- (Written by Ernst Zundel to his wife, Ingrid Rimland)
-
- What I wanted to tell you is that yesterday one of our
attorneys came, in response to a pretty stern letter I had written about
steps undertaken, I thought, prematurely. We had some spirited, heart-to-heart
conversation and cleared up some misunderstandings.
-
- I was mollified by the presentation and the steps that
were explained to me, and what was planned - and already undertaken. Finally
a defense team seems to be jelling that does justice to the historical
and political situation as we find it here.
-
- Actually, it amazed me what kind of information is still
available here! Europe is still Europe! There is an understanding of history
and culture as well as comparative religions that is so far superior to
anything that we were exposed to in North America.
-
- Ingrid, the researchers our attorneys obviously have
access to are of a depth and a relentless logic that is overwhelming. Scary,
even! I was shown a compilation of statements by philosophers, musicians,
statesmen, kings, emperors and military men that left me speechless!
-
- I am beginning to appreciate that, in order to lift this
struggle out of the Canadian backwaters, I just had to come here, because
only here is the repository of all this knowledge. It goes back millennia!
-
- It's amazing to see fine European minds, products of
European universities, tackle the problems I tackled like some outcast,
having to rely [in Canada] entirely on my own informal, faulty training.
You can see that the same issues of my own intuitive feel are given a proper
upgrading and bringing-into-focus.
-
- You will be proud - and the money is well worth it. I
now understand the reason and context. It's destiny, Ingrid. We are tools.
-
- (END)
-
- Here is the young law student from England:
-
- (START)
-
- Zundel Trial In Germany -- A Farce!
-
- 1. It seems relevant to start by mentioning two fundamental
maxims of justice: Nemo iudex in causa sua ('no man should be judge in
his own cause') & audi alteram partem ('hear the other side', ie that
both sides should be given a fair hearing). It seems to me that the judge
is biased. He is not willing to hear what the defence has to say. Instead
he wants to 'shut them up'. And he clearly considers the Prosecution's
cause as his own. He thus has a 'stake' in the trial, an interest in Ernst
Zundel being found guilty.
-
- He is therefore inherently biased.
-
- 2. By Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
& Fundamental Freedoms every person has a right to a fair trial. The
Federal Republic of Germany is a signatory to the Convention and is therefore
obliged to abide by it.
-
- Article 6 states that:
-
- ARTICLE 6
-
- 1. In the determination of [...] any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may
be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public
order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests
of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require,
or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
-
- 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
-
- 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights: [...] ? (c) to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing [...]; ? (d) to examine or have examined
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
-
- I have underlined the relevant phrases. The right to
a fair trial in section 1 of Article 6 is an 'absolute right', meaning
that no matter what the circumstances everyone has a right to a fair trial
(whereas s. 3. is a 'relative right', meaning that it may be limited if
it be legitimate to do so in the circumstances). It has been stated above
that the judge in the Zundel case is biased in the sense that the court
was not an 'independent and impartial tribunal'. It is further submitted
that the result of this would be that Zundel would not get a 'fair and
public hearing' within Art 6(1). The court is therefore in breach of its
obligations under Art 6(1). I suspect that Mr. Zundel's legal team would
appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg if all else fails.
-
- 4. Moreover, it is noted that by Art 6(3)(c) Herr Zundel
has a right to choose his own legal team. This is not within the jurisdiction
of the German court. This is also true in relation to leading counsel's
assistant. The court is therefore ultra vires (beyond its powers) and its
ruling on the matter is null and void. I suspect that also in this regard
Ernst Zundel's legal team will seek to appeal to the higher courts, and,
failing this, to the Court in Strasburg.
-
- 5. On a different note, there is a problem if Ernst Zundell's
defence would be in breach of §130 of the Penal Code by defending
their client to the best of their ability because advocates are obliged
by their professional codes to defend their clients fearlessly and to the
best of their ability. More importantly, if certain kinds of evidence cannot
be admitted in court due to a general prohibition against displaying such
material in public, how can the accused have a fair trial?
-
- 6. Judges are not, it is submitted, competent to rule
on what is historical fact. If the judge in question wished to establish
an historical fact (whatever that is) the proper way to go about it, in
my opinion, would have been to call expert evidence. I say in my opinion,
but I do think that any person with sound judgment would adopt the same
opinion on this matter. This attitude of the judge also reveals his prejudice
against the defence.
-
- 7. I can think of no good reason why Ernst Zundel should
be kept in custody while an important question of law is being decided
in the Constitutional Court. The case will surely take a very long time,
perhaps more than a year. The court would need to have very good reasons
to justify keeping an accused person (cf. Art 6(2), above: everyone is
innocent until proven guilty) in custody for a substantial length of time.
For example, the court would have to hear evidence that Mr. Zundel is very
likely to flee Germany. Not just that he might, but that he is very likely
to. However, it seems to me that the Regional Court decided the matter
simply on a whim. This, again, is contrary to the Convention (see Art 5).
-
- 8. In conclusion, I would say that the trial of Ernst
Zundel is an absolute outrage. Whether one sympathizes with his views or
not, it is most unsatisfactory that a person is denied his right to a fair
trial because of his beliefs. If this is truly the state of affairs in
Germany, then hypocrisy and, indeed, tyranny must have gained the upper
hand in that so-called democratic republic. I am absolutely outraged about
this. Next time a German politician speaks of democracy and human rights,
please ask him to ditch the rhetoric and, ahem, shove it up his a**.
-
- Yours sincerely,
-
- Patrick Boch,
-
- Student of Law,
- England.
|
