PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-340PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 257
LETTER FROM BOUHLER, CHIEF OF THE FUEHRER’S NAZI PARTY CHANCELLERY, TO LAMMERS, 26 JULY 1939, CONCERNING HITLER’S DECISION TO PLACE PERSONS IN SECURITY DETENTION UNDER HIMMLER FOR WORK IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
LETTER FROM BOUHLER, CHIEF OF THE FUEHRER’S NAZI PARTY CHANCELLERY, TO LAMMERS, 26 JULY 1939, CONCERNING HITLER’S DECISION TO PLACE PERSONS IN SECURITY DETENTION UNDER HIMMLER FOR WORK IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
Berlin W 8, 26 July 1939Vosstrasse 4
The Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer in the NSDAP
To the
Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers
Subject: People in security detention
Dear Party Member Dr. Lammers,
Some time ago the Reich Leader SS made a request to the Reich Minister of Justice to the effect that some of the people in security detention be put at his disposal for important work in the concentration camps. The urgency for this increased, when on the 50th birthday of the Fuehrer a great number of persons in protective custody were dismissed. The request of the Reich Leader SS was refused in the letter of 14 July 1938 because these persons apart from carrying out work to fulfill the requirements of the penal institutes also did such work as appeared urgent under the Four Year Plan. When, however, the penitentiary Brandenburg-Goehrden was inspected by the chief of the office for matters concerning pardoning, the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, it was established that a large number of the people in security detention were busy painting cardboard soldiers for private firms. Considering the far more important work (which can actually be regarded as urgent in connection with the Four Year Plan) which is being carried out by prisoners, for example, in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen and in the adjoining brick yard, the Fuehrer has ordered that all dispensable persons in security detention are to be put at the disposal of the Reich Leader SS immediately.
At the request of the Reich Leader SS, after inspecting the concentration camp Sachsenhausen in the spring, I supported the request he made to the Fuehrer. I was then given the order to ascertain the way in which the persons in security detention were occupied at the present time. During the process of my investigation I established what was required, and I also received the following report from the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning this matter:
“According to the most recent information, there were 4,303 persons in security detention. Of these 4,096 are working; i. e., 721 of them (16.8 percent) are carrying out work for the requirement of the penal institutes and other authorities; and 3,375 persons in security detention (78.4 percent) are engaged in work in connection with the Four Year Plan (including work for export and for military use). The remaining 207 persons in security detention (4.8 percent) were not working on the day of my investigation, in consequence of illness or because they had to undergo a term of imprisonment.”
“According to the most recent information, there were 4,303 persons in security detention. Of these 4,096 are working; i. e., 721 of them (16.8 percent) are carrying out work for the requirement of the penal institutes and other authorities; and 3,375 persons in security detention (78.4 percent) are engaged in work in connection with the Four Year Plan (including work for export and for military use). The remaining 207 persons in security detention (4.8 percent) were not working on the day of my investigation, in consequence of illness or because they had to undergo a term of imprisonment.”
There can be no doubt that the persons in security detention who are working on the toys mentioned, and who, per person, enable the institute to earn daily RM 1.20-1.80 are inserted under the heading of “urgent work for the Four Year Plan.”
In consequence of my report in Obersalzberg, the Fuehrer, who already had leanings toward this interpretation after my first report, decided that the persons in security detention were to be incorporated into the concentration camps under jurisdiction of the Reich Leader SS.
I have on purpose refrained from informing the Reich Minister of Justice directly. I request you to inform the Reich Minister of Justice of the decision of the Fuehrer.
I have informed the Reich Leader SS of the decision of the Fuehrer and of my letter to you.
Heil Hitler!
Yours faithfully
[Signed]Bouhler
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-190PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 284
VARIOUS MEMORANDUMS AND LISTS OF REICH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 28 SEPTEMBER 1939 TO 7 MARCH 1941, CONCERNING EXECUTIONS WITHOUT TRIAL OR EXECUTIONS AFTER TRIAL UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
VARIOUS MEMORANDUMS AND LISTS OF REICH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 28 SEPTEMBER 1939 TO 7 MARCH 1941, CONCERNING EXECUTIONS WITHOUT TRIAL OR EXECUTIONS AFTER TRIAL UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Note by Reich Minister of Justice Guertner to Lammers, 28 September 1939, Concerning Executions of Three Persons Without Trial and Urging Clarification of Problems Created by Punishment “Without Criminal Proceedings and Without a Sentence.”
