Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Seifert

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Seifert
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-11-13
Neutral citation
2007 FC 1165
File numbers
T-2016-01
Decision Content
Date: 20071113
Docket: T-2016-01
Citation: 2007 FC 1165
Ottawa, Ontario, November 13th, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Plaintiff
and
MICHAEL SEIFERT
Defendant
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Overview
[1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration informed Mr. Michael Seifert in 2001 that the Minister intended to take steps to revoke his Canadian citizenship. Mr. Seifert responded by asking that this Court determine the facts.
[2] The Minister alleges that Mr. Seifert entered Canada in 1951 and later obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation, fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. In particular, the Minister alleges that Mr. Seifert failed to disclose his correct place of birth and misrepresented his activities during World War II when he applied for a Canadian visa in Hannover, Germany during the summer of 1951. Contrary to what he told Canadian officials at the time, Mr. Seifert admits that he was born in Ukraine and served as a guard in the German forces in Ukraine and, later, at a police transit camp in Bolzano, Italy in 1944-45. The Minister also accuses Mr. Seifert of killing prisoners and committing various acts of cruelty in the camp. Mr. Seifert adamantly denies these accusations.
[3] I am satisfied, based on all of the evidence I have heard, including expert testimony on Canadian immigration policy during the post-war years, the German police and security apparatus during the war, the practices and procedures followed by Canadian officials in European consular offices and the extensive documentary record in all of these areas, that Mr. Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian Citizenship by misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts. Had he told the truth, Mr. Seifert would not have been allowed into Canada.
[4] However, I am not satisfied that the atrocities of which Mr. Seifert has been accused have been proved on the balance of probabilities. The Court heard the testimony of three witnesses who had been prisoners in the Bolzano camp. While I have no doubt that these persons suffered greatly and have vivid and painful memories of the camp, looking at the evidence as a whole, I am unable to conclude that the particular acts of violence and brutality alleged to have been carried out by Mr. Seifert personally have been proved.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overview.. 1
II. Background to Proceedings. 6
III. Nature of the Proceedings. 7
IV. Allegations Against Mr. Seifert Regarding Mistreatment of Prisoners. 9
V. Burden and Standard of Proof 10
VI. Government Policy on Alleged War Criminals. 11
VII. General Circumstances in Italy 1943-1945. 11
VIII. Organization of the SS, Security Police and SD.. 12
1. General structure. 12
2. Organization of the SS and SD in Italy. 15
3. Invasion of German Forces into Ukraine. 16
IX. Mr. Seifert’s Early Life in Ukraine. 16
X. Mr. Seifert Joins the German Forces. 17
XI. From Ukraine to Verona. 20
XII. Events at the Fossoli Camp. 21
XIII. Conditions in the Bolzano Camp. 23
1. General Layout 23
2. Prisoners’ Memories of the Camp. 25
3. Guards’ Memories of the Camp. 30
XIV. Transports from the Fossoli and Bolzano Camps to Other Camps. 34
XV. Treatment of Escapees at Bolzano. 34
XVI. Deaths at Bolzano. 37
XVII Charge, Prosecution and Detention of Mr. Seifert 38
XVIII. The Cell-block at Bolzano. 40
XIX. Identification of Mr. Seifert at Bolzano. 43
XX. Mr. Seifert’s Response to Allegations Against Him.. 45
1. Torture, Beatings and Killings. 45
2. Easter Mass at Bolzano. 46
XXI. Findings Regarding the Bolzano Camp. 47
XXII. Travel from Bolzano to Lutenrode. 50
XXIII. Applying for a Canadian Visa. 51
XXIV. Security Screening of Prospective Immigrants. 53
1. The Balance Between Security Concerns and Increased Immigration. 53
2. The Security Screening Process. 59
XXV. Security Screening of Mr. Seifert 63
XXVI. Mr. Seifert’s Life in Canada. 64
1. Generally. 64
2. Applying for Citizenship. 65
XXVII. The Defence of Necessity. 66
XXVIII. Charter Arguments. 72
XXIX. Summary of Findings. 75
XXX. Conclusion. 79
II. Background to Proceedings
[5] On June 26, 1999, an article appeared in the Italian newspaper called “La Stampa” under the headline “The two Ukrainian SS men accused of 14 murders and of acts of torture carried out against prisoners have been traced. The Kapos of the Bolzano camp are in Canada. The military prosecutor is to request their extradition”.[1] The article described “two bloodthirsty madmen”, former guards named “Misha Seifert” and “Otto Seit”, who were believed to have committed more than fifty acts of brutal violence.
