Session 119-01, Eichmann Adolf

Session No. 119

[Continuation of the Session after the recess]

Presiding Judge: Mr. Landau, I presume that the application
you wish to make to us has the same content as that which
was submitted in writing prior to the beginning of the

Attorney Landau Yes, Your Honour. I am representing Mr.
Mordechai Leitner.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Leitner is applying for symbolic
compensation in the sum of one Israeli lira for the damage
which he claims was caused to him by the Accused?

Attorney Landau To be precise, for the suffering which he

Presiding Judge: The question which arises – and I am sure
that this will not have escaped your notice – is whether he
heard what we read out in the Judgment, in the chapter on
Hungary, whether from the Judgment it is obvious that this
suffering arises from the Accused’s actions as described in
the Judgment. Naturally only if this is clear will we deal
with this matter now.

Attorney Landau That is correct. It is also clear from
another of the Counts against the Accused, I believe – the
Fifth Count in the Indictment, under which he has been found
guilty generally of the suffering he caused.

State Attorney Bar-Or: With the Court’s permission, before
my learned colleague deals with the substance of his
application – if he is going to deal with the substance of
his application – I would request the Court’s permission to
raise a preliminary argument concerning my learned
colleague’s right to present any application to the Court.

Presiding Judge: I would suggest, Mr. Bar-Or, that you do
not submit any preliminary arguments. We have in fact
decided that we shall allow Mr. Landau to make this
application to us, and this is what he is doing. I would
not wish to be drawn into formal arguments.

State Attorney Bar-Or: As you please, Your Honour.

Presiding Judge: [To Attorney Landau] To what do you wish to

Attorney Landau I wished to draw the Court’s attention also
to a small item in the Indictment.

Presiding Judge: This is not important at the moment, Mr.
Landau. The only thing that is important is what we have
found the Accused guilty of. And if you paid attention – we
did not always follow the text of the Indictment. To be more
precise, the question is – this is how I see it – that the
Applicant is arguing that he suffered in a labour camp in

Attorney Landau That is correct.

Presiding Judge: Were these camps inside Hungary?

Attorney Landau Yes.

Presiding Judge: I do not believe that in our Judgment there
is any ruling, finding, according to which the Accused is
responsible for what happened in those labour camps. Please
understand me properly: I am not saying that this is not how
things were, perhaps this is how things were, but at this
stage we are bound, and above all, Mr. Landau, you are
bound, by the framework of our factual findings. And if this
does not fit precisely within the framework of the factual
findings – then, naturally, you can submit a civil claim in
this matter.

Attorney Landau Your Honour, the Applicant’s suffering in
the Accused’s camps came at the final stage of the
Applicant’s suffering. He suffered prior to this, he
suffered from the first moment that the Germans entered
Hungary, from the first moment he felt like a hunted animal,
felt like someone sentenced to death, he was starved, he
tried to save himself. And since there were rumours that the
result of the expulsions was death – and they knew that the
expulsions led to death; this was in 1944, and the Hungarian
Jews had information to this effect – he was persuaded by
rumours that it was precisely in the provincial towns that
he could be saved. These rumours were spread deliberately,
and he went to the provinces. The journey in itself was a
mortal risk, because we heard that the Gestapo, the SS…

Presiding Judge: Mr. Landau, this is not permissible now.
That is why I asked you my previous question. We have your
submission before us in writing, and from what it contains
it is fairly clear that you are complaining about the
sufferings in the camps, and not en route from Budapest to
the provincial towns.

Attorney Landau I simply said that this was at the final
stage. In my humble opinion, it would seem to me that
another item can be added, and that I am not limited by what
is in the application.

Presiding Judge: To the extent that an advocate is limited
by his response to the Court.

Attorney Landau My response is that the suffering of the
Applicant was caused because of the crimes of which the
Accused has been found guilty.

Presiding Judge: In what sense? Perhaps you could be more
specific and tell us once again what suffering is referred

Attorney Landau The suffering he underwent first of all in
the labour camps, suffering because of the obligation to
wear the “Yellow Badge.”

Presiding Judge: Is this mentioned in your written

Attorney Landau In Paragraph 4 – that rumours were spread
to the effect that it was worthwhile for people to move to
the small towns on the assumption that they would be saved
there, and it transpired that this was a strategem.
Furthermore, the result of his forced labour was that he
fell ill with tuberculosis.

Presiding Judge: All of this is mentioned in the
application, there is no need to repeat this orally. Is
there anything else you wish to mention, Mr. Landau, in
addition to what we have in writing?

Attorney Landau In addition to this there is also what I
referred to earlier, his mental suffering from the first
moment that he found out that they were about to murder him.

With the Court’s permission!

Presiding Judge: What do you wish to do now?

Attorney Landau I would like permission to argue the case
for my application.

Presiding Judge: In what sense? The matter is clear.

Attorney Landau I would like to refer explicitly to the
grounds. Since the matter is entirely subject to the
discretion of the Court…

Pesiding Judge: Precisely.

Attorney Landau I wished to present the grounds to the
Court in order to convince the Court to use its full power.

Presiding Judge: I requested that the application be
defined, and would you now be seated. We wish to consult on
this matter.

Presiding Judge:


The Applicant’s Petition and its grounds were submitted in
writing prior to the beginning of the legal proceedings in
this trial. They refer to the Applicant’s suffering which he
underwent when confined in labour camps in Hungary from May
1944 onwards. From the findings of fact that we made in our
Judgment, it does not appear that there was personal
responsibility on the part of the Accused for what went on
inside these camps. We do not hereby intend to say that it
has been proved that no such responsibility exists. However,
if the Applicant so argues, this is not a suitable stage for
carrying out a further examination of the facts which would
be necessary in order to draw conclusions in this matter.
The Applicant’s representative has today added further
grounds for his application. It is, however, obvious that
the main aspect of the Applicant’s claim is still his
suffering in the aforementioned camps. We therefore reject
the Applicant’s application.

Now, Dr. Servatius, concerning the next stage of the trial,
do you have any application or are you prepared to continue
tomorrow as usual?

Dr. Servatius: I would be most grateful if it were possible
to postpone the proceedings till tomorrow afternoon, so that
I can discuss the results of the Judgment with the Accused,
and give the material to be translated to the translators. I
could be ready tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m., of course if
there is no morning session. I am assuming that it will take
me in all an hour or an hour and a half to make my

Presiding Judge: Does that also include the Accused’s
comments, if the Accused wishes to say something? I would
like to have an idea of our timetable.

Dr. Servatius: Yes, I would assume that together with the
Accused’s comments we will need an hour and a half. I think
it will be possible to complete this tomorrow afternoon.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bar-Or, will we be able to complete
this tomorrow in a single session?

State Attorney Bar-Or: Yes, the Attorney General is
prepared for this.

Presiding Judge: Will there be enough time, given what Dr.
Servatius has said?

State Attorney Bar-Or: I believe so.

Presiding Judge: We shall adjourn the proceedings until 3
p.m. tomorrow afternoon, and we shall hear the parties on
the sentence.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/14