. NMT03-T1105
Volume III · Page 1105
an interruption, if necessary, in the execution of their sentence. This can only be done if an agreement is reached with the commander of the Security Police and the SD." |
| Under the heading of "Carrying-out the evacuation" is stated (NG-030, Pros. Ex. 290) : |
"As soon as orders for evacuation are issued, the evacuation has to be carried out in full accordance with the plans agreed upon. In many cases, it is true, prevailing conditions will necessitate deviations and improvisations. Should it become impossible, for any reasons, to bring the prisoners back to the extent agreed upon, these prisoners who are not outspokenly asocial or hostile to the State, are to be released in good time so that they will not fall into the hands of the enemy. The elements mentioned before, however, must be turned over to the police for their removal, and if this is not possible they must be rendered harmless by shooting. All traces of the extermination are to be carefully removed." |
| Further documents in this exhibit, issued at
Linz, show that by agreement and orders of the defense commissioner, orders
were issued by the prosecutor at Linz which appear to implement the preceding
document. On 14 April 1945 the chief public prosecutor at Linz made an official
report to the Reich Ministry of Justice showing steps which he had taken.
The significant directives of the Minister of Justice above quoted were issued shortly after the incident at Sonnenburg and concerned the disposition of prisoners in the penitentiaries of the Reich in areas threatened by the Allied advance. It is also significant that the defendant Klemm who denies all connection with or authority over the penitentiary at Sonnenburg in late January 1945 subsequently on 11 February 1945 ordered the evacuation of the prison at Bautzen, including the discharge of certain prisoners and the transfer of those not so discharged to Waldheim ; and that around Easter of 1945 he ordered the evacuation of the prison at Rothenfeld and instructed the matron as to the disposition of the prisoners. It is the contention of the defendant that Hansen was an unreliable person who falsely used the name of the State Secretary. It is to be noted, however, that the testimony does not show that Hansen was undertaking to obtain from Eggensperger authority for some contemplated action under alleged authority from the State Secretary. Hansen called Eggensperger who was the official on duty at the Ministry of Justice to make an official report of an action which was already under way and when questioned as to his authority, he cited the approval of the State Secretary. His report was embodied in an official note as he could assume it would |
