Memorandum in the exercise of jurisdiction in Theresienstadt.

The jurisdiction of the court of the Jewish Self-administration in Theresienstadt was derived from the authorisation of the command of the security forces [SS] there. It had jurisdiction over custody, probate and criminal matters. In matters of probate, the activities of the court were limited to the confiscation of clothing and pieces of laundry, as the Jewish settlement couldn’t acquire the items required by the destitute inhabitants in any other way; any real administration of estates was completely absent due to a lack of assets. The responsibility of the court in criminal matters was usually the same as that of a district court. In special cases and through a special authorisation from the [SS] command, the jurisdiction could be extended and eventually included full sentencing competency in matters of crimes and offences, whose sentencing – as with any transgression – was trusted to a single judge.

As the legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court ended with the cessation of the [SS] command, the activities of the court were largely discontinued and only continued when it involved the determination of criminal offences in preliminary proceedings.

A special custodial jurisdiction for Theresienstadt is, in consideration of the likely short-lived existence of the settlement, completely superfluous. In the same way, there is no need for a probate court, as the only decision that could be made by the court was that, due to a lack of assets, no probate proceedings will take place.

However, what is essential is the maintenance a criminal justice system. Criminality in Theresienstadt had its own characteristics; aside from a small number of cases such as insulting a public servant or minor assault (§ 411), nearly all of the property-related offences, caused by the scarcity of food, were either theft from the communal storehouses, or fraud at the food distribution points. These offences were alarming due to their frequency and the punishment was disproportionately higher than the sentence would have been outside of Theresienstadt for similar offences. These offences continue and seem unlikely to stop. The district court responsible will hardly be in a position to deal with sentencing these cases that deal with what are – in normal circumstances – small things. They can however not go unpunished.

The makeup of the population shifted as a result of the last transports carried out by the German authorities, which also led a to significant worsening of the situation in terms of criminality. Transports arrived from concentration camps, bringing political rather career criminals with them.

Is has also been difficult to make other concentration camp prisoners become accustomed to conforming to the calm and regulations. As a result, there have been several crimes that have gone unpunished due to a lack of a law enforcement system. The punishment for such cases will have to dealt with by the ordinary courts. These courts will, however, hardly be in a position to make the required institutions available to carry out the preliminary proceedings. In this instance, the continued activity of the Jewish court would be expedient.

Furthermore, the exercising of police penal power is indispensable. Until now it has been exercised by a judge.

In summary, a special jurisdiction for Theresienstadt for violations, as well as in matter of police powers is essential. The possibility must also be available, that crimes and offences can be determined. As long as these activities cannot be carried out by the usual bodies and institutions, the continued existence of the Theresienstadt Court is to be recommended.

Signature illegible.

Dr. Klang

Opsáno dle originálu

Za dokumentační akci přijal Scheck

Za archiv přijal Tressler