Note
1.Publications in the press
a.The Reich Leader SS and chief of the German police reports that Johann Heinen, Dessau, was shot on 7 September 1939, because of his refusal to cooperate in tasks for the protection of the security of the national defense. In addition, Heinen was a criminal who had been convicted previously for theft.
b.The Reich Leader SS and chief of the German police reports the following have been shot:
(1) On 11 September 1939 Paul Mueller from Halle because of arson and sabotage. Mueller had been convicted previously 8 times to imprisonment and penitentiaries because of crimes violating property rights.
(2) On 15 September 1939 August Dickmann from Dinslaken, born 7 January 1910, because of his refusal to fulfill his duty as a soldier. D. stated as a reason for his refusal that he was a Jehovah’s Witness. He was a fanatical follower of the internationalsect of the serious explorers of the Bible [ernste Bibelforscher, Jehovah’s Witnesses].
2.Statement of facts—Details are not known here since the judicial authorities had nothing to do with the matter. Whether the military judicial authorities have knowledge of it (case Dickmann) is not known here either.
3.Legal basis for the executions without trial—The Fuehrer is said to have ordered these executions, or to have approved them. Furthermore, he is said to have ordered that the Reich Leader SS should maintain by all means the security within the territory of the Reich, and this order includes also immediate execution in cases of actions in violation of war laws (report of SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Best).
Upon the request for information about this order of the Fuehrer, Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich replied that the Minister of Justice should contact the Fuehrer directly in regard to the executions.
4.Legal situation—Should the information made available to the Ministry of Justice be correct, then a concurrent jurisdiction would now exist in the nonoccupied territory of the Reich, that is outside of the area of combat and operation. There would exist in this area a concurrent jurisdiction for the punishment of war crimes between the People’s Court, the military courts, and the Special Court on one hand, and the police on the other hand. According to which criteria should the question of the competency be decided in the individual case?
Within the nonoccupied territory the state of public order and security does not permit that any authority should be hampered or disturbed in its activities.
The criminal procedure according to the war laws is practically the same as the procedure before the courts martial. The Special Courts have just not beencalledcourts martial. I refer to the case of the farmer Glein from Obersleben near Weimar, who during the night of 18 September 1939 put fire to his grain-rick and thus destroyed 100 hundred-weights of grain. He was sentenced to death by the Special Court on 18 September 1939.
5. In a further case (Ernst Georgi of Freiberg), a warrant of arrest had been issued against the defendant on charges of fraud. The State Police, Office Plauen, suggested to place Georgi at the disposal of the Secret State Police, and to cancel the trial fixed for the 18th of this month, since this file should be treated in a special way according to an order of the chief of the Security Police and, therefore, a transfer to the trial in Freiberg would not be feasible.
In this case the crime was committed before the war decree [Kriegsverordnung] took effect. After a short period the defendant was returned to the public prosecutor. The trial took place, and the sentence (10 years penitentiary, and protective custody) was passed on 26 September 1939. The Security Police did not refer to a general order in this case. What the legal basis was for the interference with the court proceedings, is not known to me.
6. I think it to be urgent that the problem, whether crimes committed in the nonoccupied territories should be punished according to the war laws, or by the police without criminal proceedings and without a sentence, be clarified in general.
Berlin, 28 September 1939
[Signed]Dr. Guertner
The above note, I handed over to colleague Lammers on 28 September 1939.
Berlin, 30 September 1939
[Signed]Dr. Guertner
2. Handwritten File Note by Guertner, 14 October 1939, on a Conference with Lammers Concerning Executions Without Trial upon Order of Hitler
Note: 14 October 1939, 12:00 V. [Noon]
Lammers saw me by order of the Fuehrer.
He said that yesterday he had informed the Fuehrer about the contents of my manuscript. The Fuehrer said he had not issuedgeneraldirections. He said he had ordered the 3 executions [Erschiessungen]. He also could not give up this right in individual cases, since the courts (military and civilian) did not prove capable of coping with the peculiar conditions of war.
Thus, he had ordered now the execution of the Teltow bank robbers. Himmler would contact me in this matter before the day is over.
