First of all, what does "DM" mean here?
A "DM" is Draha Mihajlovic.
Q And then another question. Is the intention of Mihajlovic which is reported here with regard to the disarming of the Italians by DM units in case the Italians fell off confirmed by another report?
A I remember that reports with similar contents frequently came in during this period.
Q And then to the daily report of the Commander in Chief Southeast dated the 24th of August 1943; this is on page 79 of the German document book and on page 62 of the English. This daily report of the Commander in Chief Southeast, dated the 24th of the 8th, reads under the heading, "Area North of the Save "?
"While training east of Ilok the 3rd Company of Reserve Engineer Battalion 46 was attacked during rest period by Communist bands (400?) with heavy weapons: 61 dead, some of them mutilated, 5 wounded, 28 missing, 18 escaped; investigation initiated."
Mutilations in such cases by the bands -- were they something unusual?
A No, unfortunately, they occurred frequently. In the middle of September in the same document there is a similar report from Crete.
Q Do you mean the report of tho 13th of tho 9th on page 84 of the German document book?
A Yes, the 13th of the 9th, page 64 of the English Document Book.
Q In the daily report of the 13th of the 9th which follows shortly after, it states under the heading, "Commander of Salonika Agean," Near Rhodes a number of Italians, approximately 1,000 men, went over to the bands."
A This is one isolated report about incidents which happened, unfortunately, frequently during this period and which we had feared and which illustrated the enormous danger which existed then and which simply made it unavoidably necessary that the Italians should be completely disarmed as soon as possible.
Q This leads us back to the falling out of the Italians and I would not ask you to look at Exhibit 447 on page 10 of the German document book and page 17 of the English. This report, page 6 of the original, from the 23rd of the 9th, 1943, is a report from the Commander in Chief Southeast to the OKW:
"Mopping up of Kephalonica under way. General Gandin with his staff captured.)
Now, do you still remember the case cf General Gandin?
A Yes, this was a special affair. As far as I can remember, the OKW and Hitler had placed great hopes on Gandin who was formerly in the Commando Supremo. Hitler hoped to win him over for a new Mussolini Government, but Gandin's attitude was perhaps the most malicious and indecent we ever experienced with the Italians. According to the Fuehrer order and according to the capitulation of his Army Commander in Chief he was requested to give up his arms and I think he also declared himself ready to do this, because, in any case, I know that the German troops who were nearing Kephalonia at that time, in spite of his agreement to give up his weapons, were attacked and shot at; and so that is how the necessity arose of taking the island of Kephalonia in combat. That was of special importance at that time. Kephalonia lies south of Korfu and is one of the islands which exactly faces the Italian mainland at a distance which for a modern army moans only a stone throw.
A. I remember that, at that time, Hitler was especially furious about Gandin and the actions of his troops on Kephalonia. He ordered that the whole occupation of Kephalonia was to be shot to death. This order by Hitler was passed on with a calming and rather modifying note rather in the sense that, "first of all take Kephalonia. and then we'll see what happens." And then the request which was expected came and was passed on that this Hitler order should be rescinded because, as far as I remember, that was a question of a few thousand men. Thereupon, Hitler's order was rescinded and he ordered that all the officers were to be shot to death. This order was not carried cut either, but General Gandin was shot, and, as far as I remember, a few officers of his staff who were particularly guilty for the resistance which I described before, and they were shot after summary court martial. And then it was reported, as can be seen from the document here the shooting of General Gandin and officers of his staff and thereupon there were no further directives from above. They were obviously calm again.
Q. Witness, you said that the Italian High Command had been in agreement with the handing over of arms and also that General Gandin had received this directive from his own Commander in Chief.
A. Yes, agreement is perhaps rather too weak. There was a regular capitulation which had been concluded between the Commander in Chief of the XIth Italian Army and the German office commissioned to do this.
Q. And, after this capitulation, did the Italians still remain on occupation power?
A. No, that was impossible. The rights and duties of an occupying power fell off automatically with the capitulation of the Italians and went over to the German occupation power.