[6] Later that year, Mr. Seifert learned about the subject matter of the legal proceedings against him when his then friend, Mr. Peter Makelke, showed him an article that appeared in a Prince George newspaper. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Seifert received notice from an Italian court that criminal proceedings were being brought against him.
[7] In 2000, Mr. Seifert was tried in his absence by a Military Tribunal in Verona, Italy. He was convicted on nine charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.[2] Subsequent appeals were denied.[3]
[8] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration notified Mr. Seifert by letter dated August 23, 2001 that the Minister intended to initiate steps to revoke Mr. Seifert’s citizenship under the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, ss. 10, 18 (relevant enactments are set out in Annex A). Mr. Seifert responded in a letter dated September 6, 2001 asking that the issue be referred to the Federal Court (s. 18(1)(b)).
[9] Alongside these proceedings, the Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Republic of Italy, has sought Mr. Seifert’s extradition to Italy to serve the sentence imposed on him by the Italian courts. In 2003, Mr. Seifert was committed for surrender on seven of the nine charges for which he was sought.[4] The Minister of Justice ordered his surrender on those charges in 2005. Appeals of the committal and the surrender order were dismissed in 2007.[5] Mr. Seifert has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.[6]
III. Nature of the Proceedings
[10] This proceeding[7] is, in essence, a fact-finding process[8] and cannot be appealed.[9] My role is to determine whether Mr. Seifert obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation, fraud or material non-disclosure.[10] My findings will be submitted by the Minister to the Governor in Council which will decide whether Mr. Seifert should cease to be a Canadian citizen.
[11] As mentioned, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration alleges that when Mr. Seifert applied to enter Canada in 1951 he failed to tell the truth about his place of birth and his service in the German forces during World War II. A person who gains entry to Canada by misrepresentation, fraud or concealing material circumstances, and subsequently becomes a citizen, is deemed to have obtained citizenship by improper means.[11]
[12] Mr. Seifert concedes that he did not tell the truth when he applied for a Canadian visa or when he applied for Canadian citizenship. He lied about his place of birth and failed to mention his activities during the war as a guard in Ukraine and northern Italy. However, he maintains that he had a good reason for his behavior, namely, that he was afraid of being returned after the war to the Soviet Union where he would have been punished or killed as a traitor for having served in the German forces. Further, he disputes the Minister’s most serious accusations that he mistreated and killed prisoners in the Bolzano camp where he served as a guard.
[13] At one level, given Mr. Seifert’s admissions, this is a simple case. Clearly, Mr. Seifert deliberately failed to tell the truth when he sought entry to Canada and when he applied for Canadian citizenship. However, on another level, the case is complex. This is because Mr. Seifert submits that his misrepresentations were not material – in other words, that he would have been granted a Canadian visa in 1951 even if he had told the truth. To deal with this assertion, I must consider a number of complicated issues, including Canada’s post-war immigration policy, procedures and criteria for screening visa applications abroad, the organization of the German security and policing apparatus in Ukraine and Italy during the relevant time period, Mr. Seifert’s status within that apparatus, and the role he played as a camp guard. Further, to consider whether Mr. Seifert’s conduct was justified in the circumstances, I must consider the reasonableness of his claim to have feared repatriation to the Soviet Union, as well as the possibility that Canadian officials might have been sympathetic to his plight.
[14] In addition, given that Mr. Seifert denies the most serious allegations against him – those involving the mistreatment and killing of prisoners – I must review carefully the testimony of surviving witnesses to events in the camp, including former prisoners, another former guard at the same camp, and Mr. Seifert himself.
IV. Allegations Against Mr. Seifert Regarding Mistreatment of Prisoners
[15] The Minister asserts that Mr. Seifert served as a guard in the German forces first in Nikolayev, Ukraine and, later, at police transit camps in Fossoli and Bolzano, Italy. Mr. Seifert admits this. The Minister also alleges that Mr. Seifert mistreated prisoners at the Bolzano camp. In the Statement of Claim[12], the Minister makes the following particular allegations:
(a) Mr. Seifert participated in the beating and killing of a prisoner who attempted to escape around Christmas-time, 1944. The prisoner was tied to a pole and then beaten to death by Mr. Seifert and other guards.
