I conclude, if therefore, this pending measure were carried out then this would have to be regarded as a considerable impediment of the possibilities of the defendants. Yet, the defense is of the opinion that something that has been possible up to now must also be possible if it is of even greater importance at this point.
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honor this is the first that the prosecution has heard about the intended re-arrangement in the jail and it is submitted that we have nothing to do with it. However, I am advised that the jail facilities are becoming somewhat crowded and that may, at least in part, account for the change of the billeting arrangements there. That is all we have to say about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now give consideration to the matter of seating, of counsel and will give consideration later to the comments made by counsel for defendants and the prosecution. Do you wish to submit the matter of seating of counsel at this time?
DR. LATENSER: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, as my colleagues just tell me, we have no objection to the seating arrangement just as we find it here just now.
THE PRESIDENT: There has been presented to this Tribunal a motion which is signed by Dr. Laternser in which he requests that, "My assistant be permitted to take a seat next to me during the session of the Military Tribunal. Due to the fact that I have two defendants I may need the assistance of Dr. Lucht during the sessions." It was to this request that I made reference.
DR. LATERNSER: I have already been informed by Mr. Wartens, who is the defense administrator that this application has already been granted so I hadn't thought of it any more because I had already been told that it was all right and I thought the matter had been dealt with.
THE PRESIDENT: That being true the Tribunal does not find it necessary to give consideration to that matter. The court will stand in short recess while we give consideration to the matters as submitted.
We will not adjourn at this time but will return shortly.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I touch upon one point, about two minutes. As, Mr. President, you will no doubt have noticed, at the beginning of this afternoon's session there were very few defense counsel present. This was due to the fact that one hour for lunch interval does not suffice for us to eat. May I be brief in explaining why this is so. All counsel from all the trials eat in one mess. Since all trials adjourn simultaneously at 1230, at or about this time everybody crowds together so that it is difficult to get food quickly. I am awfully sorry to bring it up but there it is. I, therefore suggest that perhaps we might choose 1215 for the mid-day recess so that we wouldn't have to get mixed up in the crowd and we would then be able to manage with one hour, fifteen minutes luncheon recess. It can't be done any other way. So, my application is for adjournment from 1215 to 1330. I have been told that in other trials such lunch time recess has already been set at one hour and fifteen minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: I might say to counsel for defendants that the members of the Tribunal are also suffering from the same inconvenience at times, in finding our time is limited in connection with our lunch period.
DR. LATERNSER: But, Mr. President, we, the counsel, don't eat in this building. We have to walk about 500 yards, 4 - 500 yards , in order to get to the point where we eat.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make inquiry? Do you not think it might be well for the several Tribunals to give consideration to this request so that it might be worked out on a schedule basis rather than just this Tribunal alone.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite, Mr. President. That suits me, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall take it up with the presiding judges of the several tribunals.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in short recess and will return later.
(a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the several motions on applications which have been presented, the Tribunal wishes to make the following announcements. As to the matter of adjournment for lunch so as to permit counsel for defendants to have sufficient time, we have decided that is a matter which should be taken up with the presiding judges of the several tribunals, and I shall do so and will report later, and if I should fail to do so, may I ask that counsel present the matter later.
In connection with the motion for -- or application relative to the placing of -- or rather the objection of placing the defendants two in a cell, the Tribunal wishes to state that there has been no formal motion or application presented, and in order that there may be a record in writing, the Tribunal will defer any ruling upon that matter until it is formally presented in writing.