14 October 1939
[Signed]Guertner
3. Draft of a Proposed Letter from Guertner to Himmler, 30 November 1939, Concerning the “Carrying-out of Death Sentences”
3. Draft of a Proposed Letter from Guertner to Himmler, 30 November 1939, Concerning the “Carrying-out of Death Sentences”
Berlin, 30 November 1939
The Reich Minister of Justice
To the
Subject: Carrying-out of death sentences
Enclosures: 2 documents (one copy of sheets 110–115 of the file IIIg 19 5039/39 and one of the attached list II, sheets 67–72 of the file IIIg10a5010/39)
[Handwritten marginal note] To be submitted again on 30 November 1939
[Initialed]Gtr[Guertner]
Dear Herr Himmler!
For your information I submit in the enclosure[197]two copies of list reports to the Fuehrer about the death sentences passed since 3 September 1939, the day I have been put in charge of decisions about appeals for mercy in regard to death sentences—and about the decisions I made, or intend to make.
In regard to the shootings, mentioned at the end of list II it has been published in the press that the perpetrators, as for instance in the cases of Latacz, Jacobs, and Gluth, had made themselves guilty of resistance by force or, as for instance in the case of Potzleschak, had tried to escape. Let me point out that these publications—always using the same phraseology—were apt to attract the same attention of at least those persons who participated in the criminal proceedings. On the day before the shooting of Latacz the press had reported about the trial which took place in the hospital for prisoners on remand. Latacz who prior to his transfer was lying in the prison hospital, had a bandage with metal braces. Thus, also the broad public was informed about his physical condition, and knew that a resistance was hardly possible in such a condition.
Heil Hitler!
Yours very much devoted
To be signed by the Minister
[initialed] Dr. C.[198][Crohne]
28 November
4. List compiled by the Reich Ministry of Justice tabulating information concerning 18 persons executed without sentence or after sentences for a term of years[199]
5. File Note of 6 March 1941 Submitted by Dr. Crohne to the defendant Schlegelberger, concerning “Executions Planned and Carried Out on the Basis of Dubious Information”
5. File Note of 6 March 1941 Submitted by Dr. Crohne to the defendant Schlegelberger, concerning “Executions Planned and Carried Out on the Basis of Dubious Information”
1.Gluth case—In the summer of 1939 the almost 18-year-old locksmith apprentice Gluth set 4 fires in Marquardt near Potsdam in order to disturb the population, and to show off afterwards as an especially efficient member of the fire brigade. The medical expert stated that Gluth was still in the age of puberty and that the state of his development was equal to that of a 16½-year-old boy. In the opinion of the experts his acts were caused by the physical and mental changes connected with the age of puberty, and further by the awakening of the desire to do important things, which is typical for this age. Sentence: 10 years’ imprisonment.
The Fuehrer ordered his execution. According to the statement of SS Brigadefuehrer Mueller, the expert opinion was known to the Fuehrer, but the latter stated that it would be foolish to save such persons, who are a danger for society for further infamous actions. On 19 November 1939 Gluth was shot for offering resistance.
2.Trampe case—Trampe stole jewels and clothes from the apartment of a friend, who was the wife of a soldier, and pawned these articles for RM 200. He had access to the apartment in his capacity of repair man. Afterward the soldier’s wife and her husband agreed with Trampe on the damage. Trampe defended himself by stating that he was by want compelled to steal, that he intended to redeem the stolen objects later and that he was sure from the beginning that the couple would forgive him afterward because of their friendship and because of his distressed condition. The court accepted his statement as true and sentenced him to 6 years of penitentiary. The press reported that his defense was untruthful, and that it was not accepted as true by the court.
Trampe was shot on 27 September 1940 by order of the Fuehrer. It is not known here whether the shooting took place merely on account of the incorrect reports of the press.
3.Jackubetzki case—The milker Jackubetzki had a savings account in the Landeshaus in Breslau. These were the savings from his wages. One day he came to Breslau without money and wanted to withdraw his savings. Since the Landeshaus was already closed, he got the idea of taking away the handbag from a woman walking in front of him in order to get money for his trip home. He did that, and was sentenced to 10 years penitentiary.
Referring to a press report in the “Nachtausgabe” [Evening Edition] (not in the file) the Fuehrer expressed, on 9 December 1940, by phone through the SS Gruppenfuehrer Schaub his astonishmentabout the fact that J. was not sentenced to death. In the “Nachtausgabe” the case was misrepresented; it could not be seen from the article that the deed concerned was prompted by the occasion.