(b) In the winter of 1944-45, Mr. Seifert and another guard whipped a prisoner.
(c) In February 1945, Mr. Seifert and another guard, Otto Sein, beat a young male prisoner over the course of two or three nights. One of them held the prisoner while the other poked him in the eyes. The prisoner died.
(d) In February or March 1945, Mr. Seifert and other guards beat an elderly male prisoner to death when he failed to rise for the morning roll call.
(e) In February or March 1945, Mr. Seifert and two other guards beat and then shot two prisoners.
(f) In February or March 1945, Mr. Seifert and Mr. Sein poured cold water over a female prisoner. She later died.
(g) In March of 1945, Mr. Seifert and other guards beat and killed a prisoner who had tried to escape.
[16] In addition, the Minister alleges that Mr. Seifert, in his role as a camp guard, assisted in the forced deportation of Jews and other prisoners to other kinds of facilities, including extermination camps, concentration camps and forced labour camps.
[17] Mr. Seifert denies all of these allegations.
V. Burden and Standard of Proof
[18] The burden of proof rests with the Minister. The standard of proof is the usual civil threshold of a balance of probabilities.
[19] Given the serious nature of the allegations that arise in this kind of proceeding, courts have concluded that the evidence must be reviewed and considered with greater care than in other types of civil proceedings.[13] Mr. Seifert also urged me to apply a higher standard of proof, given that the allegations against him are equivalent to criminal accusations. However, there is no support for an elevated standard of proof in proceedings of this kind and, in any case, I am not satisfied that a different standard of proof would have had any effect on my findings.
VI. Government Policy on Alleged War Criminals
[20] Canadian government policy is to pursue citizenship revocation proceedings where there is evidence that a Canadian citizen was directly involved or complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. This includes persons who are former members of organizations with a limited brutal purpose, such as a death squad.[14]
[21] Mr. Seifert submits that it falls to me to decide whether he fits within the government’s policy. It appears that it is open to me to decide this question.[15] However, in my view, the better course is for the Court to determine the facts and to leave it to the Governor in Council to decide how its policy applies to those facts.
VII. General Circumstances in Italy 1943-1945
[22] Italy and Germany became allies in 1939 and, in 1940, Italy entered World War II on Germany’s side. German troops were stationed throughout Italy and set up commands in several cities. By 1943, however, Benito Mussolini was dismissed as head of the Italian government and Allied troops moved in. In September 1943, Italy reached an armistice with the Allies. In turn, German troops tried to consolidate their positions in Italy, particularly in the north. As part of that effort, the head of the German SS, Heinrich Himmler, appointed SS General Karl Wolff as Highest SS and Police Leader in Italy to take command of security and police functions. Soon after, Wolff chose Dr. Wilhelm Harster as commander of the security police and sicherheitsdienst, or SD, with headquarters in Verona.
[23] In 1944, as Allied troops continued to move north, German commanders considered their police transit camp at Fossoli, near Carpi, to be vulnerable to attack. Allied bombs had fallen nearby and had destroyed a number of bridges across the Po River. The decision was taken to move the Fossoli camp farther east to Bolzano. Bolzano was in an area of northern Italy called the South Tyrol, bordering Austria. This district had previously been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but was ceded to Italy after World War I. Many of the residents in the area were German-speaking. Towns often had both Italian and German names, e.g. Bolzano was also known as Bozen, Merano as Meran, Mosso as Moos, and so on.
VIII. Organization of the SS, Security Police and SD[16]
1. General structure
[24] The schutzstaffel, or SS, served originally as a protective squad for Nazy party leaders. It evolved into an elite military organization under the command of the Reichsführer-SS, Heinrich Himmler. The Waffen-SS was an armed branch of the SS formed in 1934, whose members often fought at the front lines of the war. The sicherheitspolizie, or security police, was originally created as a corps of personal bodyguards for Adolf Hitler. It eventually expanded to include the Gestapo (the political police) and the kriminalpolizei (the regular civilian police). The sicherheitsdienst, was the security service of the SS.