In connection with the motion for a continuance or adjournment for a two-week period, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it should be denied, and it is denied. There has been some two months, or approximately two months, since the indictment was returned. Members of this Tribunal have been here for approximately one month. We do not wish to in any way limit or circumscribe the rights of any of these defendants, but we do feel that this case should proceed as promptly and as rapidly as possible. It will take some time for the prosecution to present its case, and after that, it will take some time for the defendants --the respective defendants to present their case; and we are of the opinion that during that period, all parties will have sufficient time to digest the documents which have been presented, will have sufficient time to contact the witnesses that are desired and to obtain these witnesses. If any necessity should arise or if a brief adjournment might be necessary at some later time, the Court will give some consideration to that matter;
but we feel that this Trial should proceed now, and that we should enter in with the presentation of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the motion for a continuance for a two-week period as previously stated will be denied. In that connection, I also might state that we gave consideration to the fact that even though some of the counsel may be required to be absent for a day or a portion of a day, there is furnished to them copies of these proceedings and a transcript of all that has transcribed, and we do not feel that the rights of the defendants will in any way be effected. Court will therefore stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning at 9:30 at the place to which has been assigned the trial of Case No. 7 for Tribunal number 5, which is known to counsel for the prosecution, and I believe, to counsel for the defendants. The Tribunal will therefore stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 16 July 1947 at 0930 Hrs.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 16 July 1947, 0930, Justice Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find-their-seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if all the defendants are in the courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Prosecutor, are you ready to proceed?
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honors, in order that the Court may be familiar with the process of procuring the documents which was indulged in by the prosecution, I would like at this time to have Mr. Fenstermacher, pro-counsel in the case, make a statement for the record with reference to the manner in which these documents were procured.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: May it please Your Honors, when the American army invaded Germany and the German army capitulated, we captured in Berlin most of the files of the German Wehrmacht. Those files were removed to Washington and they now repose in warehouses in or near Washington and the bulk of them, about 250 tons, are now in the Pentagon Building in Washington.
When we began to prepare this case, we hired about ten research analysts, people who understand the German language, to screen those documents and during the past six months those people have been going through these documents picking out those which relate to material in which we are interested in this case and sending them over to us.
We instructed the analysts working on this case to pick out certain excerpts and if they found a file of the army group "F", or a corps or division under it, we asked them to screen it, look for the material that was relevant and send over to us here in Nuernberg only that with which we were concerned.
We could not ship 250 tons of German documents here to Nuernberg. That was impossible.
Once the documents were received in Nuernberg, we had additional research analysts again screen them and again certain excerpts of these documents would be marked off and those excerpts are the ones which we have now had translated into English and which appear in the English version of our document books, and their German counterparts appear in the German document books. Those documents, once they were screened here in Nuernberg under the supervision of both a lawyer and other experienced research analysts, received a document number here.
Now, we have tried to be very fair in picking out excerpts. I instructed the people that were assisting me on this case; as they came across material in the documents which related to matters in which the defense would no doubt be interested, I instructed them to mark off those sections of the documents and to also translate those portions; and as they will appear in the English version of the document book, as we come to introduce them, it is our desire to read those portions which perhaps injure the prosecution's case; and should we fail to do that and the Court wishes to call our attention to it, I am sure we will read it into the record so that it will appear at that time.
We have then placed ourselves in somewhat of a trustee relationship with this material. We cannot bring it all physically from Washington to Nuernberg but we instructed our people in Washington and we instructed our people here to extract those portions which were relevant and material to the allegations which we have set forth in the indictment.
I think, Your Honors, that will give you somewhat of an understanding of the problem with which we were faced in screening this material and of the problem that was before us as to what documents and what excerpts to use. We tried to be completely objective about it and to protect, in screening this tremendous amount of material, the interests of the defense as well as of ourselves.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendant List): Your Honors, in reply to the statement made by the prosecution, I would like to state my attitude quite briefly because I think this necessary already at this stage of the proceedings. The prosecution has just said that that material which they had sent to Nuernberg from Washington was only material which interested the prosecution. Therefore, I can assume that mainly incriminating material was selected, a fact that I can well understand from the standpoint of the prosecution.
I would like, therefore, to ask that, first of all, the defense be given permission to go through that material which is now in Nuernberg so that we can proceed to the truth. I would, therefore, ask the Tribunal to have the prosecution let us, first of all, go through the material which the prosecution does not want to use here in Nuernberg.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendants Lanz and Geitner): Your Honors, in addition to the statements made by Dr. Laternser just now, I would like to make a concrete request. The prosecution bases its case to a large extent on war diaries, war diaries which the individual units of the German Wehrmacht made on the Balkans. In Germany -- and it is probably the same in America - each unit, each division, each regiment had to make an official war diary. These war diaries were, as far as I know, saved and are now in the hands of the prosecution. They are, of course, documents which have a special power of evidence and these war diaries are made for the purpose of being able to reconstruct all matters at a later time.
