“Q. Then you knew that these ten people that he talked with, and the one or two that you talked with, were not there by reason of any action on the part of the Ministry of Justice or the court, but were there only by reason of action by the police or by the Party, did you not?
“A. Yes. That was preventive custody undertaken by the police.”
The witness Hartmann testified further:
“Q. And they had already served their sentences as imposed by court before they were taken into this custody of the police, is that right?
“A. Yes. That is how I see it.
“Q. And at that time, these twelve people who had served their sentences and had been taken over by the police—that met with the approval of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, as I understand you?
“A. Well [we] did not approve the concentration camp as an institution altogether, but first of all we wanted to achieve this—that it would no longer happen that a defendant was acquitted and then after acquittal the Gestapo arrested (him) in front of the courtroom. * * * In those cases, too, he did not approve the fact that these people were in a concentration camp because we were of the opinion that only the administration of justice should decide these questions of criminal law and nobody else. But according to the power conditions within the State, as they happened to exist, our interest was first of all to remove the worst evils.”
Upon redirect examination by counsel for the defendant Rothenberger, defense witness Hartmann testified as follows:
“Q. Therefore, sometimes was the situation for you and Dr. Rothenberger like this: that apparently you affirmed something with a smiling face, something which as a human being you had to disapprove of and reject?”
To this question the witness answered that Dr. Rothenberger “for reasons of power politics” had to accept the conditions though he did not approve them. After his inspection of Mauthausen concentration camp, Dr. Rothenberger took no action whatsoever with regard to the information which he had received.