[25] The SD’s operations included both intelligence and police functions. While the security police and SD were separate organizations, they cooperated in targeting groups and individuals believed to be dangerous. The SD conducted research and developed guidelines that would be passed to the security police for implementation. Their respective roles were meant to complement one another.
[26] According to Dr. Peter Black, Senior Historian at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C[17]., members of the SD were also members of the SS, with few exceptions. Generally, a person would join the SS first and then be assigned to the SD. To join the SS, one had to swear an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, as well as undergo a careful check of racial ancestry and political reliability. The process could take a year or longer. Members of the SD saw themselves as elite members of the SS. They instructed other police organizations in how to deal with perceived enemies of the state in keeping with Nazi party ideology.
[27] The regional operations of the security police and SD were coordinated by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the security main office or RSHA, headed by Reinhart Heydrich. The RSHA was a key organization in the implementation of the Third Reich’s political aims. For example, the RSHA determined whether ethnic Germans from occupied territories were racially acceptable, politically reliable and, therefore, eligible for German citizenship. In that connection, it included an immigration and naturalization office called the einwanderer zentrale, or EWZ. Through the security police and SD, the RSHA was also responsible for removing unwanted persons. As Germany expanded after the beginning of the war, each regional office of the security police and SD in an occupied territory was headed by a Befehlshaber des Sicherheitspolizei und SD, or BdS, a commander of security police and SD. As mentioned, in 1943, Dr. Wilhelm Harster was appointed the BdS for Italy with headquarters in Verona. Sub-regional commanders were called Kommandeur des Sicherheitspolizei und SD, or KdS. Below them were field officers of the security police and SD.
[28] Himmler also appointed personal representatives in the various regions. These were called Höhere SS-und Polizeiführer, or Higher SS and Police Leaders. As discussed above, SS General Karl Wolff became Himmler’s representative in Italy in 1943. Beneath him were SS and Police Leaders and, in turn, district commanders.
[29] These parallel reporting structures of the SS and Police Leaders, on the one hand, and the security police and SD on the other, crossed over at a certain level. For example, the KdS was part of the SS and Police Leader’s staff. Similarly, the BdS would report to the Higher SS and Police Leader.
[30] In occupied areas, a task force of the security police and SD, called an einsatzgruppe, would move in after the military in order to find and arrest political enemies. Each einsatzgruppe was subdivided into various einsatzkommandos. Once a region had been stabilized, an einsatzgruppe might be converted or evolve into a BdS, and an einsatzkommando into a KdS. As will be seen, this was the case in Ukraine.
2. Organization of the SS and SD in Italy[18]
[31] In his capacity as Befehlshaber des Sicherheitspolizei und SD, or BdS, Dr. Wilhelm Harster was responsible for, among other things, the treatment of Jews, aliens, weapons and curfews.[19] More particularly, he was responsible for the police transit camp at Fossoli.[20] He appointed Karl Titho, his former driver, as commander of the Fossoli camp and, later, the Bolzano camp. Dr. Harster was also responsible for various subsidiary offices of the security police and SD, including the regional KdS in the town of Bolzano.
[32] The security police and SD were responsible for imprisoning enemies of the state under a system of schutzhaft, or protective custody. Some of these prisoners were transferred to concentration camps. Assigned to each of those camps was a security police and SD officer, responsible for keeping records relating to the prisoners brought to the camp.
[33] Police transit camps, such as those at Fossoli and Bolzano, were not the same as concentration camps and, in fact, were under a separate command structure. Police transit camps were under the authority of the local security police and SD offices. They had a dual purpose. They housed prisoners who might eventually be sent to concentration camps. They also kept prisoners who could not be accommodated in other kinds of prisons – Gestapo facilities, labour and education camps, or SD prisons. Some prisoners were kept in protective custody pending an investigation or a decision whether they should be transferred to a concentration camp.
3. Invasion of German Forces into Ukraine
[34] In 1941, German forces moved into Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. In Nikolayev, where Mr. Seifert was living at the time, an einsatzgruppe administered the area until 1943 when a KdS was set up. The einsatzgruppe then moved farther east. When it invaded the Soviet Union, the einsatzgruppe was under orders to execute communist party officials, at all levels, and other “radical elements”[21]. Under the KdS, field offices, or Aussendienststellen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, were established. The KdS Nikolayev was responsible for the police prisons run by the security police and SD. In addition, an SS and Police Leader was appointed for Nikolayev.