On 26 February, Under Secretary Dr. Freisler conferred with SS Gruppenfuehrer Schaub and related to him the details of the perpetration, whereupon Schaub considers the case as settled.
4.Kuhlmey case—Kuhlmey in his capacity as an auditor knew a number of manufacturers who were drafted into the army. He asked their wives to authorize him to adjust their allowance cases. He cheated the wives of 4 soldiers by giving them altogether about RM 375 less than he had received at the public welfare office. He cheated the public welfare office of about RM 3,000 by obtaining allowances on false pretenses and without the knowledge of the woman concerned, and by keeping the money for himself. Sentence: 5 years penitentiary. There still are some minor cases to be sentenced.
On 14 October 1940, Schaub notified us by phone that the Fuehrer had learned about the case through an article in the V.B. [Voelkischer Beobachter] of 9 October 1940. If, in the still open cases the death sentence should not be imposed, a transfer to the State Police will be ordered. It cannot be seen from the report of the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” under the headline, “Soldiers’ wives thoroughly cheated” that K. caused detriment first of all to the welfare office and in addition also to a few women. It contains some hints though that K. also received subsidies which were not due to the women, but creates the impression that the total amount of about RM 3,500 was withheld to the detriment of soldiers’ wives.
[Handwritten note] Submitted to Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger according to order. Case 1 does not belong here.
[Illegible initial] 6 March 1941
[Illegible initial] 6 March
7 March
[Signed]Dr. Crohne
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-369PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 258
LETTER FROM PEOPLE’S COURT PRESIDENT, THIERACK, TO GUERTNER, 14 AUGUST 1940, RECOMMENDING TRANSFER TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITHOUT TRIAL OF PERSONS FALLING WITHIN A “MINOR GUILT” CATEGORY OF HIGH TREASON
LETTER FROM PEOPLE’S COURT PRESIDENT, THIERACK, TO GUERTNER, 14 AUGUST 1940, RECOMMENDING TRANSFER TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITHOUT TRIAL OF PERSONS FALLING WITHIN A “MINOR GUILT” CATEGORY OF HIGH TREASON
The President of the People’s Court
1400-I, Confidential!
To the Reich Minister of Justice
Berlin W 8
Wilhelmstr. 65
Berlin W 8, 14 August 1940Bellevuestr. 15
[Stamp]
Reich Ministry of Justice17 August 1940Dept. III
Immediately after I was recalled from the war, I realized that things were not as I had expected when plans for the People’s Court were worked out. It was overloaded with trials and this because it had to handle cases which it had certainly not been intended to judge. This happened especially in cases which arose in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia because as yet there was no possibility of transferring the cases to the courts of appeal. But even among cases which are ready for such a transfer there are some which should not be dealt with by the courts of appeal for various reasons.
However right it is to exterminate harshly and uproot all the seeds of insurrection, as for example we see them in Bohemia and Moravia, it is wrong for every follower [Mitlaeufer], even the smallest, to be given the honor of appearing for trial and being judged for high treason before a People’s Court or, failing that, before a court of appeal. In order to deal with these small cases and even with the smallest, the culprits should surely be shown that German sovereignty will not put up with their behavior and that it will take action accordingly. But that can also be done in a different manner, and I think in a more advantageous one, than through the tedious and also very expensive and ponderous channels of court procedure.
I have therefore no objection whatsoever if all the small and smallest followers who are somehow connected with the high treason plans which have been woven and plotted by others are brought to their senses by being transferred to aconcentration campfor some time. This would have the further advantage that dispositions would be taken quickly and that they would be doubly effective because of that, and that these dispositions could be rapidly modified if by the measures taken the culprit were brought to a better attitude.
One can think, in addition to this, of the many cases ofarticle 90c of the Criminal(Penal)Code, in which, by inconsiderately exploiting the strong position of the foreign state, persons whohad to cross the border for some reason or other (work, or visiting relatives) were used to find out something about the neighboring state. This occurred particularly frequently in the border areas which were at that time Polish or Czech.
