Report on the Criminal Law Aspects of the Holocaust Problem
Tuesday, 12 December 2006
First of all, I would like to thank the Institute for Political
and International Studies for organizing this conference and in
particular I would like to take the liberty of expressing my great
respect for the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr.
Mahmud Admadinejad. He was the first important statesman in the
world to publicly raise three facts:
1. the fact that the guilt of the Germans for the Holocaust has
not yet been properly proven;
2. the fact that anyone who wants to discuss the lack of proof
will be persecuted by the Western media and sometimes be subjected
to criminal prosecution; and
3. the fact that in the West the freedom to express one`s
opinion -at least in key matters- is a complete fraud.
His Excellency the President, Dr. Ahmadinejad, has thereby dealt
a severe blow to the worldwide cartel that forbids any attempt to
provide evidence questioning the Holocaust. The Holocaust Problem
has historical, political, international law, human rights law, and
last but not least criminal law aspects. This Report deals
exclusively with the criminal law aspect and especially with the
procedures in a criminal case.
I am speaking here neither as a historian nor journalist but
solely as a lawyer who has come in contact with the problem of the
homicidal gas chambers. The defense attorney is an integral part of
the criminal law system and he should contribute to finding a
decision based on facts and thereby help prevent the court from
making mistakes that are hindrances to fulfilling its mandate.
The defense attorney`s personal opinion about the existence of
gas chambers is unimportant. His personal opinion about the
homicidal gas chamber question was and will never be expressed in
any criminal proceeding. That principle applies also to the writer
of this Report.
The question of proof is decisively important in criminal cases
against those who deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers. The
rules of criminal procedure are determined by what is understood to
constitute proof in a criminal case. The laws of criminal procedure
are very different from country to country.
However, one fundamental principle can be recognized worldwide:
whoever has to function as a judge over a defendant will in no case
want to condemn and punish without having made use of all available
and relevant means of evidence and proof. In practice this means
that no court in the world will sentence a defendant accused of
murder and convict on the basis of mere witness statements or
confessions when there exists sufficient material for a DNA
analysis of clues and traces remaining from the crime.
Witness statements and confessions in and of themselves do not
constitute proof. They only become evidence by the fact that the
court believes the subjective assertions of the witnesses or the
confession of the accused. However, witness assertions involve
numerous factors of uncertainty. In many criminal cases an
objective examination of factual proof is possible and even
necessary. A factual proof creates clear and exact knowledge in
contrast to a mere belief in the correctness of human assertions.
Factual proof can absolutely and completely refute many witness
assertions, but no mere assertions can ever refute factual proof.
There are many types of factual proofs. In the case of holocaust
accusations, there would be, for example, soil testing with radar
equipment, archeological investigations, chemical tests on
material, expert reports on the effects of Zyklon B and diesel
engines, etc.
In courts in Western countries, expert reports from specialist
areas of natural science and forensic investigations are always
used to analyze and clarify factual situations, which have left
behind visible traces that can be studied by the natural sciences.
Only in the area of the holocaust accusations are any and all
submissions of factual proof not only omitted but even
forbidden.
Since 1989 I have been defending persons accused of holocaust
denial in Germany and Austria. Along with Colonel Hajo Herman, I
defended General Remer. In both Germany and Austria, I have
defended Gerd Honsick. I am now defending David Irving in Austria
and Ernst Zündel in Germany. All the courts have rejected all
motions to submit proofs. There was acquittal only in Austria where
eight jurors decided the question of guilt or innocence. There are
no acquittals in these cases when the judge decides the question of
guilt or innocence.
The courts reject all motions to submit evidence because of
judicial notice about the homicidal gas chamber. ["Judicial notice"
is used to translate the German word "Offenkundigkeit," which means
"obviousness." If something is alleged to be "obvious," then it
cannot be questioned or even discussed in the court.] It is
completely wrong to use judicial notice. A fact based on judicial
notice is not a real fact. Rather it is only an opinion about a
fact. This opinion can be correct but can also be false.
The ugly reality is that the courts do not demand any factual
proofs. And Article 21 of the London Statue of August 8, 1945
forced the courts not to demand any factual proof. That dominates
and controls all holocaust trials right up to today. There is a
very long list of people who have suffered and still suffer a
serious loss of freedom because they questioned the holocaust.
David Irving is in Austrian prison and Ernest Zundel in German
prison. Forty-two friends of Gerd Honsik spent a total of 114 years
in prison because they peacefully express opinions that did not
advocate violence. In Germany every year c. 10,000 people are
prosecuted and persecuted for holocaust denial.
In my Report I hope to have contributed to removing the
widespread ignorance about the lack of proofs in the question of
the homicidal gas chambers. At this Conference in Teheran, it has
been publicly established that there are no proofs for the
existence of homicidal gas chambers, although sufficient evidence
had been available for a long time to show that there were no
proofs for homicidal gas chambers. May the public determination of
the lack of proofs lead to an objective analysis and clarification
by an unprejudiced international investigating committee.
In the limited time available here, the unbelievable extent of
the violations of laws and human rights of revisionist researchers
could only be briefly indicated. However, I would be happy to
answer any of your questions.
In concluding my Report permit me a glance back into history and
a reference to the fact that the forefathers of the Germans of
today and the forefathers of the Iranians have already one time
successfully cooperated to fight an empire. In the year 378 AD
before the decisive Battle of Adrianople between the Goths and the
Eastern Roman Empire, Germans established diplomatic relations with
the Persian Empire and agreed on a common undertaking against
Eastern Rome. As a consequence it could be simultaneously attacked
from the North and the East. In this battle the Germans assured
their later victory over the Roman Empire and thereby relieved the
Persians from Roman pressure. Today the world sees itself once
again facing a mighty empire. Therefore, the question has recently
arisen of any and all possible forms of peaceful cooperation that
could save the lives and freedoms of the peoples of the world.
I thank you.
***
Translated from the German by Dr. Patrick McNally