[35] Nikolayev was recaptured by the Soviet Army in March 1944. German forces ordered ethnic German residents to be evacuated before the Army arrived. Among the evacuees were Mr. Seifert’s parents.
IX. Mr. Seifert’s Early Life in Ukraine
[36] Mr. Seifert was born in 1924 in Landau, Ukraine. His father was a postal worker. His mother was a homemaker and helped out looking after their few animals – a pig, a cow and two horses. His parents were of German ancestry and everyone spoke German in the home.
[37] In 1933, when he was nine years old, Mr. Seifert’s father lost his job because he was suspected of being a Hitler sympathizer. The family had to leave Landau. At that point, Mr. Seifert had been in school for only two and a half years.
[38] Mr. Seifert’s family first went to the Crimea to live with an aunt. After several months, they moved to Dzhankoy and Mr. Seifert went back to school for a year or two. They stayed there until 1939, when they returned to Ukraine. The family worked in the fields near Schönfeld, about twenty-five kilometers from Landau, and then moved to Nikolayev to look for work. Mr. Seifert found a job in a tool factory. He said that everyone lived in fear in those days. They were constantly afraid of being sent to Siberia if they said or did anything the Soviet authorities found offensive. Ethnic Germans felt particularly vulnerable.
X. Mr. Seifert Joins the German Forces
[39] As explained, when the German forces went into new territories, such as Ukraine, they set up a local administrative apparatus along with a security police and SD operation. In doing so, they sometimes engaged local auxiliary personnel. The einsatzgruppe that entered Ukraine in 1941 had authority to engage local reinforcements who were racially and politically suitable. The KdS had similar authority once it was established. In a place like Ukraine, German forces would specifically look for ethnic Germans, who would both be loyal to Germany and possess useful language skills. Additionally, they might look for people whose families had lost a member through deportation. In the early 1940s, Soviet authorities deported many ethnic Germans out of fear that they would join German forces and fight against the Soviet Union. Mr. Seifert fit this description perfectly. He was from an ethnically pure German family, he could speak German and Ukrainian, and his brother, Johann, had been conscripted by the Soviet Union in 1941.
[40] When the war broke out, Mr. Seifert had avoided conscription in the Soviet army by staying home from work. Other workers who showed up at the tool factory to receive their paycheques were sent to dig trenches.
[41] Mr. Seifert said that people in Nikolayev were excited to hear that German forces were advancing toward them. He was unemployed at the time, and remained so for several months after the arrival of German forces in the summer of 1941. However, his father secured a job as a postal worker at the local German field post.
[42] While the Germans occupied Ukraine, Mr. Seifert said that Ukrainians worried that the Soviet forces would return. If they did, he believed they would have attacked both Germans and Ukrainians. He understood that this had occurred in other German-occupied areas.
[43] Mr. Seifert went looking for a job in the winter of 1942. He applied to a person in a German navy uniform and was given a job as a security guard at Shipyard 61 in Nikolayev. Sometimes, he acted as an interpreter for people going in and out of the yard. In 1943, the shipyard closed and Mr. Seifert was out of work again. He received a dismissal slip that instructed him to report to the SD. He had no idea at that time what the SD was. When he presented himself, he was handed a gun and told to guard a sanatorium building containing three cells. He was aware that the SD was interrogating political prisoners inside and that some of the prisoners were beaten in order to get information out of them.
[44] Mr. Seifert was given a uniform – first a brown and black uniform and then a field grey – as well as a small Walther pistol. During his testimony, he did not remember swearing an oath to Hitler, but in his earlier affidavit[22] and his testimony in the extradition hearing,[23] he said that he and the other recruits swore an oath to the “Führer, the Folk, and the Fatherland.” He said he received little training; he was simply shown how to load his weapon and where to stand guard. He was given an identification card saying that he was serving in the SD, but he still did not know what the SD was. His superior wore an SD uniform.
[45] Mr. Seifert worked as a guard until the spring of 1944 when the Soviet forces returned. His parents had left for Germany in February 1944, so he was all alone.
