THE PRESIDENT: September of what year?
M. DUBOST: In September 1944 this Office for Inquiry into War Crimes in
France was established, and this service functioned as soon as the
Provisional Government was set up in France.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the police inquiry was held under the service? You
see, the police report is dated the 9th of October, and therefore the
police report appears to have been made after the service had been set
up. Is that right?
M. DUBOST: You have the evidence, Mr. President. If you look at the top
of the second page at the left, it shows the beginning of the record and
you read: “Purpose: Investigation of atrocities committed by Germans
against the civilian population.” These investigations were prescribed
by the Office for Inquiry into War Crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That would appear to be so if the service was really
established in September and this police investigation is dated the 9th
of October.
The Tribunal will adjourn for consideration of this question.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the arguments which have been
addressed to it and is of the opinion that the document offered by
counsel for France is a document of a committee set up for the
investigation of War Crimes within the meaning of Article 21 of the
Charter. The fact that it is not upon oath does not prevent it being
such a document within Article 21, of which the Tribunal is directed to
take judicial notice. The question of its probative value would of
course be considered under Article 19 of the Charter and therefore, in
accordance with Article 19 and Article 21 of the Charter, the document
will be admitted in evidence; and the objection of Counsel for the
Gestapo is denied.
The Tribunal would wish that all original documents should be filed with
the General Secretary of the Tribunal and that when they are being
discussed in Court, the original documents should be present in Court at
the time.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): I have been informed that
General Giraud and his family were probably deported to Germany upon the
orders of Himmler, but that they were treated very well and that they
were billeted in a villa; that they were brought back to France in good
health; that things went well with them and that they are still well
today. I do not see . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, forgive me for interrupting you, but the
Tribunal are not now considering the case of General Giraud and his
family. Are you unable to hear?
What I was saying was that you were making some application in
connection with the deportation of General Giraud and were stating facts
to us—what you allege to be facts—as to that deportation. The Tribunal
is not considering that matter. The Tribunal has already ruled that it
cannot take judicial notice of the facts as to General Giraud’s
deportation.
HERR BABEL: I was of the opinion that what I had to say might bring
about an explanation by the Prosecution and might expedite the trial in
that respect. That was the purpose of my inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: I am merely pointing out to you that we are not now
considering General Giraud’s case.
M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal will permit me to continue? It seems to me
necessary to come back to the proof which I propose to submit. I have to
show that, through uniformity of methods, the tortures which were
inflicted in each bureau of the German Police . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished the document we have just admitted?
M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President; I have completed this and I will now read
from other documents. But first I would like to sum up the proofs which
I have to submit this morning through the reading of these documents.
I said that I was going to demonstrate how through the uniformity of
ill-treatment inflicted by all branches of the German Police upon
prisoners under interrogation, we are able to trace a common will for
which we cannot give you direct proof—as we did yesterday, regarding
hostages, by bringing you papers signed in particular by Keitel—but we
shall arrive at it by a way just as certain, for this identity of method
implies a uniformity of will, which we can place only at the very head
of the police, that is to say, the German Government, to which the
defendants belonged.
This document, Number F-555, Exhibit Number RF-302, from which I have
just read, refers to the ill-treatment of prisoners at Fort Montluc in
Lyons.
I pass to Document Number F-556, which we shall submit as Exhibit Number
RF-303, which relates to the prison regime at Marseilles.
The Tribunal will note that this is an official record drawn up by the
military security service of Vaucluse concerning the atrocities
committed by Germans upon political prisoners and that this record
includes the written deposition of M. Mousson, chief of an intelligence
service, who was arrested on 16 August 1943 and then transferred on 30
August 1943 to St. Pierre prison at Marseilles. At the last paragraph of
the first page of this document we read:
“Transferred to Marseilles, St. Pierre prison, on 30 August
1943, placed in room P, 25 meters long, 5 meters wide. We are
crammed up 75 and often 80. Two straw mattresses for three.
Repulsive hygienic conditions: lice, fleas, bed-bugs, tainted
food. For no reason at all comrades are beaten and put in cells
for 2 or 3 days without food.”
Following page, fourth paragraph:
“Taken into custody again 15 May in a rather brutal way”—this
is the 4th paragraph—“I was imprisoned in the prison of Ste.
Anne and . . .”
5th paragraph:
“Living conditions in Ste. Anne: deplorable hygiene; food
supplied by National Relief.”
Next page, second paragraph:
“Living conditions in Petites Beaumettes: Food, just enough to
keep one alive; no packages; Red Cross gives many, but we
receive few.”
This concerns, I repeat, prisons entirely under control of the Germans.
Regarding conditions at the prison of Poitiers, we submit Document
Number F-558, Exhibit Number RF-304. A report is attached from the Press
Section of the American Information Service in Paris, dated 18 October
1944. The Tribunal should know that all these reports were included with
the documents which were presented by the French Office for Inquiry into
War Crimes. We read under number two:
“M. Claeys was arrested 14 December 1943 by the Gestapo and
imprisoned in the Pierre Levee Prison until 26 August 1944 . . .
