 |
sentence pronounced on 3 and 4 December 1947, in Case III, the
American Military Tribunal tried to explain the principles determining Control
Council Law No. 10. It cited a number of reasons to substantiate the basis of
the trials —
MR. SPRECHER: Mr. President, can we have an
explanation of what is now happening?
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: Is there an
explanation needed?
MR. SPRECHER: Is this a part of the opening
statement for one of the defendants?
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: I so
understand.
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is the opening statement for the
defendant Gattineau.
MR. SPRECHER: The reason I asked the question is
that it starts off in the same way as the motion which counsel was tempted to
read before Your Honors the other morning, and I thought possibly counsel was
addressing himself to that motion.*
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I am not making any motion now; I am merely presenting
to you my opening statement. In the sentence pronounced on 3 and 4 December
1947, in Case III, the American Military Tribunal tried to explain the
principles determining Control Council Law No. 10. It cited a number of reasons
to substantiate the basis of the trials.
One question, however, which I
submitted to Military Tribunal VI, the Court passed over in silence: The
significance of the secret German-Russian Treaty of 23 August 1939 for the
bringing about of the law and incidentally for the proceedings instituted
here.
Therefore, I entered the plea for the nullification of the
Control Council Law No. 10.
Before going into my arguments, I wish to
state that when the plea will be considered by the Honorable Court in
conjunction with the secret supplemental protocol dated 23 August 1939, proofs
will be offered (to corroborate the statement of the defense) to the effect
that — |
__________
* On 12 December 1947, Dr.
Aschenauer had attempted to read a long motion that the Tribunal declare
Control Council Law No. 10 invalid. The Tribunal stated that defense counsel
would be required to file the motion in writing according to the usual
practice, and on 17 December Dr. Aschenauer did file the motion in writing. The
major part of the opening statement on behalf of defendant Gattineau, which is
reproduced bore and which was delivered orally on 19 December, is almost word
for word the same as the written motion filed two days previously. On 11 March
1948, Dr. Aschenauer filed a further motion requesting a joint session of the
Tribunals to declare Control Council Law No. 10 null and void. The Committee of
Presiding Judges denied this application on 17 March 1948. This order, signed
by the presiding judges of five tribunals, is reproduced in volume XV, this
series, section XXIV E 2. The Tribunal in the Farben case entered a true copy
of this order in the record of the Farben case and made no further written
order on Dr. Aschenauer's first written motion of 17 December.
298 |
. 