Now, most of the accused generals are, for the most part, dependent on these war diaries for information with regard to events which happened at that time and few of them -- I repeat -- and few of them made these war diaries for their own use, but for the troops, and therefore only few of the generals kept detailed notes about their experiences during the war time.
If we want precise statements about the events in the Balkans, it is urgently necessary that we have insight into these war diaries, i.e. of course as soon as possible, because these war diaries include many volumes and, if the defense is supposed to go through the diaries in time so that the progress of the trial is not delayed, then we must get insight into these war diaries as soon as possible.
Therefore, Your Honors, this is a concrete request which I am stating on behalf of my clients Lanz and Geitner. I think I am also speaking in the name of all the other defendants. Without these war diaries the defendants cannot make reliable statements about the places, times, and reports, and we want to help the Court to get the most reliable and precise reports and statements which each defendant here can confirm under oath. Therefore, Your Honors, I would like to ask that, as far as possible, you would have the prosecution let us have this material and make use of it.
MR. DENNEY: May it please your Honors, the material which we have here in Nurnberg has been furnished about 90 per cent to the defendants' counsel. They have much more material than we have here in the document books. We will certainly be glad to let them see the other five or ten per cent that we have not given them up to now. We can make an arrangement whereby they can go over it in the office, with one of the members of the staff for the prosecution.
Now about the request of Dr. Sauter, concerning the war diaries, these diearies are just running accounts of operational reports, and we have taken the material that has to do with a particular happening-the entries on either side of it in some cases, where they have a bearing on it, have been extracted and sent over, and I am not at all sure that we will be able to get all of the war diearies over from Washington.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. Denney, has the defense counsel any representative in Washington?
MR. DENNEY: Not so far as I know, they do not.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't they?
MR. DENNEY: I do not know, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further?
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is of the opinion that these defendants should have access to all materials that they feel are essential for the defense of their respective clients; counsel should have access to the material. The Court is interested, and I am sure that all of the parties are interested in getting down to the real facts in the case, so that the attitude of the prosecution will be that this Tribunal wants to feel, when it has completed its deliberations and that defense counsel and defendants will also feel, that they have been given every opportunity to present their case in the manner in which they see fit.
Now when I make that statement, I trust that it will not be, -our liberality will not be abused. We are anxious to try this case as rapidly as possible, but the trying of the case rapidly must not sacrifice the rights of the defendants, and may I suggest that the spokesman for the defense, and the defendants contact the prosecution and work it out with them, for the obtaining of such additional material as they may feel is necessary, and if you should have any difficulties in connection with that material later, then you can present it to the court.
MR. DENNEY: If your honor please, at this time I should like to offer as Exhibit 1, an affidavit of 3 December , 1946, which is the Niebergall affidavit with which I believe some of the defense counsel are familiar, and read it into the record. It merely has to do with some procedural matters that are followed with reference to the documents in the document room.
I believe that most of the defense counsel are familiar with the affidavit, but for the purpose of the written record, it has been handed up to your honors. It is not in the document book.
It is dated 3 December 1946.
AFFIDAVIT 3 December 1946 I, FRED NIEBEGALL, A.G.O. D150636, of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:
1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "OCC") on 2 October 1946.
2. I have served in the U.S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the U.S. of America. Based upon my experience as a U.S. Army Officer, I am familiar with the operations of the U.S. Army in connection with seizing and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for CCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and Translation Division of OCC and assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division.
In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel.
3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "IMT") a great number of original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nurnberg, Germany. Major Coogan's affidavit of 19 November 1945 describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I received custody, in the course of official business, of all these documents except the one's which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nurnberg. Some have been screened, processed, and registered in accordance with Major Coogan's affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining have been screened, processed, and registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below.
5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals.
Lawyers and Research Analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German speaking analysts, either at the document center or in Nurnberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.
6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these document, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six series designated by the letters: "NO", "NI" , "NM", "NOKW", "NG", and "NP", indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents were listed numerically.
7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the Photostat Room, the original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the Document Room. In the case of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.
8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are now located in safes in the Document Room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the Prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.
9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.
/s/ FRED NIEBELGALL FRED NIEBERGALL Chief of Document Control Branch Evidence Division, O.C.C.I believe this document has been handed to Major Hatfield and I request, if your Honors please, that it be marked as Exhibit 1.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so ordered.
MR. DENNEY: Turning now to the first document in Book 1, I might say by way of preface, if it is agreeable with your Honors and with defense counsel, in view of the fact that these documents are placed chronologically by date, at the time we offer it, we propose to mention generally the defendant's name against whom it is ordered, and a general characterization of the document, and on the following day, after a book has been completed, if it is agreeable with your Honors and defense counsel we will submit a table at the left of which will be the documents which have been offered, then the Count under which it is offered, and then the defendant's name against whom it is offered, so that everyone will not have to keep going back and looking into the record. I believe that will make it more simple.
THE PRESIDENT: That is satisfactory to the Court -- to the Tribunal, if there is no objections on behalf of defense counsel.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I have to say that I haven't correctly understood the proposed procedure. Could it please be repeated so that I could state my attitude towards it?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, you will kindly repeat your statement.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor. The documents have been arranged in the books by date. If at each time a document is offered we specified all of the defendants against whom it is offered and all of the counts that it is offered on, it will cause a constant searching of the record as to whether or not a defendant is implicated in a count, according to our position, or whether or not a count has been specified. For the convenience of the defense counsel and the Court it is proposed that we will make a general reference at the time we offer specific documents, and at the close of a day we will prepare a table which states all of the exhibits in a book, the counts on which it is offered, and the defendants against whom it is offered. We will furnish tables to each of the defense counsel. They won't have to be translated because it's purely a matter of numbers and names, and we will furnish copies to the Court, and these tables will aLways be furnished the morning following, following the completion of a document book. Is that agreeable, Dr. Laternser? (Dr. Laternser and other defense counsel agree by nodding in the affirmative.) The other counsel seem to be in accord.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendants having indicated that such a procedure meets with their approval, you may follow that course of procedure, Mr. Denney.
MR. DENNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. The first document which we offer is NOKW-860, which is an affidavit by the Defendant List, executed on 7 March 1947, which contains various biographical material with reference to promotions and declarations. This is offered as Pro secution's Exhibit 2---Document NOKW-860. There being no objections by defense counsel, it is requested that the document be received in evidence and marked as requested, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: it is so ordered.
MR. DENNEY: The first page of the affidavit sets forth some basic information about the Defendant List. I don't think that it's necessary to read it. From information about his promotions on Page 2 it will be ween that he entered the service in 1900, and at the time of the capitulation he had somewhere some few months less than fortyfive months service, and that he became a field marshal in 1940, and that, at the time--in 1939, he was a Generaloberst, equivalent to a four-star general in the United States. The next section, the decorations, will show that he had received his share of them. The Party material indicates that he was not a member of the Party and that he never joined it. On the English copy there is missing a statement to the effect that the affidavit was voluntarily made, but I believe that that appears on the German copy. Perhaps Dr. Laternser can give us some help on that. It is just at the end of the document Doctor. Dr. Sauter advises me that that does appear on the German copy. An error in translation is all, Your Honor. They failed to put it on here, but there is a statement in the German to the effect that the statement was voluntarily made by him. The next document is N0KW-1042, which we offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 3, which is a copy of the personal record taken from the personnel file concerning the Defendant List. This is similar to that is known in our Army as the 201-file. This document is offered by the Prosecution as Exhibit 3. There are no objections, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objections, it may be admitted in evidence.
MR. DENNEY: We would like to call the Court's attention to the entry on the first page, at the bottom, where it says "10 September 1942, resigned as Commander in Chief, Army Group, and at the disposal of the Fuhrer."
