Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-001-02
Last-Modified: 1999/05/28

SIXTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Crime against humanity, an offence
against section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.

Particulars  of the Offence: The Accused: in committing the
acts described in Counts 1 to 5 persecuted Jews on national,
racial,religious and political grounds.

SEVENTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Crime against humanity, an offence
against Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.

Particulars  of the Offence:  a) During the period of Nazi
rule in Germany and the other countries of the Axis, in the
occupied countries, and also in the areas which were, in
practice, subject to their authority, the Accused, together
with others, caused the plunder of the property of millions
of Jews who were residents of these countries, by means of
inhuman coercion, robbery, terror and torture.

b) Amongst the Accused's deeds were:

(1) The establishment, organization, and management of the
"Central Office for Jewish Emigration" (Zentralstelle fuer
juedische Auswanderung) in Vienna, immediately following the
entry of the Nazis into Austria in the month of March 1938
and until the end of the Second World War, by means of which
the Accused: transferred the property of the Jews of Austria
and of the Jewish communities of that state to German
control. This property was in part plundered in order to
finance the expulsion of the Jews of Austria beyond the
country's borders and in part transferred through coercion
to the possession of the authorities by means of terror
against the owners thereof.

(2) The establishment of the "Central Office for Jewish
Emigration" in Prague following the Nazi invasion of
Czechoslovakia in the month of March 1939, and its
organization and management by the Accused, until the end of
the Second World War, according to the model of the Central
Office in Vienna. Through this office a "Special Account"
was administered as a channel for the transfer of the
property of the Jews whom the Accused, together with others,
robbed - within Czechoslovakia itself and in other
countries.

(3) The establishment of the Central Office for the
Emigration of Jews and for Jewish affairs in Germany
(Reichszentrale) in Berlin in the year 1939 and its
management by the Accused: until the end of the Second World
War. By means of this Central Office, following the example
of the Central Office in Vienna, the Accused, together with
others, plundered the property of the Jews of Germany and
the property of their communities by the same means and
under the same conditions as he laid down in respect of the
offices in Vienna and Prague.

(4) By means of collecting forced payments from persons
deported from Germany and the occupied territories, the
Accused: compelled hundreds of thousands of Jews to finance
their deportation to the extermination camps and the sites
of other concentrations for mass slaughter. To this end the
Accused: set up the Special Account "W" which was at the
exclusive disposal of his Department.

(5) The property of the Jews slain in the countries of
German conquest in Eastern Europe was also plundered by
their murderers - the men of the SS. For purposes of
centralizing the act of robbery, special operations were
organized in the years 1942-1943 within the framework of a
special campaign for the slaughter of the Jews of Poland,
which was known by the description "Reinhardt Action"
(Aktion Reinhardt). The person in charge of this special
operation was the Senior Commander of the Security Police
and the SD for the district of Lublin. During these two
years property estimated at a nominal value of 200 million
marks, but the actual value of which amounted to several
times this sum, was stolen.

(6) During the Second World War and until shortly before its
conclusion, freight trains were dispatched to Germany every
month from the areas of occupation in the East, containing
the movable property of those murdered in the extermination
camps, in the concentration sites and in the ghettos. This
property also included enormous quantities of parts of the
bodies of those done to death such as hair, gold teeth,
false teeth, artificial limbs; furthermore, every other
personal item was plundered from the bodies of the Jews
before and after their extermination.

(7) The Accused, together with others, planned all the
operations of comprehensive robbery so that the property of
millions of those brought for extermination might be taken
from them and brought to Germany. The extent of his success
emerges from the fact that, when at the time of their
retreat in January 1945, the Germans burned 29 stores of
personal effects and articles of value out of 35 such stores
established in the extermination camp at Auschwitz, there
were found in the stores that were saved from the fire,
inter alia:

     348,820 men's suits
     836,255 women's costumes
     38,000 men's shoes.
     
c) The Accused: carried out the said operations until the
end of the year 1939 by virtue of his special duties in the
Security Service of the SS (SD); and since the end of that
year the Accused: merged these duties with his functions in
Office IV of the RSHA.

d) The Accused: carried out the robbery of the property of
the Jews in Germany and in the other territories of
occupation, over and above those already mentioned in this
count as aforesaid, by means of issuing instructions to the
local commanders of the Security Police and to those in the
countries of the Axis and the occupied areas, through the
foreign representatives of Germany as described in the First
Count.

EIGHTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  War crime, an offence against Section
1(a)(3) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
5710-1950 and Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance,
1936.

