STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THROAT AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 608, sig. 109-4/355

Page 13

English Translation

0f 3. Defeat at due discretion. From § 32 Abs.l KStvo it is not to be concluded that witnesses wid experts are to be sworn in in any case. The provision states only that they, if they are sworn, must be sworn after their interrogation. In accordance with § 60 para.2 KStvo, whether an oath appears necessary or can be omitted is in the discretion of the chairman. If the oath fails, the minutes of the meeting shall state the reason, e.g. "because the statement is plausible". 4. No dissivlinary execution before notification to the courtmaster. In order to avoid misunderstandings which may arise from the version of the decree on the War Business Statement dated January 2, 1940, it is pointed out that the Reichsführer-ij has provisionally not made use of the authorization of § 36 a KStvo. A more disciplinary punishment is therefore only possible by decision of the courtlord according to § 47 KStvO. § l6 a KStvo is only applied to units placed under the army. 5. Disciplinar punishment must not be contested. According to § 47 a KStvo, the courtmaster can either disciplinaryly punish the act himself or leave disciplinary punishment to the competent disciplinary authority, the latter will do so if he considers its punishment to be sufficient. However, he may not prescribe a specific punishment, An order: "-Man Z. is to be treated with lo days of tightened arrest" is nilt oläcsie and can only be considered as an excitation. It is not verbivdiicb. It should then be written casually: "A punishment 2 237