We have heard much in Nurnberg about the impossibility of resigning. On Page 2 of the document there is an entry with 24 April 1942 by Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel of OKW, commenting on the defendant List's performance in which he states "The Commander in Chief of the 12th Army, and Wehrmacht Commander, Southeast, most highly proven, enjoys the unlimited confidence of the Fuhrer." On the next page, which is Page 3, still Exhibit 3, Document NOKW-1042, we believe in the German copy there is one error on the left-hand column of the dates. It should be 19 March. The date that follows 1 October 1913, and then precedes 2 August 1914, it should be 19 March 1914. The third page sets forth in some detail the rather broad experience of the Defendant List. It is to be noted that he went to the Artillery and Engineer schools and in 1908 he went to the War Academy. Thereafter he was with an Infantry Corps. In 1920 he was commander of an Infantry division and an Infantry regimental staff officer, and he served as a battalion commander. He was in the Reichwehr Ministry and became a brigadier general in the early 30's. He was a first ranking major general in October, 1932. He was commander of a Wehrkreis, which is similar to our service command, in 1933, and he became a general of Infantry in 1935, and General Oberst, or a four-star general in 1939. He became a (6) Field Marshal in the Wehrmacht in July 1940. I referred earlier to his being a major general. That should he Generalleutnant, which is a major general in the American army. The next document which the Prosecution offers as Exhibit 4 in evidence is 071-PS. This document was received as United States of America Exhibit No. 371 before the International Military Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, before the submission of this document, may I see this document? (Defense counsel looks at document).
Your Honor, I object to the submission of this document. At first glance I can see that it is a photostat copy. From this photostat copy it cannot be seen, first of all, whether it is a carbon copy of the letter or whether it is a copy of the letter. Also, it doesn't show a letter-head nor from whom the letter comes. As to the signature this document isn't even signed.
Thirdly, what the prosecution intends to prove by this I could take from yesterday's opening speech. I would like to suggest the following, the letter proves that it has been written but it doesn't prove that its contents are true. As a rule it shows the opinion of the writer of the letter and need not be in line with the actual conditions since, for all these reasons if cannot be regarded as a proper document, I would ask the Tribunal to look at the document, it must be rejected as evidence of any kind of value.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, the rules provide that documents received in evidence before the International Military Tribunal shall be received in evidence in these cases. Of course with this document as with any document that is offered by the prosecution or the defense, it is for the court to determine what weight they shall give it, if any, and we have nothing to do with probative value. There is a certificate with this document certifying that it was received as an exhibit. It was United States Exhibit No. 371 in IMT. It was put in as part of the case in chief. I believe against the defendant Rosenberg, and while I do not content that one who writes a letter necessarily speaks the truth, we have a later document which refers to a task force Rosenberg which is operating in the Southeast area, which indicates that what is said in this document is true.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you claim for this exhibit?
DR. DENNEY: We claim that this exhibit, your Honor, involves the defendant List. It shows that he was cooperating with the program in the party whereby they were seizing cultural works of art and enabling them to send people to the Southeast. I believe the particular reference here is to the cremation in the Archives in Jewish libraries.
THE PRESIDENT: Who do you claim wrote this letter?
MR. DENNEY: It was written, if your honor please, by Rosenberg who was later to become the Reich protector for the Eastern occupied territories.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the letter so show?
MR. DENNEY: The letter does not so show.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the letter doesn't show at all who wrote it. In addition the prosecution doesn't even say that this letter was sent. If a copy is made, then I don't understand why this copy doesn't contain the signature. I maintain that this letter was never signed. I could even go further with my allegation. I could, for instance, say--I don't know this--that is wasn't signed because the contents weren't correct. Also, your Honor, the fact that the letter was accepted in the first trial was evidence doesn't make this letter a document. For at the time it was submitted, it was submitted for another reason than it is submitted today, at that time, it was submitted against Rosenberg, I don't know why the cleeague at that time didn't object to this letter. I would like to say once again that I cannot see from the document itself, and that is necessary, who wrote the letter. The letter from the document itself, and that is necessary, who wrote the letter. The letter isn't signed and I don't know whether it was ever sent off.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor, pleases, the rules provide that documents which have been received in evidence before the International Military Tribunal shall be received here. However, for the benefit of the court, I will be glad to check the record there. It is my impression that it was further identified during the proceedings-and see whether or not we can establish that. In any event, it was received in evidence before the IMT.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I just say something else? I have already emphasized that the fact that the letter was presented and accepted in the first trial should not matter at all. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal now should rule on my objections to this document and should not be bound by the ruling of the first Tribunal whether it is admissible or not, because I am bringing in a new reason why this document should be admissed as a document.