dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that there are some counsel for the defendants present here today, who were not here yesterday and who may not understand the use of these earphones and dials. Therefore, I explain to them that Number 1 on the dial will enable them to hear the evidence in the language in which it is given, Number 2 will be in English, Number 3 in Russian, Number 4 in French, and Number 5 in German. I will now read the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of the application of counsel for Gustav Krupp van Bohlen for postponement of the proceedings against the defendant. Counsel for Gustav Krupp van Bohlen has applied to the Tribunal for postponement of the proceedings against this defendant on the ground that his physical and mental condition are such that he is incapable of understanding the proceedings against him and of presenting any defense that he may have. On November 5 the Tribunal appointed a medical commission composed of the following physicians: R. E. Tunbridge , Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting Physician, British Army of the Rhine. René Piedelièvre , M.D., Professor on the Faculty of Medicine of Paris; Expert for the Tribunal. Nicholas Kurshakov , M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical Institute of Moscow; Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Eugene Sepp , M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Medical Institute of Moscow; Member, Academy of Medical Science, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Eugene Krasnushkin , M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute of Moscow. Bertram Schaffner , Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army of the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: The commission has reported to the Tribunal that it is unanimously of the opinion that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen suffers from senile softening of the brain; that his mental condition is such that he is incapable of understanding court procedure and of understanding or cooperating in interrogations; that his physical state is such that he cannot be moved without endangering his life; and that his condition is unlikely to improve but rather will deteriorate further. The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical commission, to which exception is taken neither by the Prosecution nor by the Defense. Article 12 of the Charter authorizes the trial of a defendant in absentia if found by the Tribunal to be "necessary in the interests of justice." It is contended on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors that in the interest of justice, Gustav Krupp van Bohlen should be tried  in absentia, despite his physical and mental condition. It is the decision of the Tribunal that upon the facts presented the interests of justice do not require that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen be tried in absentia. The Charter of the Tribunal envisages a fair trial, in which the Chief Prosecutors may present the evidence in support of an indictment and the defendants may present such defense as they may believe themselves to have. Where nature rather than flight or contumacy has rendered such a trial impossible, it is not in accordance with justice that the case should proceed in the absence of a defendant. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal orders that: 1. The application for postponement of the proceedings against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen is granted. 2. The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit. Further questions raised by the Chief Prosecutors, including the question of adding another name to the Indictment, will be considered later. The Tribunal will now hear the application on behalf of the Defendant Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Counsel state his name?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, as Counsel for the Defendant Julius Streicher, I took the liberty some time ago of requesting a postponement in the opening date of the Trial, because the time at my disposal for making preparations appeared to me insufficient, in view of the importance of the case. This morning, however, the President of the Court outlined the course of the proceedings of the Trial and his explanations have made it quite clear that the Defense will have adequate time at its disposal to continue preparations for the case of each client even after the opening of the Trial. Any objections on my part are thereby removed, and accordingly I withdraw my application as unsubstantiated. Your Honors, may I use this opportunity to make a suggestion with regard to the case of the Defendant Streicher. In view of the exceptional nature of the case and of the difficulties facing the Defense in handling it, may I suggest that the Tribunal consider whether a psychiatric examination of the Defendant Streicher would not be proper. Defense Counsel should have at his disposal all the evidence on the nature, personality, and motives of the defendant which appears necessary to enable him to form a clear picture of his client. And this, of course, is also true of the Tribunal. In my own interests I consider it essential that such an examination be authorized by the Tribunal. I emphasize particularly that this is not a formal motion: "It is not a motion but a proposal." [ Note: These words were spoken in English. ]  I deem it necessary as a precaution in my own interests, since my client does not desire an examination of this sort, and is of the opinion that he is mentally completely normal. I myself cannot determine that; it must be decided by a psychiatrist. I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to consider this proposal, and, if the suggestion, under the circumstances, appears both requisite and necessary, to choose and appoint a competent expert to conduct the examination. That is what I wished to say before the opening of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. It appears to the Tribunal that such suggestions as you have now made, ought to be in the form of a formal motion or application and that it ought to be in writing and that if, as you say, the Defendant Streicher does not wish it or is unwilling that such an examination should be made, then your application ought to state in writing that the Defendant Streicher refuses to sign the application. If you wish to make such a motion you are at liberty to make it, in writing.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be allowed to say briefly that it is precisely because the defendant does object to my submitting such an application that I feel obliged to make this request here publicly, and inform the Tribunal that I am bound by my client's attitude and therefore not in a position to submit this suggestion in writing. Without my client's permission I cannot make this suggestion in writing, and I am consequently forced to convey it to the Tribunal verbally, since I myself consider it necessary as a precaution in my own interest.