[46] Dr. Peter Black explained that the rigorous process of becoming a member of the SS and, in turn, of the SD, did not apply to auxiliary personnel. Auxiliaries were not members of the SS; they were merely employees of the security police and SD. Indeed, if they were not German citizens, they were not even eligible to be members of the SS or the SD. They went through a less formal screening process, but one that still involved checking ancestry and political affiliations. Auxiliaries were given a variety of routine assignments – translation, guarding, etc. In Nikolayev, auxiliairies would have been on the KdS payroll. It is unlikely that the average person employed by the SD as an auxiliary would understand where he or she fit into the organizational structure or mandate of the SS, the security police or the SD itself.
[47] Mr. Peter Makelke, who, like Mr. Seifert, served as a guard at the Fossoli and Bolzano camps, also considered himself to be an auxiliary policeman. He was part of the SD, wore an SD uniform and reported to SD officers, but was not a member.
[48] I note that when Mr. Seifert’s parents applied for German citizenship at the EWZ in Kallies in March 1944, they stated that their son Michael was “currently with the SD Field Post 42819”.[24] Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that Mr.Seifert was an auxiliary in the service of the SD, but was not a full member of the SD.
XI. From Ukraine to Verona
[49] Mr. Seifert left Nikolayev in April 1944. An SD officer named Zites (whom he later encountered in Vancouver in the 1960s) had issued him a leave slip which entitled him to visit his parents in Kallies, Germany. He was anxious to leave Ukraine because he was aware of the advancing Soviet troops. He traveled to Odessa with an SS officer, an interpreter, several prisoners, and a few oxen. In Odessa, he boarded a train for Germany. Along the way, he saw the burning oil tanks in Ploiesti, Romania, which had been bombed by the Allies. The train stopped at Przemysl, where the soldiers were deloused, and then it continued to Berlin and, finally, to Kallies. He managed to find his parents and spent three weeks with them. When he left to return to Nikolayev, the field police in Litzmannstadt told him that he could not return to Nikolayev as it was no longer under German control. He was allowed to go back to Kallies and was told to report to Verona, Italy in three weeks’ time.
[50] In keeping with his orders, Mr. Seifert reported to the BdS, Dr. Wilhelm Harster, head of the security service and SD in Verona. At first, Dr. Harster assigned him no particular duties but after a few weeks Mr. Seifert started acting as Dr. Harster’s personal guard. In Verona, he met Mr. Peter Makelke, who had arrived from Kiev. He also met several other men with whom he would later share guard duties. Many of them were ethnic Germans from the Soviet Union and Poland.
[51] After three or four weeks of guard duty for Dr. Harster, Mr. Seifert was assigned to the transit camp at Fossoli.
XII. Events at the Fossoli Camp
[52] Prior to 1944, the Fossoli camp had been used by the Italian army for prisoners of war. When it came under the control of Dr. Harster, it was used for the custody of those persons the security police and SD sent to it - mainly Jews and Italian partisans. The Fossoli camp was under the direct command of SS Lieutenant Karl Titho, Dr. Harster’s former driver.
[53] When Mr. Seifert left Verona, Lieutenant Titho picked him up in the nearby town of Carpi and took him to the Fossoli camp. At the time, there was only a handful of German guards at the camp, as it was still under the control of Italian authorities. However, a few weeks later, the Italians left.
[54] While Mr. Seifert was at Fossoli, 67 Italian partisans were shot in reprisal for the killing of seven German sailors in Genoa.[25] Mr. Seifert and other guards had been ordered to dig a hole for the bodies. He heard the death sentence read out by a fellow guard named Gutweniger, but says he was not present when the shooting took place. He was ordered to intercept any escaping prisoners on the street nearby. But those who could get away took a different route through the adjacent apple orchard, so none came his way. Still, he fired toward the street as he had been ordered to do. After the shooting, he saw bodies being dragged into the hole by other guards. Other than the shooting, Mr. Seifert said that the only mistreatment of prisoners he saw at Fossoli was performed by Sergeant Hans Haage, who doused three women prisoners with a bucket of water.
[55] Mr. Peter Makelke was, like Mr. Seifert, originally from Ukraine – in fact, he was from Rastadt, a town not far from Mr. Seifert’s hometown of Landau. He had made his way from Rastadt through the oil fields at Ploiesti, where he was put to work making repairs after the Allied bombing campaign. He then made his way to Krakow, Poland. In Poland, he was given orders to report to Verona. After presenting himself to the BdS in Verona and doing some clerical work for a few days, he was sent to the Fossoli camp where, in May 1944, he worked with Mr. Seifert. Both at the Fossoli camp and at the Bolzano camp, Mr. Makelke was in charge of small arms. He says he does not remember the shooting of Italian prisoners at Fossoli.
