. NMT02-T0885
Volume II · Page 885
The violation of the regulations of the Geneva Convention has now come about with the passing of sentence and the now existing restrictions placed in the way of contesting the verdict, not already by the trial as such.
I am still a prisoner of war. I have not been released from captivity. I am therefore still under the protection of the Geneva Convention, the same as before.
The violation of the Geneva Convention is all the more serious, in that I am still a prisoner of war of the British. True, the defense counsel was told at the beginning of the trial in reply to an ex- press question, that my transfer to the jurisdiction of the United States of America was already effected, but it was not proved until the conclusion of the passing of sentence. That should have been absolutely necessary.
After the serving of the indictment and the beginning of the actual trial, an attempt was made on 4 January 1947 to gain my veiled consent to my release without saying anything, whereby I was asked to accept release money. On the receipt, however, I expressly noted, "Without recognizing my release". I declared that release by American officers was not
(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.