THE PRESIDENT: But you understand from what I say to you, that if you wish to make this suggestion, you must make the motion in writing and you can, on that writing, state that the Defendant Streicher is not prepared to sign the application.
DR. MARX: Thank you, Mr. President, for your statement; I shall not fail to act, as you suggest.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Chief Prosecutors wish to make any statement?
COLONEL ROBERT G. STOREY (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Court: The position of Counsel for Defendant Streicher emphasizes a suggestion made by the Prosecutors this morning, namely, that all motions and all requests from Counsel be reduced to writing, prior to submission to the Court and the suggestions, in writing, were filed with the General Secretary since the meeting this morning. While I am on my feet, if it may please the Court, may I make a brief statement in connection with the efforts of the Prosecutors to furnish to the Defense Counsel evidence and documents in which they may be interested, if that meets with the approval of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. STOREY: With reference to Defendant Streicher's second point in his motion, namely, that the Prosecutors be required to furnish certain documents, they are being furnished, and will be furnished in the future. Secondly, with reference to the film on concentration camps, which he requests be shown to Defense Counsel in advance of the time of presenting the film, this request will also be complied with by the Prosecutors. Also, for the information of the Defense Counsel, there has been established in Room 54, in this Courthouse, what is known as the Defendants' Information Center, operated jointly by the four Chief Prosecutors. In that room there has been deposited a list of documents upon which the Prosecution relies. Secondly, if further documents are relied upon by the prosecutors, lists will be furnished to Defense Counsel before they are introduced into evidence or offered to the Court, and also, they will have the opportunity to examine copies of those documents in their own language. May I also suggest that most Defense Counsel have availed themselves of that privilege and those who had not, have been notified and they are now, as of this date, all of them, making use of the facilities provided, which include rooms for conferences, typewriters, when necessary, and other assistance. I want to make that statement for the information of the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Soviet Chief Prosecutor wishes to address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: In connection with the evidence just submitted to the Tribunal by Counsel representing the interests of Defendant Streicher, I consider it my duty to inform the Tribunal that during the last interrogation made by the Delegation of the Soviet Union, the Defendant Streicher, about whom it is specifically said in the Indictment, Counts One and Four , that he had incited to the persecution of the Jews, stated that he had been speaking from a Zionist point of view. This declaration or, more precisely, this testimony, immediately produced certain doubts as to the mental stability of the defendant. It is not the first time that persons, now standing their trial, have attempted to delude us about their mental condition. I refer in particular to the Defendant Hess. In the case of Hess the Tribunal, to my Knowledge already possesses . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. We are not hearing any application with reference to Streicher's sanity now, nor any application with reference to Hess. We have simply informed Counsel for Streicher that if he wishes to make an application in respect of his defendant's sanity or mental condition, he must make that application in writing. If he does make such an application in writing you will have full opportunity of opposing the application.
