17 Sivan 5721 (1 June 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the sixty-first Session of the trial open. Mr. Bach, if you please.

State Attorney Bach: Your Honours, yesterday evening I brought to the Court's attention a number of documents that touched upon the plan to deport the Jews of Budapest and on the failure of this plan at the very last minute.

In order to complete the picture, perhaps I could refer to only two passages from the Accused's statement, from which it emerges that the Accused acknowledges that he did, in fact, also have a plan for the deportation of the Jews of Budapest. This first appears on page 2186, where he says: "Of course - I cannot deny it - of course, it was also intended to deport [the Jews of] Budapest too" (Selbstverstaendlich ist es vorgesehen, Budapest auch abzufahren).

The same appears on page 3274, where he says that the order was to comb Hungary this time from east to west. Previously, it had been decided to comb Europe from west to east, but in Hungary, the order was to comb from east to west. And then, he says, logically the turn of Budapest should also have come.

The Accused speaks about his general function in Hungary on page 1879 when he is asked: "What, in fact, was your task in Hungary?" He says: "When I was ordered to go to Hungary, I was told by Mueller that my task would be to see to it, to ensure the most speedy evacuation possible of all the Jews there to Auschwitz." And on page 2212, he says that his job was also to bring about the combing of Hungary from east to west, and also the deportation of the Jews at the greatest possible speed.

With the Court's permission, I shall also refer to some further passages from the Accused's statement relating to other episodes mentioned in other testimonies. Firstly, there is the matter of Manfred Weiss, of which we have heard a great deal. The Accused speaks about it on page 1201 of the statement. Here he says that Manfred Weiss was one of the leading and most important industrialists in Hungary, a sort of Krupp of Hungary, and he says that Becher had been given the position of a sort of manager of the company, and that the Germans had in this way taken possession of this enterprise.

On page 921 of his statement, the Accused acknowledges, in fact, that one of his subordinates was always present at co- ordination meetings with the Hungarian authorities concerning the deportation of the Jews from each district of Hungary. He also states, on page 920, that he had meetings with Endre almost every day.

On pages 247 and 248, there is a contention that children were not deported, that all the children were transferred to Budapest from Hungary. He claims that the children were not deported.

On page 285, he describes the suitcases full of money and valuable possessions which were handed in by the Jews and which he himself saw. He says that he does not know the exact details, but he saw these suitcases in his office.

And on page 289, he describes his motor-car and says that he had an amphibious car which he called "Schwimmwagen" (a floating car). "Ich hatte um jene Zeit einen Schwimmwagen, ein Vehikel, das im Wasser faehrt wie auf dem Lande" (In those days, I had an amphibious car, a vehicle which rides on the water like on land).

And now, Your Honours, I would ask you to accept in evidence the affidavit which was already mentioned in yesterday's session. This is the statement of Dr. Imre Reiner, who was also a member of the Hungarian Judenrat. Dr. Reiner, who now seventy-six years old, lives in Canada and sent us an affidavit, while expressing his readiness to come here and give his evidence in Court. We, indeed, invited him to come, so that he could appear here as a witness, for he relates details about his meetings with the Accused, about his participation in important meetings, in which the Accused also took part.

But, a week ago, we received two medical certificates, from which it appears that Dr. Reiner has suffered a heart attack. He is at present in hospital and is unable to travel or be interrogated. I should like to show these medical certificates to the Court. [Submits the certificates to the Presiding Judge].

As Your Honours will recall, the name of Dr. Reiner was mentioned by a number of witnesses. Mr. Freudiger mentioned his name in connection with that conversation in which Dr. Reiner complained about the cruel form of the ghettoization. In response to that, the Accused agreed to transfer Dr. Reiner's family to Budapest. Yesterday, too, Defence Counsel cross-examined the witness Mr. Rosenberg on the basis of that statement by Dr. Reiner and quoted extracts therefrom. He asked the witness for his comments on those passages.

Obviously, this statement also contains several sections which are of no special significance for us. For example, Dr. Reiner reports here on many matters of hearsay, which occurred before Eichmann entered Hungary. We shall, naturally, not dwell upon those. There is also certain cumulative material about Kistarcsa and other episodes. For this purpose, too, I would not have asked the Court to receive additional evidence. But there are a number of passages in that affidavit, where Dr. Reiner supplies additional particulars on details about which we have already heard, although those details are corroborated by other evidence in other documents which we have heard and seen.

Accordingly, Your Honours, I request you to use your powers under Section 15 and admit this affidavit as evidence, even if its probative value should not have the weight of evidence under oath. I think that this case somewhat resembles the one quoted at the beginning of the trial, a case from the Nuremberg Trials. That man, Messersmith, was also an elderly person, in poor state of health, and the Court accepted his affidavit and said the weight of the affidavit would be reflected in the judgment.

Presiding Judge: We have also had a similar instance.

State Attorney Bach: Yes, in the case of Plaut from Germany. I also wanted to rely on this instance, where Your Honours gave a similar decision.

Judge Halevi: Is this also a statement under oath?

State Attorney Bach: This is an affirmation - he is a religious man. It was made before our consul in Canada.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bodenheimer, do you perhaps remember what was the number of the decision in the case of Plaut?

Clerk of the Court: It was Decision No. 28, in Session No. 38.

Judge Halevi: Is he in such a state of health as to enable Dr. Servatius - should he so desire - to question him in Canada?

State Attorney Bach: I understand from the affidavit that his state of health is such that it would be risky to question him, especially on these matters, and I should not want to endanger his life on this issue. For this reason, if the Court will not see fit to grant this application of mine, I would prefer to forego the affidavit and would not subject him to interrogation now. The Court will also see from the affidavit that these matters are very close to his heart, which is only natural, and hence the matter, without doubt, may be of danger to him.

Presiding Judge: But in the case of Plaut, as I see it, there was a difference. There Mr. Bar-Or asked to submit the report mainly on the background, and not on the direct personal liability of the Accused, "as distinguished from the direct connection of the Accused with the events which are there described."

State Attorney Bach: In this instance, it is not exactly so, since here Dr. Reiner actually provides details of meetings with the Accused. The Court will be able to examine and assess the credibility of the affidavit, since the Court has heard other witnesses who have spoken of the same meetings or some of the meetings, and then by comparing the testimonies we have heard with this affidavit in regard to those events on which there were aspects in common, the Court will be able to obtain a reliable picture of the witness, of his memory, and of his credibility.

Presiding Judge: I believe that there is actually another reason. Since Dr. Servatius has already referred to this statement, this fact presents us with an opening.

State Attorney Bach: Therefore, I relied on this from the outset, since Defence Counsel has made use of it and read into the record two or three sentences taken from that affidavit, and thus it seems to me that it would be proper for this affidavit to be admitted.

Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, I wish to oppose the admission of this document. It is true that I referred to this document yesterday, but I was forced to do so, for only yesterday we had a witness here whom I was able to cross-examine in regard to that document. Had it not been for this witness, the document would possibly have had to be admitted. This declaration is not an affidavit, not under oath - not under oath or in lieu of an oath.

Presiding Judge: I believe we heard from Mr. Bach that it is an affirmation.

State Attorney Bach: Yes. This emerges from the first page, but the first page is in Hebrew - that is a declaration before the consul, and it is in Hebrew. The text is in German.

Presiding Judge: [To interpreter) Do you have the text of the affirmation? Would you please translate it for Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: There is no need to translate - I accept the Prosecution's word. It seems to me that this man did not himself write this statement of fifty-two pages. It says that he is over seventy-five years of age. He is an ill man. He made this declaration in July, 1960. And, hence, this seems to be a composition based on statements made by him. I, therefore, have apprehensions as regards accepting this as a document and as evidence.

As far as the value of this account is concerned, the Attorney General has said that other documents are available which confirm the same story. This is true. I have read this document and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing new in this document. Hence, this is nothing more than a question of accumulative weight or value. I, therefore, believe that further evidence on what has already been submitted should not be allowed. The Court should be able to assess the probative effect on the basis of what I have said concerning the accumulative value of the evidence and on the basis of yesterday's affidavit.

Better evidence is available. From what is stated on page 18 it appears that the witness testified before a German court, and there it says: "In my evidence, which I gave in Frankfurt-am-Main last spring, in the proceedings against that same Hunsche, I gave a detailed account of a discussion I had with him in the Majestic Hotel in 1944." And on page 36, he speaks of the witness Reich who has already been questioned here.

I am of the opinion, therefore, that the evidence is not relevant. It is merely a detailed argument against Eichmann, and accordingly I request that this document should not be admitted.

May I be permitted to add that if this document should be admitted, I would request an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Whether he is fit to give evidence will have to be determined by a competent judge on the spot. I have not seen the medical certificates, but they must be official, not private certificates.

Presiding Judge: In any event, you should, of course, be able to see the certificates; it does not say there that he is unable to testify in Canada.

Dr. Servatius: We see from these certificates that, while he cannot be expected to travel, it is possible to interrogate him there.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, did I hear you correctly to say that if the witness should be required to give evidence in Canada, you would prefer to forego his testimony?

State Attorney Bach: Yes, Your Honour, we have had a most regrettable experience. The Court will remember the case of Dr. Loewenherz who also fell ill after he had, in fact, made a statement in connection with this trial.* {*A short time later, his condition deteriorated, and he died.} I do not maintain that this was necessarily the cause of it, but at any rate, since we are talking here of heart disease, and it is also obvious that the witness is likely to be greatly excited by an interrogation such as this - we should not like to subject him to questioning.

Presiding Judge: You do not have any medical proof to the effect that he is unable to testify in Canada?

State Attorney Bach: I thought that this fact would be understood from the certificates - there are two of them - that the man is unable to come here for questioning.

Presiding Judge: [Quotes from the certificate] "He is not fit to undertake a journey by plane and to testify in a trial." But there are all kinds of ways. The judge could come to his home there, and that would no longer be "a trial." But there is no confirmation that this, too, would be out of the question.

Judge Halevi: Perhaps it can be done voluntarily, and not by compulsion. That is to say, we should not take a decision now to take his evidence, that he should be summoned for examination, unless the matter is proved by means of a medical certificate, as Dr. Servatius has pointed out; for this you are not willing to put him in danger. But perhaps it could be ascertained, by means of a cable to him, whether he is prepared, for his part, in the light of his present state of health, to be questioned by a Canadian court, and that additional questions can be put to him by the Defence, as may be necessary.

Perhaps the witness himself would be interested, since his name has been mentioned several times in this trial, and not in a positive way. He may perhaps regret if his affidavit is to be waived, in order that his health should not be imperilled. Perhaps he will then complain: "I would have testified in Canada." He can be asked.

State Attorney Bach: Possibly. Perhaps it is possible to examine whether he is capable of testifying, from a medical point of view. It is also possible to obtain a more specific medical certificate.

Judge Raveh: Perhaps not in a court, but before the consul or a commissioner?

Presiding Judge: The judge should be able to proceed to his house. All this is not clear.

State Attorney Bach: I am ready to clarify these issues.

Presiding Judge: I think we should mark these two certificates. At any event, they are of some importance. The exhibit number will be T/1224.

Dr. Servatius: May I be permitted to request copies of these two certificates?

Presiding Judge: We shall return them to Mr. Bach, and he will prepare copies, both for the judges and for the Defence. We shall not give any decision at this stage, but we shall allow you to go further into the question of the state of health of this witness, before giving a decision. When we have the reply - and I hope this will be soon - we shall give our decision.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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