memories

THE SAEVECKE FILE AND THE CONVICTION

On June 9 1999 the military Court of Turin sentenced by default the former SS-Hauptsturmfuher Theodor Emil Saevecke for having, as Sicherheitspolizei-SD commanding officer in Milan, conceived, requested and materially organized the execution of 15 partisans shot in Piazzale Loreto on August 10 1944.

Official records from fascist and german source demonstrate irrefutably that in the attack on a german truck, occured 2 days before and assumed as a pretext for the massacre, died exclusively Italian civilians while the german troops suffered no dead (only a lance-corporal was slightly wounded in the face). The massacre of Piazzale Loreto therefore - besides establishing violation of the international law on mass reprisal and repression matters - cannot be considered an enforcement of Marshal Kesselring orders and cannot be assumed as a reprisal but as an act of violence followed by homicide towards Italian citizens.

In spite of evidence already collected in 1946 by the English allied authority about Saevecke's responsability for the slaughter of Piazzale Loreto, in the post-war period the former SS captain was first engaged by the CIA and then, readmited in the ranks of german federal police, gaining a brilliant career and becoming deputy director of the security forces of the former West Germany. Retired in 1971, Saevecke lives at present in a small thermal city of lower Saxony. Emblematic case of the post-war period recycling former nazi criminals, logical consequence of the opposing blocks , Saevecke - whose lawsuit file has been for decades covered up by the military General Attorney Office of Rome along with other 694 files found in 1994 - has been able to evade justice for over 50 years thanks to to the protections enjoyed in the German and Italian government and judicial milieu.

Five months after the conclusion of the Saevecke trial , in November 1999 the military Tribunal of Turin has also convicted to life imprisonment former SS major Sigfried Engel, commanding officer of the Sicherheitspolizei-Sd in Genoa. The request for extradition sent on for both the contumacious former SS officers by the Italian Ministry of Justice has not been accepted by the competent German federal authorities but recently the Attorney Office of Hamburg has requested to the militariy Attorney Office of Turin the transmission of the legal proceedings to start a new criminal process against Engel. No other similar request for a new criminal process has been presented by other German Attorney Offices.

In the following pages we publish the integral sentence, , of which we reveal some noteworthy passages.

"According to the organization chart of the German armed forces, in Italy Saevecke held the same position of Kappler in Rome". […]

"For the conclusion of the trial's debate the responsibility for the crime ascribed to the accused seems certain". […]

"Logically it is to presume that Saevecke was not the only author of the tremendous carnage; the coexsistence in the same hotel Regina in Milan of the offices of provincial and interegional sections of the "SIPO-SD" (depending from, respectively, Rauff and Saevecke), the seat, in the near Monza, of the SS North Italy Headquarters, are all elements that lead to reckon that the so-called reprisal had more than a father. (...) These considerations, however, do not affect juridically today's judgment on responsibilty. Even accepting that the criminal project was originated by higher degree commanders, Saevecke agreed completely (...) giving precise disposals regarding the method of execution, including the order to keep the victim's bodies exposed as warning for all opposers". […]

"In the Piazzale Loreto case none of the conditions required for a legitimate exertion of reprisal seem to subsist". […]

"All the witnesses that were heard by the Court have proved, with moved voices and tears and with every other sign of partcipation, to have stamped in their memory what they have seen and heard related to the legal event.The brightness of the memories, more clear than those rergarding recent facts but with little or none social alarm, has allowed the Court to avoid the danger, very serious for an impartial judge, to consider himself "judge of history". The mass of probatory documents, the "freshness" of the testimonial statements, the passion spent by the trial parties in sustaining their own role led to forget that those facts happened more than 50 years ago". […]

"Granted generic extenuating circumstances, but proceeding to the comparison of the aggravating and extenuating circumstances, considered subsistent in the present process, the Court observes that the aggravating circumstances prevail over the extenuating ones". […]