COL. POKROVSKY: What I have in mind is not to offer an opinion on the deductions and the petition of the Defense, but to inform the Tribunal of a fact which may cause much complication if we do not act on it immediately. Seeing that the Tribunal has at its disposal a number of competent medical personnel, it would appear to me most expedient that the Tribunal should entrust these specialists with the examination of the Defendant Streicher in order to establish definitely whether he is or is not in full possession of his mental capacities. If we do not do so now, the necessity may arise in the course of the Trial and if the question of Streicher's sanity arises after the beginning of the Trial, then it may delay the pro- ceedings and impede our work.  If the Tribunal deems my suggestion in order, we would, before the Trial starts, have sufficient Time to request from this commission of specialists a statement on his mental condition.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. If I rightly understand what the Chief Soviet Prosecutor says, it is this: That if any question of the sanity of the Defendant Streicher arises it will be convenient that he should be examined now at once whilst the medical officers of the Soviet Union are in Nuremberg. If that is so, then if you think it is more convenient that Streicher should be examined by doctors at the present moment on account of the presence of the distinguished doctors from the Soviet Union being in Nuremberg, you are at liberty to make a written motion to that effect to the Tribunal at any time. Do any of the other Chief Prosecutors wish to address the Tribunal? ( There was no response. ) Then the Tribunal will deal with the application of the Defendant Streicher as follows: His application for postponement, which is numbered 1 on his written application, has been withdrawn. His other two applications, numbered 2 and 3, which are agreed to by the Chief Prosecutors, are granted. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 17 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the Chief Prosecutors wish to make a statement with reference to the Defendant Bormann.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, as the Tribunal are aware, the Defendant Bormann was included in the Indictment , which was filed before the Tribunal. There has been no change in the position with regard to the Defendant Bormann; nor has any further information come to the notice of the Chief Prosecutors. I think that the Tribunal are aware of the state of our information when the Indictment was filed, but it might be as well, if the Tribunal approves, if I explained what was the state of our information at the time of the filing of the Indictment , which is also the state of our information today. There is evidence that Hitler and Bormann were together, with a number of Nazi officials, in the Chancellery area in Berlin on 30 April 1945, and were, at one stage on that day, together in Hitler's underground air raid shelter in the Chancellery gardens. On 1 May Bormann and other Germans tried to break out of the Chancellery area in a tank. They got as far as the river Spree and tried to cross a bridge over it. A hand grenade was thrown into the tank by Russian soldiers. Three members of the party who were with Bormann in this tank have been interrogated. Two think that Bormann was killed, and the third that he was wounded. The position is, therefore, that the Prosecution cannot say that matter is beyond probability that Bormann is dead. There is the clear possibility that he is alive. In these circumstances I should submit that he comes within exact words of Article 12 of the Charter : "The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found." In other words, it is not necessary to hold the man in these circumstances.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): The Tribunal laid down in its Rules of Procedure in Rule 2 (b) the procedure applicable to this situation: "Any individual Defendant not in custody shall be informed of the Indictment against him and of his right to receive the documents specified in sub-paragraph (a) above, by notice in such form and manner as the Tribunal may prescribe." The Tribunal prescribed that notice to the Defendant Bormann should be given in the following manner: The notice should be read over the radio once a week for 4 weeks, the first reading to be during the week of 22 October. It should also be published in four separate issues of a newspaper circulated in the home city of Martin Bormann. The broadcast was given in the weeks after 22 October, as ordered over Radio Hamburg and Radio Langenberg, that is, Cologne. The Defendant Bormann's last place of residence was in Berlin. The notice was, therefore, published in four Berlin papers: The Taegliche Rundschau , the Berliner Zeitung , Der Berliner , and the Allgemeine Zeitung for the 4 weeks which the Tribunal had ordered. In my respectful submission the Charter and Rules of Procedure have been complied with. The Tribunal, therefore, has the right to take proceedings in absentia under Article 12 . It is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal to decide whether it will exercise that right. The Chief Prosecutors submit, however, that there is no change in the position since they indicted Bormann and that, unless the Tribunal has any different view, this is a proper case for trial in absentia. I am authorized to make this statement not only on behalf of the British Delegation, but on behalf of the United States and the French Republic. I consulted my friend and colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, yesterday and he had to take instructions on the matter, and I notice he is here today. I haven't had the opportunity of speaking to him this morning and no doubt he will be able to tell the Tribunal any thing if he so desires. I hope that that explains the basis of the matter to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): If there are any other facts, I should be only too happy to answer any point.
