The daily “Neues Deutschland” of 29 November 2002 quoted the following statement of the Dutch scientist Christiaan Frederik Rüter: “One must accept the fact that the prosecution of National Socialist crimes in Eastern Germany – contrary to Western Germany – resulted not only from political calculations, but also from a real, sincere need”. Rüter was the judge of the National Court in Amsterdam, and until 2003 was active as Professor of procedural and penal law at the Amsterdam university. He conducted the project The Judiciary and National Socialist Crimes. As part of the project, materials from penal processes that took place in both parts of Germany after 1945 were analysed, documented and published. The works on this project were commenced in the 1960s. The quotation reveals a unilateral, uncritical and non-diversifying evaluation of the activi-ty of the GDR in this area. This approach is also palpable in the introduction and comments to the collection of Eastern German court decisions in cases of National Socialist murders (see: DDR-Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Sammlungostdeutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer Tötungsverbrechen. Verfahrensregister und Dokumentenband, ed. C.F. Rüter, D. de Mildt, München 2002). Historian Falco Werkentin criticised focusing on court decisions and ignoring the “conditions in which they were produced” under the SED dictatorship. He drew attention to the trials against “Nazi and war criminals” that were pending before the Penal Chamber in Waldheim in spring 1950. These processes resulted in the sentencing of approx. 3,400 persons for allegedly or actually committed crimes, but the judgements were passed in violation of the elementary principles of the rule of law. Werkentin underlined: “In the proceedings held in the 1970s and 1980s, offences were not fabricated any more. In those years, one should adopt a critical approach to those cases that were not brought to accusation. This also con- cerns […] the FRG in this whole period” (See: F. Werkentin, DDR-Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Notwendige Hinweise zu einer Dokumentation [in:] Deutschland Archiv (DA) 3/2005, p. 506−515). Rüter did not comment on these arguments in the article in which he compared the number of convictions between Eastern and Western Germany solely on the basis of the sentences. As a result, he ascribed more convictions to the GDR and its judicial system. He also concluded that cases were conducted faster in the GDR. Rüter also stated that there is no evidence supporting the thesis that the Stasi protected Nazi perpetrators prior to prosecution and used them whenever an opportunity occurred to infringe on the international image of the FRG (See: C.F. Rüter, Das Gleiche. Aber anders. Die Strafverfolgung von NS-Verbrechen im deutsch-deutschen Vergleich [in:] DA 2/2010, p. 213−222). In the book titled Zbrodniarze nazistowscy i Stasi. Tajna polityka wobec przeszłości (Nazi and Stasi Criminals. The Covert Policy on the Past), I made it evident that this was not the case. Somewhat as a confirmation of my arguments, the prosecutor’s office of the central unit in North Rhine-Westphalia that is responsible for prosecuting National Socialist mass crimes commenced proceedings against an SS-man suspected of participating in the massacre in the French locality of Oradour-sur-Glane. The Security Service had held information about that person’s possible participation in the crime since 1980, however, in consultation with the judiciary, it resigned from launching penal proceedings. The above article is a polemic with the theses of R. Rüter.