Particulars  of the Offence:  The Accused: performed acts,
during the period of the Second World War, in Germany and in
the other countries of the Axis and also in the occupied
territories, which are to be defined as war crimes, when,
together with others, he caused the persecution, expulsion
and murder of the Jewish population of the countries
occupied by the Germans and the other countries of the Axis.
The Accused: committed these acts in the course of
fulfilling his functions as specified in the First Count.

NINTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence Crime against humanity, an offence
against Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950 and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.

Particulars  of the Offence: The Accused, between the years
1940 and 1942 committed acts in Poland, which at that time
was occupied by Germany, which are to be defined as crimes
against humanity when, together with others, he caused the
deportation of more than half-a-million Polish civilians
from their places of residence, with the intention of
settling German families in those places. The displaced
Poles were transferred, some to Germany and the territories
occupied by her for the purpose of employing them and
holding them under conditions of servitude, coercion and
terror; some were abandoned in other regions of Poland and
the German areas of occupation in the East; some were
concentrated in labor camps organized by the SS under
inhumane conditions; and some were transferred to Germany
and were destined for the purpose of "Germanization"
(Rueckverdeutschung). The Accused: committed these acts of
his by virtue of a special appointment in the month of
December 1939, according to which he was empowered by the
Chief of the Security Police in Berlin to act as the person
responsible for the "evacuation" of the civilian population.

TENTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Crime against humanity, an offence
against Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.

Particulars  of the Offence:  a) The Accused: committed acts
in the year 1941 in Yugoslavia in parts then occupied by
Germany, which are to be defined as crimes against humanity
when, together with others, he caused the deportation of
more than fourteen thousand Slovene civilians from their
places of residence, with the intention of settling German
families in their stead;

b) The deported Slovenes were transferred to the Serbian
province of Yugoslavia by methods of coercion and terror,
and under inhuman conditions.

c) The planning of these expulsions was effected by the
Accused: at a meeting on 6 May 1941 which took place in
Marburg (Untersteiermark) and to which the Accused: invited
representatives of the other authorities dealing with the
matter. The expulsion headquarters continued to be located
in that city, and acted in accordance with the directives of
the Accused. The Accused: committed these acts by virtue of
his special appointment as mentioned in the Ninth Count.

ELEVENTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Crime against humanity, an offence
against Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars  of the Offence: The Accused: committed acts
during the period of the Second World War which are to be
defined as crimes against humanity in Germany and the
occupied territories when, together with others, he caused
the deportation from their places of residence of tens of
thousands of gypsies, their assembly in places of
concentration, and their dispatch to extermination camps in
the areas of the German occupation in the East, for the
purpose of murdering them. The Accused: committed these acts
by virtue of his special appointment as mentioned in the
Ninth Count.

TWELFTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Crime against humanity, an offence
against Section 1(a)(2) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators
(Punishment) Law, 5710-1950, and Section 23 of the Criminal
Law Ordinance, 1936.

Particulars  of the Offence:  In the year 1942 the Accused:
committed acts which are to be defined as crimes against
humanity when, together with others, he caused the
deportation of approximately 100 children, residents of the
village of Lidice in Czechoslovakia, their transfer to
Poland and their murder there. The Accused: committed these
acts in the course of fulfilling his functions in the
Gestapo in Berlin.

THIRTEETH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Membership of a hostile organization,
an offence against Section 3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

Particulars  of the Offence:  The Accused, during the period
of the Nazi rule in Germany, was a member of the
organization known by the name of Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP
(SS) and during the course of his service in this
organization attained the rank of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.
This body was declared as a criminal organization in the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal on 1 October
1946 in accordance with Section 9 of the Charter of the
Tribunal which was attached to the Agreement of the Four
Powers dated 8 August 1945, in regard to the trial of the
major war criminals.

FOURTEENTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Membership of a hostile organization,
an offence against Section 3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.

Particulars  of the Offence:  During the period of Nazi rule
in Germany, the Accused: was a member of an organization
known by the name Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrers SS
(SD). This body was declared as a criminal organization in
the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal on 1
October 1946 in accordance with Section 9 of the Charter of
the Tribunal which was attached to the Agreement of the Four
Powers dated 8 August 1945 in regard to the trial of the
major war criminals.

FIFTEENTH COUNT

Nature of the Offence  Membership of a hostile organization,
an offence against Section 3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi
Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950.