THE PRESIDENT: It is suggested to me that you should file with the General Secretary proof of the publication to which you have referred.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With proof of the publication! If it please My Lord, that will be done. THE PRESIDENT Thank you, Sir David. Then I will ask the Chief Prosecutor for the Soviet Union if he wishes to address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: I thank the Tribunal for their wish to hear the opinion of the Soviet Delegation. I shall avail myself of the privilege granted by the Tribunal to express the complete concurrence of the Soviet Delegation, and to inform you of the attitude adopted by my colleagues where Bormann is concerned. We consider that the Tribunal has every justification, under Article 12 of the Charter , to accept in evidence all the material relative to Bormann's case and to start proceedings against him in his absence
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for a short time and hopes it will be able to give its decision shortly. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided that in pursuance of Article 12 of the Charter , it will try the Defendant Bormann in his absence, and it announces that Counsel will be appointed to defend the Defendant Bormann. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 1500 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to amend the indictment by adding the name of Alfried Krupp has been considered by the Tribunal in all its aspects and the application is rejected. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 20 November 1945 at 1000 hours.].
THE PRESIDENT: Before the defendants in this case are called upon to make their pleas to the Indictment which has been lodged against them, and in which they are charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and with a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those crimes, it is the wish of the Tribunal that I should make a very brief statement on behalf of the Tribunal. This International Military Tribunal has been established pursuant to the Agreement of London , dated the 8th of August 1945, and the Charter of the Tribunal as annexed thereto, and the purpose for which the Tribunal has been established is stated in Article 1 of the Charter to be the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. The Signatories to the Agreement and Charter are the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Committee of the Chief Prosecutors, appointed by the four Signatories, have settled the final designation of the war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, and have approved the Indictment on which the present defendants stand charged here today. On Thursday, the 18th of October 1945, in Berlin, the Indictment was lodged with the Tribunal and a copy of that Indictment in the German language has been furnished to each defendant, and has been in his possession for more than 30 days. All the defendants are represented by counsel. In almost all cases the counsel appearing for the defendants have been chosen by the defendants themselves, but in cases where counsel could not be obtained the Tribunal has itself selected suitable counsel agreeable to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has heard with great satisfaction of the steps which have been taken by the Chief Prosecutors to make available to defending counsel the numerous documents upon which the Prosecution rely, with the aim of giving to the defendants every possibility for a just defense. The Trial which is now about to begin is unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world and it is of supreme importance to millions of people all over the globe. For these reasons, there is laid upon everybody who takes any part in this Trial a solemn responsibility to discharge their duties without fear or favor, in accordance with the sacred principles of law and justice. The four Signatories having invoked the judicial process, it is the duty of all concerned to see that the Trial in no way departs from those principles and traditions which alone give justice its authority and the place it ought to occupy in the affairs of all civilized states. This Trial is a public Trial in the fullest sense of those words, and I must, therefore, remind the public that the Tribunal will insist upon the complete maintenance of order and decorum, and will take the strictest measures to enforce it. It only remains for me to direct, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter , that the Indictment shall now be read.
SIR. SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal: I. The United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the undersigned, Robert H. Jackson, François de Menthon, Hartley Shawcross, and R. A. Rudenko, duly appointed to represent their respective governments in the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of the major war criminals, pursuant to the Agreement of London dated 8 August 1945, and the Charter of this Tribunal annexed thereto, hereby accuse as guilty, in the respects hereinafter set forth, of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes, all as defined in the Charter of the Tribunal , and accordingly name as defendants in this cause and as indicted on the Counts hereinafter set out: Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Robert Ley, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl Doenitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath and Hans Fritzsche, individually and as members of any of the groups or organizations next hereinafter named. II.