In any case, I consider it to be anabsolutelyessential prerequisite that all these cases should be submitted first of all to the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the People’s Court for penal prosecution. If he considers thatarticle 153, Code of Penal Procedurecan be made to apply, then the People’s Court will be able to give its consent to this in nearly all cases. Then the accused would be put at the disposal of the Security Police with the injunction that he be placed in a concentration camp for a certain period of time.
I start from the principle that the conception of minor guilt in the sense of article 153, Code of Penal Procedure is naturally not the same in cases which are suitable for the People’s Court, as in those cases in which the official judge has to decide. Even if this conception is relative and depends on the nature of the offense, alegal extension of article 153, Code of Penal Procedureshould surely be made in order to presume insignificance of guilt for an act which can be characterized as a crime, as, e.g., crimes in the nature of high treason in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia.
[Signed]Thierack
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-540PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 260
LETTER FROM MEISSNER[200]TO DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER, 22 APRIL 1941, CONCERNING TRANSFER OF CONVICTED PRISONERS TO THE GESTAPO
Berlin W 8, 22 April 1941Voss-Strasse 4
The Minister of State
and Chief of the Presidential
Chancellery of the Fuehrer
and Reich Chancellor
RP 83/41 Secret
02/312
Personal
Confidential
Dear Herr Schlegelberger!
In the matter of the transfer of convicted prisoners to the Secret State Police, Reich Leader Martin Bormann has meanwhile informed me by order of the Fuehrer that the Fuehrer does not consider it necessary to procure opinions from the Reich Ministry of Justice on sentences which are submitted to him for reviewing. The question remained unsettled of whether the Fuehrer wants to request the transmittal of sentences himself or to hear your opinion in cases in which no sentence is submitted. At present, however, I do not consider it expedient to pursue the matter by sending another letter to Reich Leader Bormann. I would, however, leave it to your discretion to inform me briefly and with the utmost speed prior to the transfer of the prisoners to the Secret State Police about the factual and legal situation of all those cases in which you think that essential details for the evaluation of the perpetrator’s character or of the crime have not been brought to the Fuehrer’s attention. I shall then inform the Fuehrer of the details I learn from you as far as the case requires this. The transfer of the convicted prisoners to the Secret State Police may be postponed in these cases for a short period until you hear from me again.
Heil Hitler!
Yours very truly
[Signed]Dr. Meissner
To State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger
Reich Ministry of Justice
Berlin W 8
Wilhelmstrasse 65
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 648-PSPROSECUTION EXHIBIT 264
DIRECTIVE ON BEHALF OF THE REICH MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, 22 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING THE “TRANSFER OF ASOCIAL PRISONERS TO THE POLICE”
DIRECTIVE ON BEHALF OF THE REICH MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, 22 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING THE “TRANSFER OF ASOCIAL PRISONERS TO THE POLICE”
Reich Minister of Justice
IV a 1665/42 g.
Berlin W 8, 22 October 1942Wilhelmstrasse 65Tel. 11 00 44Long Dist. 11 65 16
To the Attorneys General
For information
[Stamp]Secret
A. Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People’s Court
B. Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal,
Subject: Transfer of asocial prisoners to the police
I. In agreement with the Reich Leader SS, the following group of lawfully sentenced prisoners confined to penal institutions will be transferred to the custody of the Reich Leader SS.[201]
1. Jews—men and women—detained under arrest, protective custody, or in the workhouse.
2. Gypsies—men and women—detained under arrest, protective custody, or in the workhouse.
3. Russians and Ukrainians residing in the Reich as non-refugees (excluding Latvians, Esthonians, and Lithuanians) detained under arrest, protective custody, or in the workhouse.
4. Poles residing in the former Polish state territory on 1 September 1939, men and women, sentenced to penal camps or subsequently turned over for penal execution, if sentence is over 3 years, or includes subsequent protective custody, (including Kriegstaeter [perpetrators of crimes during war time] and persons in protective custody).
5. Menonly, in protective custody (except those sentenced by Austrian Law to workhouse according to sec. 1, par. 2, Reichsgesetzblatt, No. 165, dated 10 June 1932).
6. Convicts sentenced to subsequent protective custody—menonly(including Kriegstaeter). Excepted from this transfer are—
a.Those sentenced by an armed forces court and by an SS and police court.
b.Prisoners of war.
c.Those sentenced by Dutch courts.
d.Those sentenced by former Yugoslav courts.
e.Foreigners, not coming under groups 1–4. People from the Protectorate and stateless persons are considered natives.
