Presiding Judge: What was the first paragraph?

State Attorney Bach: The first paragraph was paragraph No. 2. It says there that the commanders were officers of the German Security Police, and it indicates the places. I do not wish to read out all of them here.

In paragraph 12 it says: "According to information from the railway station-master, about 400 persons from the labour services were released - and it mentions some of their names - they were arrested by the German Security Police and their leave passes were confiscated."

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1164.

Judge Halevi: What is "typical of the Jewish Intelligence Service?" It appears in section 13.

State Attorney Bach: It says:

"This is typical of the thouroughness of the Jewish Intelligence service: In a telegram sent from Koeszeg to me, in my name, by some unknown person in Hatvan, I was asked to free his wife from the Koeszeg Ghetto. The purge in the areas across the Danube was planned for a later date, but, notwithstanding that, they were aware, at the most westerly edge of the country, that I was acting in Hatvan as a liaison officer."

In paragraph 3 it is stated:

"I arrested Dr. Bela Berend, a member of the Jewish Council in Budapest, and also his wife" - and he mentions her name here - "who had been released from an assembly camp, since they obtained and passed on forged documents to their relatives, who at that time were detained at that same assembly camp. I brought them to Munkacs for purposes of interrogation and, after the interrogation I handed them over to Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann."

State Attorney Bach: The last report is our document No. 1322. Ferenczy's report dated 9 July 1944, from Budapest. Here it says: "From the beginning of the evacuations, on May 14 1944, until today 434,351 persons belonging to the Jewish race, left the country in 147 trains."

In paragraph 3 he says: "The Jewish community has now been evacuated from all regions of the country, except from the capital Budapest."

Presiding Judge: This document will be marked T/1166.

State Attorney Bach: With the Court's permission, I should now like to present the evidence of Dr. Tibor Ferencz.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Ferencz: A little.

Presiding Judge: Do you want to speak in Hungarian?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

The witness is sworn.

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness. Dr. Ferencz Tibor.

Q. Is Ferencz your first name?

A. Ferencz is my surname - Tibor is my first name.

Q. Where do you live?

A. In Bnei Brak, on Rashi Street.

State Attorney Bach: Dr. Ferencz, when did you immigrate to Israel?

Witness Ferencz: On 22 May 1957.

Q. Where were you until then?

A. In Budapest.

Q. During the Second World War, where were you and what was your occupation?

A. Prior to the War I was a lawyer in one of the provincial towns. In 1942 I was mobilized for the labour service. I served in the labour force with longer or shorter intervals.

Q. In the Hungarian labour service?

A. Yes.

Q. After the War, in what were you engaged in Hungary?

A. When I returned home at the end of March 1945, I didn't find anything there, nor any members of my family. My wife, my mother-in-law - all of them had been taken to Auschwitz. Similarly my apartment had been robbed, and I didn't find anything there, except for one thing which was in the garbage - and that was my diploma. I decided to discontinue my law practice and to dedicate myself solely to the service of the Jewish People.

At that time I volunteered - I offered my services to the People's Prosecution Office. At the time this office was devoted to bringing to trial those who were responsible for war crimes. Within a short time I had risen to the position of Prosecutor with the General People's Prosecution Office, and also Deputy Chief Prosecutor. All matters were concentrated in my hands, in my office, all the trials against war criminals and of those who had committed crimes against the people. Thus I directed all these matters which were within the competence of this office.

Presiding Judge: Was this the General Prosecution that was attached to the special courts that dealt with war crimes?

Witness Ferencz: Yes.

State Attorney Bach: What are these documents?

Witness Ferencz: These documents are photostats of my letters of appointment. I have the original documents, bearing the seal of Ministers and of the Prime Minister.

State Attorney Bach: I apply to submit these letters of appointment in the Hungarian language.

Presiding Judge: With or without a translation?

State Attorney Bach: I think it will be without a translation. Perhaps the witness will be able to tell us what they certify. This is our document No. 671.

Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1167.

Perhaps the interpreter can glance at the documents and tell us what they contain. Without a detailed translation. Is that possible?

State Attorney Bach: It should not be necessary to translate the whole document.

Interpreter: The first document is dated 15 June 1945, signed by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Agoston Valentin. In this certificate he appoints Dr. Tibor Ferencz, advocate, to be a People's Prosecutor with the General Prosecution in Budapest. He requires him to report immediately to the Director of Prosecutions. The second document is from Prime Minister Miklos, dated 25 September 1945. He advises him that the Council of Ministers has appointed Dr. Tibor Ferencz as deputy to the General People's Prosecutor on behalf of the government. The third document is dated 28 December 1946, and in essence it is identical with the previous one, except that it is from another Minister of Justice. In the fourth document he is released from his appointment, on 26 May 1948. But at the same time he is appointed to another post with the Chief State Prosecutor's office.

State Attorney Bach: Did you also, by virtue of this office appear personally in trials, or were you present at the trials of Hungarian war criminals?

Witness Ferencz: In the proceedings of the trials I directed the material for the prosecution and in most cases I also appeared personally. Of course, I also had assistant prosecutors, who prepared the files.

