes – I remember that. Perhaps it might be
possible to go forward with the applications, and in the
event of the witness’ coming here, I would need a brief
notification to the Court of First Instance that the witness
will not appear and that there will be no need to examine
Presiding Judge: Perhaps, in order not to waste time, you
should submit questionnaires also in the cases of Hoettl and
Attorney General: We shall do that, if the Court considers
Presiding Judge: Provided that they do not come here to
testify in Court.
Attorney General: We shall attend to the preparation of the
questionnaires as soon as possible, let us say by next
Presiding Judge: Very well, let that be next Wednesday.
Since we are now talking about procedural matters, I want to
announce that next Monday, which is the day following
Shavuot (the Feast of Weeks), there will be no morning
Session and, instead, we shall prolong the afternoon Session
somewhat. It will begin at 3.30, as usual, and will
continue until approximately 7 – with a short recess in the
middle of the session.
Attorney General: My colleague, Mr. Bar-Or, will continue