Hans Frank served as Adolf Hitler's personal legal advisor and was the former "Governor General of Poland", a region that soon became the bank of test for the "Lebensraum" conspirators' program. Frank referred to the policy he intended to implement by declaring: "Poland will be treated as a colony; the Poles will become slaves of the German Great World Empire." Frank can be considered the emblematic 'desk perpetrator', who never personally pulled the trigger but supported at a managerial level the regular organization of the murder and deportation operations of Polish Jews. The area originally contained 2,500,000 to 3,500,000 Jews. They were forced into ghettos, subjected to discriminatory laws, deprived of the food necessary to avoid starvation and finally systematically and brutally exterminated. On December 16, 1941, Frank told the Cabinet of the Governor General: "We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole there." By January 25, 1944, Frank estimated that only 100,000 Jews remained. Frank was nicknamed “The Jewish Butcher of Krakow”. As Hitler's regime was disintegrating in the spring of 1945, Frank had fled to Haus Bergfrieden, Bavaria, where he was later captured by the US 7th Army on 4 May 1945. As mentioned in the previous chapter, there was no previous case against the Jews before the International Military Tribunal. However, the London Charter, in Article 6(c), stated that "before crimes against humanity could be proven, crimes against peace and war crimes had to be established." The British chief prosecutor, Sir Hartley, made this clear in Shawcross's closing statement: "So the crimes against... half the paper... it was not important enough to convict Frank in the matter of Majdanek, Treblinka or Auschwitz as they already had evidence enough when Frank was questioned the trial had reached its one hundred and eleventh day. The media were getting tired of all this talk of concentration camps and war crimes; even the bench seemed fed up on numerous occasions the prosecution to simplify the details about the concentration camps because they believed that the details were already adequately known: “(…) It is not in the interests of the trial, which the Charter requires to be speedy, that at this stage further evidence on the concentration camp issue.” At least the prosecution was not helped by the bench to present another story of what would appear to be just another concentration camp..