Q. Were you present at the trial of the deputy ministers Endre and Baky?

A. On a few occasions I went in and out of the court-room, a few times.

Q. What were the sentences given to Endre and Baky?

A. Death by hanging for both of them.

Q. Was the punishment carried out?

A. It was carried out.

Q. Do you remember when the sentence of death on Endre and Baky was carried out?

A. I am sorry - I can't remember now exactly when it happened, since there were many cases of the execution of the principal war criminals in those days. At any rate, I remember that it was in the summer, but when exactly, even if I make a special effort, I can't recollect.

Q. In the summer of roughly what year?

A. Either 1946 or 1947. I would prefer to say 1946. I don't remember exactly.

Q. Do you remember whether Endre and Baky were hanged on the same day or on different days?

A. Yes, on the same day, I saw to it that they should be hanged on the same day.

Q. Did you see them on the day of the hanging?

A. The court rejected their application for clemency. Accordingly they knew that there was no way out and that the death sentence would be carried out. And then, after consultation with my Minister of Justice, Istvan Reiss, and on his instructions, I went into the death cell and questioned Endre and Baky separately, approximately an hour or an hour and a half before their execution.

Q. Were they together or in separate cells?

A. They were separated.

Q. Was it only on that day that they were separated, or in fact were they generally kept apart from each other during the whole of that period?

A. All the main war criminals were kept in separate cells.

Q. Including these two?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the object of your meeting them?

A. Endre, the proceedings of whose trial I remember in particular, defended himself throughout the trial by saying that he had acted in accordance with instructions and on this ground he based his request for clemency - that we should pardon him because he had acted according to instructions. As a result of the consultation with my Minister of Justice, I wanted, once again, before the death sentence was carried out, to determine finally, perhaps for the sake of history, what was the nature of the instructions he had received and from whom he had received them.

Perhaps I may be permitted to add that Endre had previously been the head of a small administrative district in Goedoelloe. He was a most consistent anti-Semite. He did everything he possibly could against the Jews. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of deputy district governor for the district of Pest. He was equipped with all the attributes necessary in order to be in charge of Jewish affairs in Hungary. Also on the occasion of this, our last meeting - and this I definitely recollect - he referred to the fact that the plans for carrying out the deportations and for the "ghettoization" - that is to say the placing of the Jews in ghettos - came to him in ready-made form. He told me that it was the Accused who gave him these orders and he was obliged to give an account to him of every deportation and on each operation of placing Jews inside a ghetto.

State Attorney Bach: Perhaps, here, I am bound to ask the Court for a decision which will enable me to question the witness about the statements that were made to him by Endre and Baky.

It is clear from the evidence of the witness that his conversation with them actually took place very shortly before these two men were executed, after their application for clemency had been rejected and they did not have any more hope of achieving anything as a result of the statements that they made to him. It seems to me that this is the closest case of a dying declaration that it is possible to find, although from the legal point of view a dying declaration is an exception from the rules of hearsay evidence only in cases of murder trials, when the reference is to the words uttered by the victim before he died. For this reason I would not be able, according to the normal rules of evidence, to produce this evidence.

But it seems to me that, from the point of view of its real significance, when a man no longer has any hope and he then says certain things that have greater weight, it seems to me that there is an analogy between the present instance and a dying declaration.

The Court will also recall its decision in connection with the evidence of Judge Musmanno, who also testified about statements made to him by various war criminals. Defence Counsel responded to that by asking a number of questions, in which he tried to show that, in the case of some of the offenders at least, there could have been contact between the cells, which would have enabled them to co-ordinate their stories, and so on. Naturally the more we shall be able to point to a larger number of instances of this kind, when we have one instance in a goal in Nuremberg, and when we submit the statements of Hoess in Cracow and Wisliceny in Slovakia, and the statements of war criminals in Germany, and these two in Budapest, then the extent of the consistency between these statements is greater, to that extent it will be more difficult to believe in coincidence or chance and in collusion between all those people who, as it were, decided to shift the whole guilt on the Accused, while he is innocent. Accordingly I request the Court to permit the witness to quote the last words of these two men, Endre and Baky, who throughout the final Hungarian period had the closest connections with the Accused.

Presiding Judge: If you please, Dr. Servatius.

Dr. Servatius: Only one other analogy is possible. This is not a dying declaration but the declaration of a man anticipating execution. I agree with the Prosecution that there was no co-ordination here. But, without doubt, there was an intention to justify themselves morally before their people and that is how they arrived at the Accused, Eichmann.

Presiding Judge: But what is your view, Dr. Servatius?

Dr. Servatius: I have no formal objection.

Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 57

We allow evidence of the witness Dr. Ferencz about remarks he heard from Endre and Baky before they were executed. (See our Decisions Nos. 7 and 29).

State Attorney Bach: Which one of them did you see first - Endre or Baky?

Witness Ferencz: First Endre.

Q. Did you go to him in his cell?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did the conversation last?

A. Between a quarter-of-an-hour and half-an-hour.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor