(page 4 of original)
permissible at that moment and moreover a German field marshal could not be released in any case under existing German law.
After this explanation on my part, the American major conducting the proceedings revealed to me that another separate release proceeding would have to be carried out against me then.
Thereby it is clear that I am still a prisoner of war today. At any rate, I was when the trial begun and therefore in accordance with Article 60 of the Geneva Convention the protecting power for German prisoners of war, viz., Switzerland, should have been informed of the proceedings. This too constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929. If the public prosecution authorities, however, were to refer to the fact that I was released after the trial had begun, then they should be confronted with the assertion that such a release is invalid. It would represent nothing but an evasion of the regulations of the Geneva Convention of 1929. I was not set at large for a single day. But that is demanded by a release from captivity as a prisoner of war. A release from captivity as a prisoner of war while maintaining captivity would be a release in fraudem legis.
Therefore the sentence constitutes a violation of international law. At the same time this violation is also a violation of the Habeas Corpus Act. None, under whatever pretext, may be deprived of the rights of legal proceedings and of a legal judge.
I therefore request the Supreme Court in Washington to examine whether the Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany may be applied in my case, and whether, with due regard to the regulations of Article 60-65 of the Geneva Convention, the present Military Court II
(page 5 of original)
Nuernberg was in a position to pass sentence on me.
Furthermore I enclose a copy of my petition to the Governor-General [Military Governor of U. S. Zone of Occupation].
[Signed] Erhard Milch