“While in prison he asked for a mattress, as he had been wounded
in the war. He was told that he would get it if he confessed. He
had to sleep on 1 inch of straw on the ground. Seven men in one
room 4 meters long, 2 meters wide, and 2.8 meters in
height. . . . For 20 days did not go out of cell. WC was a great
discomfort to him because of wounds. The Germans refused to do
anything about it.”
Paragraph 4(b).
“Another prisoner weighed 120 kilograms and lost 30 kilograms in
a month. Was in isolation cell for a month. Was tortured there
and died of gangrene of legs due to wounds caused by torture.
Died after 10 days of agony alone and without help.”
Paragraph 5.
“Methods of torture:
“(a) Victim was kept bent up by hands attached around right leg.
Was then thrown on the ground and flogged for 20 minutes. If he
fainted, they would throw a pail of water in his face. This was
to make him speak.
“Mr. Francheteau was flogged like that four days out of six. In
some cases, subject was not tied. If he fell they would pick him
up by his hair, and go on.
“At other times the victim was put naked in a special punishment
cell; his hands were tied to an iron grill above his head. He
was then beaten until made to talk.
“(b) Beating as above was not common, but M. Claeys has friends
who have seen electric tortures. One electric wire was attached
to the foot and another wire placed at different points on the
body.”
Paragraph 6.
“The tortures were all the more horrible because the Germans in
many cases had no clear idea of what information they wanted and
just tortured haphazard.”
And at the very end, the five last lines.
“One torture consisted in hanging up the victims by the hands,
which were tied behind the back, until the shoulders were
completely dislocated. Afterwards, the soles of the feet were
cut with razor blades and then the victims were made to walk on
salt.”
Concerning the prisons of the north, I submit Document Number F-560,
Exhibit Number RF-305. It also comes from the American War Crimes
Commission. On Page 1, under the letter “A” you will find a general
report of Professor Paucot on the atrocities committed by the Germans in
Northern France and in Belgium. The report covers the activities of the
German police in France, at Arras, Béthune, Lille, Valenciennes, Malo
les Bains, La Madeleine, Quincy, and Loos; in Belgium, at Saint-Gilles,
Fort de Huy, and Camp de Belveroo. This report is accompanied by 73
depositions of victims. From examination of these testimonies the fact
emerges that the brutality, the barbarity of methods used during the
interrogations was the same in the various places cited.
This synthesis which I have just mentioned is from the American report.
It seems to me unnecessary to stress this as it is confirmed on the
first page. The Tribunal can read further on Pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 a
detailed description of the atrocities, systematic and all identical,
which the German police inflicted to force confessions.
On Page 5, the fifth paragraph, I quote:
“A prisoner captured while trying to escape was delivered in his
cell to the fury of police dogs who tore him to pieces.”
On Page 17, second paragraph, of the German text (Page 14 of the French
text) there is the report of M. Prouille, which, by exception, I shall
read because of the nature of the facts. I quote:
“Condemned by the German Tribunal to 18 months of imprisonment
for possessing arms and after having been in the prisons of
Arras, Béthune and Loos, I was sent to Germany.
“As a result of ill-treatment in eastern Prussia I was obliged
to have my eyes looked after. Having been taken to an infirmary,
a German doctor put drops in my eyes. A few hours later, after
great suffering, I became blind. After spending several days in
the prison of Fresnes, I was sent to the clinic of Quinze-Vingts
in Paris. Professor Guillamat, who examined me, certified that
my eyes had been burned by a corrosive agent.”
Under the Number F-561 I shall read a document from the American War
Crimes Commission, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-306. The
Tribunal will find on Page 2 the proof that M. Herrera was present at
tortures inflicted on numerous persons, and saw a Pole, by the name of
Riptz, have the soles of his feet burned. Then his head was split open
with a spanner. After the wound had healed he was shot. I quote:
“Commander Grandier, who had had a leg fractured in the war of
1914, was threatened by those who conducted the interrogations
with having his other leg broken and this was actually done.
When he had half revived, as a result of a hypodermic injection,
the Germans did away with him.”
We do not want to use more of your time than is necessary, but the
Tribunal should know these American official documents in entirety, all
of which show in a very exact way the tortures carried out by the
various German police services in numerous regions of France, and give
evidence of the similarity of the methods used.
The following document is Number F-571, which we submit as Exhibit
Number RF-307, and of which we shall read only one four-line paragraph:
“M. Robert Vanassche, from Tourcoing, states: ‘I was arrested
the 22 February 1944 at Mouscron in Belgium by men belonging to
the Gestapo who were dressed in civilian clothing. During the
interrogation they were wearing uniforms . . . .’”