Particulars  of the Offence:  During the period of Nazi rule
in Germany, the Accused: was a member of the Secret State
Police (Geheime Staatspolizei) known as the "Gestapo" and
served therein as Head of the Department for Jewish Affairs.
This body was declared as a criminal organization in the
Judgement of the International Military Tribunal on 1
October 1946 in accordance with Section 9 of the Charter of
the Tribunal which was attached to the Agreement of the Four
Powers dated 8 August 1945 in regard to the trial of the
major war criminals.

Presiding Judge:  Did you understand the indictment?

Accused:  Yes, certainly.

Dr. Servatius:  I request the permission of the Court to
allow me to express an objection, before the Accused:
answers the question whether he admits guilt or not. I have
to voice two reservations. They apply to the fear of
prejudice on the part of the judges, and to the lack of
competence on the part of the Court. I request the Court to
examine whether reasons do not exist in consequence of which
one of the judges should be disqualified from sitting in
judgment, or whether he himself should declare himself to be
prejudiced. The removal of one of the judges is likely to
arise out of a situation where one of the judges himself or
a near relative of his was harmed by the acts brought
forward in the charges. An assumption such as this is quite
possible. It arises from the fact that the entire Jewish
people were drawn into the holocaust of extermination. The
question of whether such facts exist here, thus leading to
the removal of one of the judges, must be examined by the
Court at the outset. Furthermore, it follows from the nature
of the material of the proceedings that the Accused: must be
apprehensive concerning the prejudice of the judges. It is
not that actual prejudice on the part of the judges is the
operative issue; according to the idea of the principle of
guaranteeing a fair trial, it is sufficient if there is a
justified apprehension on the part of the Accused. I do not
voice this apprehension against a particular judge on the
grounds that he passed sentence or judgment in a previous
process concerning the Accused. I have not managed to
determine anything from the point of view of decisions which
may be taken into account which is likely to cause concern
in regard to the impartiality of a judge in the case which
is before us. The fear of prejudice exists, therefore,
against all the judges in equal measure. There are reasons
which arise in general from the very material of the
proceedings. The fear of prejudice is likely to arise from
the fact that the general sphere of interests of one of the
judges may be affected in a substantial manner. He would not
be able to keep his distance sufficiently to be able to make
a decision which would not be influenced by the acts about
to be considered.

These apprehensions have also found their expression amongst
the public. The President of the Supreme Court in Israel,
Justice Olshan, commented on this question in one of his
judgments. He said the following...

Presiding Judge:  What is the number of the judgment, if you
could quote it?

Dr. Servatius:  I request permission to produce it later - I
have not yet managed to ascertain the number of the
judgment. He stated the following

     "It is not sufficient that defence counsel, prosecutors
     and judges should be convinced of the personal
     impartiality and integrity of the judges. If fear
     should arise publicly for reasons which can be
     justified on reasonable grounds, that judges may be
     prejudiced, that would be sufficient to remove judges
     from the trial."

The public, in the case before us, is the world. The Court
has confirmed this in its previous decision regarding
approval of television broadcasts to the world public.

Personalities well-known in world public affairs have raised
doubts. They have suggested the setting up of a neutral
Court, an international Court or a mixed tribunal. This
should have been done. The fear of prejudice also arises out
of the following matters. Here we are not talking of a
regular criminal process in which consideration must be
given to acts which were carried out with an individual
criminal inclination. We are talking of the consideration of
participation in processes which were political processes.
These are acts in the prosecution of which the Israeli State
and the Jewish people have a political interest. To this
must be added the influence of the world political press,
which has already condemned the Accused: without hearing
him. This political interest which is the motivating cause
of this trial, is capable of having substantial influence on
the judges. The Government has the right to be partial for
the sake of its people - it is permitted to be biased. The
representation of this right is the right of the prosecutor.
But the judges have to test whether they are able to raise
themselves, without being influenced, above the material of
the trial; they have to examine whether the Accused: should
not, justifiably, have to be without any concern regarding
prejudice on the part of the Court. The absence of any
connection with the matter on the part of the Court is the
foundation for the subsequent recognition awarded to the
judgment.

My second objection refers to the lack of competence of the
Court. I propose that the Court adjudge itself as not being
competent to consider and to decide on the present
indictment. The lack of competence arises from the following
points:

Firstly because the law for punishing Nazis and their
collaborators contravenes the Law of Nations.

Secondly because the Accused: was seized forcibly and
kidnapped and brought before the Court
.
The law for punishing Nazis and their collaborators of 10
August 1950 seeks to provide punishment in regard to persons
and acts before the existence of the State of Israel,
outside the present boundaries of the State, which wronged
persons who were not residents of the State of Israel.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor