M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President.
This judgment sets out in detail that the judges no longer wish to pronounce a penalty which might result in preventive detention.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear the question?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, Mr. President, but why did they not want to pass sentence? I had the German translation here in my hands, and I took this translation as my basis in this matter because I did not recall this judgment. I read it here, and I remember that it stated there that these Dutch prisoners were to go to German concentration camps to be tortured and executed.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn’t appear to say anything about that in the judgment before us. There is nothing about that in the judgment, is there?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, the defendant claims that the judges did not wish to pronounce any such judgment any more so that people would not be sent to concentration camps to be tortured or executed. There is no question of that in the judgment. The only thing that is mentioned is that the court did not want to inflict any penalty which would result in the people being sent away to concentration camps. I do not see that there is anything in this judgment which the defendant might consider as a personal insult or injury.
SEYSS-INQUART: Now I have the German text. It reads:
“The court wishes to take into consideration the fact that for some time judges have imposed penalties and that Dutch criminals of male sex, contrary to legal prescription and contrary to the intention of the legislator and the judge, have been executed and are being executed in the camp in a manner which”—and so forth.
Those are the concentration camps which the court meant. It concerns the fact that prisoners were sent from Dutch prisons to German camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, M. Debenest.