Until further notice, the transfer is to be postponed for—
a.Those sentenced by former Polish courts or by the present courts of the Government General. Poles, sentenced by former Polish courts in the Occupied Eastern Territories can however be transferred.
b.Germans sentenced by German courts in the Occupied Eastern Territories, in the Government General, in Holland, in Norway, Alsace, Lorraine or Luxembourg.
c.Those sentenced by the courts of Alsace, Lorraine, and Luxembourg.
d.Nationals of the Protectorate.
Those in protective custody and in the penitentiary with subsequent protective custody are to be selected for special screening by the [department] concerned, Department XV of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and, therefore, are also not to be transferred immediately if the institution is convinced that release from protective custody would enter into the question within a predictable time. On account of their favorable development during the execution of punishment (not merely because of old age or similar reasons). Those who are sentenced to additional protective custody upon completion of punishment for high treason and sedition are generally to be selected for this special screening. Department XV of the Reich Ministry of Justice will decide which of the prisoners who are not to be transferred according to this shall be excepted permanently from the transfer.
The director of the institution is personally responsible for the selection of prisoners to be transferred.
If doubt arises in individual cases whether the transfer shall be made, the decision of the Reich Ministry of Justice has to be requested. The same applies if a prisoner who is considered for transfer is still needed as a witness, etc., in other proceedings or in cases of additional sentence by a court.
II. The decisive day fixed for lawful sentence is 1 November 1942. Only prisoners lawfully sentenced before 1 November are liable for transfer. Further directives concerning arrest, confinement in special institutions, and so forth, of those legally convicted later, are reserved.
III. Sick prisoners are not exempted from transfer, they are to be transferred as soon as they are transportable. Final decision on insane prisoners is reserved, transfer at the present is postponed.
IV. In preparation for transfer of prisoners belonging to groups I, 1–6, excluding cases of postponement, lists bearing name and current number of each prisoner, separate for each group, and 1–4 for men and women, are to be executed by the institutions. Four copies have to be sent directly from the institution to the Reich Ministry of Justice for the attention of President of the SenateHecker. The first lists are to be executed according to the status existing on 1 November of this year. Supplementary lists, compare II, also, on the status at 1 December of this year and 1 January 1943, and are to be submitted up to the 8th day of the month in question. Institutions having over 100 prisoners for transfer, submit partial lists for 100–200 prisoners, whenever completed.
The lists must be divided as follows:
V. Prisoners not yet consigned to the proper institution, or temporarily consigned to other institutions, will be specified by the competent institution, to which they are to be delivered as soon as possible.
VI. Slowdown of production in vital armament factories, is to be avoided during transfer of prisoners. Therefore, the transfer has to be effected gradually with distribution over several months, as deemed necessary by the individual institutions, in consideration of the factories. At the same time, the institutions most affected are already filled up because of changes in the execution plans. The number of prisoners and the time of transfer for the different districts, will be announced here from time to time.
VII. With completion of the transfer to the police, the penal term is considered interrupted. Transfer to the police is to be reported to the penal authority, and in cases of custody to the superior executive authority, with the information that the interruptionof the penal term has been ordered by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
VIII. Preparatory to examinations of all male penitentiary prisoners, sentenced to terms over 8 years, the directors of institutions concerned received verbal instructions at the Reich Ministry of Justice. These instructions are valid correspondingly for persons in protective custody and penitentiary prisoners with additional protective custody, whose transfer has been postponed until examination of case by department XV of the Reich Ministry of Justice (compare I, par. (4)).
IX. The information of this statute is to be given exclusively to such directors of institutions, for whom its knowledge is an absolute necessity in consideration of the incarcerated prisoners. The number of these directors is to be kept as small as possible, by concentration of the prisoners concerned, in some cases in agreement with the adjacent districts. Concerning convicts with a sentence of more than 8 years, such concentration has already been ordered from here.
X. I request that special care be taken for the apprehension of all prisoners, including those not delivered to the competent institution, or those transferred to other institutions for industrial reasons.
By order:
[Typed signature] Dr. Crohne
Certified: [Signed]Kirsten
As Administrative Assistant
[Ministerialkanzleiobersekretaer]
[Seal]
Reich Ministry of Justice
Office of the Ministry