[56] Soon after the shooting incident, the Fossoli camp was closed out of fear of the advancing Allied forces. Guards and prisoners moved to the Bolzano camp. As many as 2000 prisoners were transferred from Fossoli to Bolzano in August 1944.[26]
[57] Mr. Seifert testified that he traveled by truck between Fossoli and Bolzano. At one point, a plane shot at the truck and it went into a ditch. A box of ammunition landed on his right ankle and broke it.
XIII. Conditions in the Bolzano Camp
1. General Layout
[58] Mr. Luca Pedrotti, who is a professional photographer, identified certain photographs of the Bolzano camp that had been taken by his late father, Mr. Enrico Pedrotti, after the war. Mr. Pedrotti stated that his father had been a prisoner at the camp for about five months near the end of the war. He visited the camp with his father on at least three occasions. On one of their visits, Mr. Enrico Pedrotti, who was also a photographer, took several pictures. The camp has since been demolished, so there was no way of viewing it other than through these photographs.
[59] The photographs show various wooden buildings with painted metal roofs and open common areas between them. I am satisfied that these photographs fairly represent of what the camp looked like a few years after the war. Some changes had taken place. Some of the buildings had been put to other purposes – for example, an automotive shop and a children’s summer camp – but, by and large, the camp was essentially the same as it had been during the war. Various witnesses confirmed this, although some remembered more than others.
[60] The camp was situated in an area of Bolzano called Don Bosco. When he was a young boy, Mr. Enio Marcelli played at the camp during summer holidays. He explained that, due to a shortage of housing after the war, some families took up residence in the camp’s barracks. He agreed that the photographs presented by Mr. Pedrotti depicted the camp accurately. Mr. Marcelli made a hobby of tracing the history of Don Bosco, including the Bolzano camp. He created a computer drawing of the camp’s layout based on a hand-drawn original found in a museum in Trento. Mr. Marcelli’s drawing was made an exhibit in these proceedings, but only after the designations of specific buildings and locations had been removed[27]. This way, witnesses could be shown the drawing and asked if they remembered which buildings were which.
[61] The Bolzano camp was under the same command as the Fossoli camp. The commander was SS Lieutenant Karl Titho, assisted by Sergeant Hans Haage, who was chief of the Schutzhaftlager, the protective custody unit. While Bolzano was primarily a transit camp, it was also used as a police prison, where prisoners could be housed and interrogated on orders of the BdS in Verona or the KdS in Bolzano.[28]
2. Prisoners’ Memories of the Camp
(i) Mrs. Theresa Scala
[62] Mrs. Theresa Scala had been arrested in 1944 along with her cousin, Mr. Luigi Scala, because of their involvement in anti-fascist activities. Mr. Scala was sent to a camp in Mauthausen while Mrs. Scala was locked up in Turin. She was released after a month, on condition that she report every day to the SS. She was arrested again in July 1944 along with her brother, who was sent to Buchenwald. She escaped after a few weeks, but was free for only five days before being arrested again and returned to the SS prison. In November 1944, she was transported to the Bolzano camp and remained there until April 1945.
[63] Mrs. Scala said that her street clothes were taken away from her when she arrived at the camp and she was told to wear trousers and a top that were, essentially, rags. Her “uniform” displayed her prisoner number and a patch designating her as a political prisoner. She resided in the women’s block. Outside the women’s barracks was a fenced area. Next to her block were the barracks for dangerous prisoners, outside of which was another fenced area.
[64] Many women prisoners were allowed to work outside the camp, but not Mrs. Scala. She described her typical day as involving a wake-up call at 5:00 am, followed by a roll-call outdoors. The prisoners lined up in rows to be counted. They were served ersatz coffee, dry bread and a thin broth for breakfast. They were served the same meal in the evening after the second roll-call. During the day, they had to remain outdoors, no matter what the weather was.
[65] The interior of the women’s block consisted of rows of bunk beds, covered in thin straw mattresses. Some women used rags as blankets, but there were no sheets or pillows. The barracks housed a few hundred women. The only source of heat was a barrel-type stove that burned wood shavings. It had little effect. There was no source of water or toilet facilities. The interior wall did not reach the ceiling, so it was possible to communicate with the male prisoners in the adjacent block.
