(3) There is a violation of Article 60 of the Geneva Convention, because Switzerland was not informed, as the protecting power for prisoners of war, of the criminal proceedings pending against me.
(4) The sentence imposed on me violates generally recognized legal principles. It is based on the Control Council Law No. 10, dated 20 December 1945, and the ex post facto definitions contained therein. The sentence has inflicted punishment on me for crimes against humanity, that is, on the basis of an act which was for the first time declared punishable by Control Council Law No. 10.
The suspension of this universally recognized legal principle by a new law cannot change justice itself. The validity of this special law must be tested by the court.
(5) The sentence violates the basic principle nulla poena sine culpa, because it punished me according to Article II, 2c and d of the Control Council Law. These parts of the Control Council Laws allow punishment for mere consent to an act and for a merely objective “connection” with the planning or execution of such act. These provisions represent new substantive law that has been created ex post facto.
(6) During the trial I was limited in my defense in an inadmissible way. My defense counsel, Attorney Dr. Fritz, twice requested, in the prescribed manner, that Prof. Dr. Blanc, a French citizen and director of the Pasteur Institute in Casablanca, Morocco, be summoned as an expert witness in the examination of the research work of Prof. Haagen. The medical research work of Prof. Haagen concerns such difficult medical problems that it cannot, in my opinion, be judged by judges who lack medical training, without the expert testimony of a capable specialist. However, the Court did not approve the requests. This is in my opinion the only reason that I was found guilty in connection with the research work of Haagen.
(7) It is further asserted that the principle of oral proceedings was violated. In the final stages of the trial the Court ordered a partly written procedure. Although the main trial had lasted many months and there was an extremely abundant amount of material to discuss, from a factual as well as a legal standpoint, my defense counsel was only allowed one hour for his closing speech. As for the remaining arguments he was advised to present a closing brief. In this way the protection of publicity was denied and the guarantee removed that the Court would really take cognizance of these written statements.
It was not possible for me to receive information concerning these written statements of my co-defendants in time to take action thereon.
The contents of the closing brief which my defense counsel submitted, and the contents of his rebuttal to the closing brief submitted by the prosecutor against me have obviously not been considered in the findings of the Court, although the Court described the closing brief which it demanded as the most important part of the defense. The English translations of the closing brief and rebuttal to the closing brief of the prosecution arrived so late that it seems impossible that the Court could have taken note of the contents before writing the verdict.
Several closing briefs which had been submitted by the defense counsels of my co-defendants were not even available at the time when the verdict was read.
I assume that the Court could not peruse the rebuttal of my defense counsels to the closing brief of the prosecution before writing the verdict, because the verdict, insofar as it pertains to my case, contains several obviously false statements of facts and furthermore does not even analyze these statements.