1) that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is again fit for trial;

2) at any rate, that the accused be not tried in his absence.

i) The medical position is that as far as can be foreseen the said defendant will never again be fit for trial, and therefore if he is not tried in his absence, he will not be tried at all.

ii) Although in an ordinary case it is undesirable that a defendant should be tried when he is unable to comprehend the charges made against him, or to give instruction for his defence, there are special considerations which apply to this case and make it essential for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in his absence.

iii) As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G. would be evidence against the remaining defendants, if the Prosecution establishes a prima facie case: a) that the conspiracy existed;

b) that the said defendant was a party to the conspiracy.

Such prima facie case is clearly indicated in the Indictment lodged with the Tribunal and the evidence against the present defendant set out in the American Answer to this Application.

iv) If this submission of the British Chief Prosecutor is correct and this evidence can and will be given in Court, then it is at least arguable that it is preferable for the said defendant to be represented so that his lawyer can deal with such evidence to the best of his ability.

v) It is a matter of common knowledge of which the Court may take cognisance that the business of Fried. Krupp A.G. is