[66] Mrs. Scala said that the camp’s guards wore military uniforms, but their outfits differed from the usual SS uniform.
[67] For a time, Mrs. Scala was imprisoned in the camp’s isolation cells after she was wrongly accused of supplying fellow inmates with tools to open up the railway cars that transferred prisoners to Mauthausen or Flossenburg. Her experience in the cell-block is discussed below.
(ii) Mr. Mario Vecchia
[68] Mr. Mario Vecchia was also a prisoner at the Bolzano camp. He had been a member of a unit of partisans in the Monferrato area of northern Italy. He was arrested in November 1944 and transported to Bolzano by bus. He resided at the camp until late April 1945. He said that his own garments were taken from him in exchange for a pack of clothes and underwear and a pair of wooden clogs. His clothing bore a red badge bearing an identification number. Other prisoners wore different coloured badges – for example, yellow for Jews, and blue for hostages. His head was shaved in such a way as to leave a white stripe through the centre of his scalp.
[69] The camp’s barracks each had a letter designation – A, B, C, D, and so on. Mr. Vecchia resided in G Block. During the days, he worked in the courtyards and helped build the foundations for the various workshops outside of the camp walls – the carpentry shop, the cobbler, the mechanical shop, the seamstress, etc. He was also a member of a work unit that helped repair damage caused by the bombing of a nearby railway. Sometimes, he worked in the carpentry shop making window frames and make-shift coffins. Once, he helped carry sand from a creek bed up to a chateau outside of Bolzano. He had a choice whether to work. He preferred to work because it allowed him to get out of the camp. He was not paid, but was given an extra piece of bread for his labour. Workers were always supervised by guards and would be beaten if they stopped working.
[70] Mr. Vecchia said that his meals consisted of a ladle of broth and a half-piece of bread. Everyone was hungry. Sometimes, prisoners tried to steal potato peelings from the Germans’ garbage. The accommodation in G Block was very much the same as in the women’s block – bunk beds, a single blanket, a small stove, no water or toilet facilities. Three hundred prisoners were housed there.
[71] Each day began with roll-call at 5:00 am. Mr. Vecchia said that guards would try to strike the prisoners with whips or sticks as they exited the block, and would hurl insults at them. The prisoners then lined up to be counted. This process could take hours if it appeared that a prisoner was missing. Sergeant Haage would read out the names of prisoners who were to be transported to Germany. The prisoners were then served breakfast in their barracks before going to work. They returned at lunch-time. They worked until 5:00 pm, when another roll-call was taken and they were served their evening meal. After that, they were locked in their barracks. This daily routine was observed every day but Sunday, when the prisoners were excused from work and permitted an hour of free time in the courtyard.
[72] Mr. Vecchia’s memory of the layout of the camp was quite detailed. Despite his failing eyesight, he was able to identify virtually all of the buildings and open areas of the camp. He was also able to identify the various buildings in the Pedrotti photographs.
(iii) Mrs. Luciana Menici
[73] Mrs. Luciana Menici was arrested in October 1944. She had acted as a messenger between groups of partisans in the mountains and their contacts in Milan. She was imprisoned in Edolo until early November and then taken to the Bolzano camp. She arrived in the evening and the next morning was given a uniform consisting of a grayish pullover, trousers, clogs, and a jacket with a white cross on the back. On her uniform was a badge with her prisoner number, 5929, as well as a triangular patch. The patches indicated each category of prisoner – yellow for Jews, red for political prisoners, pink for hostages, and blue for foreigners. She kept her own clothes under her pillow. Ms. Menici remained in the camp until February 1945 when she was transferred to Merano.
[74] Like Mrs. Scala, Mrs. Menici stayed in the women’s block. She gave a similar description to Mrs. Scala’s of the interior and exterior of the barracks. However, Mrs. Menici said that there was, indeed, a source of potable water in the women’s block, as well as a rudimentary water-closet. Mrs. Menici also had a very clear memory of the layout of the camp and could identify the various buildings and common areas.
[75] Mrs. Menici said that two Ukrainian guards wore grey-green SS uniforms. She could not recall if their uniforms bore the SS lightning-bolt insignia. Other guards, the police guards, wore a different uniform. Sometimes, they w