Presiding Judge Marshall: One moment, please. The witness answered, some little time ago, that these reports to the RSHA and the answers from them were for the purposes of justifying the opinions of the lower court. At that point, Dr. Koessl asked the question whether it was intended as an interference of those opinions. I couldn’t observe that the witness answered that question, and I should like to know whether it was an interference and not merely an attempt to justify.
Witness Elkar: In as much as we discussed these cases at our level, one could not speak of interference in the individual cases. How far the RSHA, through conferences with the various ministries—in this case, the Ministry of Justice—could interfere, I am not in a position to estimate.
Q. I am not so much concerned as to how much they could do, but I am very much interested in knowing what they did do, if anything, in the matter of interference.
A. Well, of course we reported with the intention that a wrong development in individual cases should find correction occasionally, but I am not so familiar with that in the legal field. We received instructions from superior offices that in this one or the other case a measure from the Ministry or the respective superior office was caused by the report.
Dr. Koessl: Wasn’t it so that at that time the fact had become apparent and noticed that offices which were outside the administration of justice were frequently concerned with matters of justice; for instance, offices of the NSDAP, Kreisleiters, and so on?
Witness Elkar: Yes.
Q. Were the conferences also concerned with the attempt of preventing such interference?
A. I can hardly remember that when speaking to Rothaug that problem was ever discussed to any extent. Occasionally, when mention was made from the outside, that question was touched too; but if I remember correctly, Rothaug was of the position that the Party, for instance, was definitely justified to make its intentions known to the court; he said in the same manner which, for instance, the administration of mail service—in case of a fraud on the part of one of the officials—gives its expert opinion about the case, then in the same manner that right should be conceded to the Party. For that reason, he offered at all times information to the Party and gave also advance information about pending cases and an opportunity to state its—the Party’s—point of view.
Q. That was originated by law, if I remember correctly, Witness. Wasn’t it provided that in penal cases against members of the Party, on the basis of a legal decision, the Party had to be informed?
A. Yes, that of course.