118 motives (“Beweggründe”) prompting a denunciation are not decisive (nicht entscheidend)”. 324 262. A further example is the V. case. In 1943, Nu. denounced Ste. for her repeated utterances against Hitler, the national-socialist system and the SS, made in Nu.’s house in 1942. Ste. was the natural mother of Nu.’s adoptive son. In fact, Nu. had denounced Ste. in the hope of regaining her son who had become increasingly estranged from his adoptive parents and had developed a closer relationship with his natural mother. denunciation, a special court sentenced Ste. to two years in prison. Upon the This court had envisaged her eventual transfer to a concentration camp, but she was released by the allied occupation forces before the transfer took place. In prison, Ste. suffered serious bodily harm and lost sight in one eye. After the war, a District Court sentenced Nu. to six months’ imprisonment for her denunciation of Ste.. Although Nu.’s act of denunciation was motivated by personal reasons, the court considered that her denunciation constituted a crime against humanity. 325 263. Turning to the decisions of the United States military tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 cited by the Prosecution, 326 it must be noted that they appear to be less pertinent. These cases involve Nazi officials of various ranks whose acts were, therefore, by that token, already readily identifiable with the Nazi regime of terror. The question whether they acted “for personal reasons” would, therefore, not arise in a direct manner, since their acts were carried out in an official capacity, negating any possible “personal” 324 Decision of the Braunschweig District Court dated 22 June 1950, in Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. VI, pp. 631-644, at p. 639. Note, in particular, the findings of the District Court to the effect that the denunciation was motivated by personal concerns. Mention can also be made of the Decision of Schwurgericht Hannover, dated 30 November 1948, in the B. case, S. StS 68/48 (in Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone, Entscheidungen in Strafsachen, vol. I, pp. 186-190). B., an inspector of state church offices, informed his superior that one of his colleagues, P., had repeatedly expressed his doubts about the political situation in Germany and voiced his disapproval of the persecution of the Jews, the official propaganda, cultural policy and anti-clerical attitude of National Socialism. This information reached the Gestapo, who arrested P. A special court sentenced P. to one year and three months in prison. B., charged with crimes against humanity, was acquitted at first instance because the verdict of the Court of First Instance (Schwurgericht Hannover), having extensively examined the accused’s motives (“Beweggründe”), could not determine whether the denunciation had been motivated by politics or religion. The Supreme Court for the British Zone dismissed the judgement of the District Court, stating that “it was erroneous and in contradiction to the consistent jurisprudence of the [Supreme] Court” to consider the motives of the accused as important. (ibid., p. 189). 325 Decision of the Supreme Court for the British Zone dated 22 June 1948, S. StS 5/48, in Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone, Entscheidungen in Strafsachen, vol. I, pp. 19-25. The decision of the Supreme Court did not directly concern the accused Nu., but a co-accused of hers. Nu. had been sentenced by the District Court of Hamburg for committing a crime against humanity. 326 See Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 4.15, 4.16. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999