Q. And if now Italian officers and soldiers refused to give up their weapons which had been ordered by their own commanders and went on using their arms against the Germans or gave them to the bands, then in your opinion this is a violation of the laws of war?
m 4397
A. Yes, certainly because a capitulation which is correctly and officially concluded binds every single man in this sphere of capitulation to the provisions of it, and a man who goes on fighting thereby becomes a franc-tireur.
Q. And also one who keeps his arms and doesn't deliver them up or who even gives his arms to the bandits?
A. I am not well enough acquainted with legal matters to know whether the same paragraph applies to this as well, I would rather assume: The Italians, after the capitulation, were PW's and PW's are treated according to the same provisions of the law and come under the same legal provisions as the power which holds the prisoners, and if a German soldier had given his arms to the bandits then, without doubt, he would have been sentenced to death.
Q. Witness, now let us go back to the extensive document which contains the many Daily Reports. This is Document No. 449, starting on German Page 35, English Page 37. The last time we stopped at the Daily Report of the 15th of September 1943. We will now look again at the Daily Report of the 5th of October 1943, which is found on page 90 and page 91 of the German Document Book, and Page 68 of the English Document Book. And now, at the end of this Daily Report of the 5th of October 1943, it is reported as reprisal for murder of a regimental commander and sabotage of telephone lines a village Akmotobok, entirely destroyed, all inhabitants shot."
A. On the day when this report was received, this is a report from Army Group E to the Commander in Chief Southeast, - I was absent and was in Albania, and Montenegro on a reconnaissance trip.
Q. Well then did you have any connection at all with the incident and did you know anything about an inquiry to your office as to the way in which this murder should be avengened?
A. No.
Q. And now, please turn to the Daily Report of the 29th of November which is on Page 98 of the German Document Book and Page 73 of the English Document Book.
This Daily report of the 29th of the 11th Corps it states, "As reprisal for a band attack on Tripolis-Sparta Road, Daily Report of the 26th of the 11th, 100 hostages shot at the place of the attach." was this incident reported to you or any questions in connection with it?
A. No, from the 19th of November until the 10th or the 11th of December I was absent.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: At this point the Tribunal will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9:30, 16 October 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et all, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 October 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 courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain as to whether or not all the defendants are present an the court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court except von Weichs who is still in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the examination.
HERMANN FOERTSCH - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, yesterday evening before the recess I asked you about those documents contained in document book XIX of the prosecution. Now, please take Exhibit No. 452. This is on page 124 of the German and page 99 of the English document book. This belongs to those documents which, according to your list, you learned of first in this trial. Nevertheless, I would like to ask you the following questions about it. In this teletype which is sent from the 1st Mountain Division to the Mountain Jaeger Regiment 99 the so-called "Operation Treason" (Verrat) is mentioned. Did you know anything at all about this operation and what does "Operation Treason" mean?
A. I only remember that the "Operation Treason" concerned the capture of the Island of Korfu.
Q. And was that in connection with the Italian capitulation?
A. Yes, there was some fighting for Korfu.
Q. In the radio message of the 1st Mountain Division to the Divisional Commander I-a, at the beginning of Exhibit No. 452, the following sentence is contained:
"By order of high authority no prisoners are to be taken during Operation Verrat. which high authority is referred to here?
A. I can't say because this radio message wasn't known to me before and I can't find any explanation for it. I found in the prosecution documents that when Korfu was captured prisoners actually were taken because in one passage it states something about the transport of Italians from Korfu is reported.
Q. From the teletype of the division to the Mountain jaeger Regiment 99 on the first page of Exhibit 452 the following is stated:
"For Operation Treason there will be brought up to Igumenica on the 24th of the 9th in the evening one company 2nd Regiment Brandenburg (South Tyrolians in Italian uniforms and with Italian arms)."
Did you know anything about that, about the fact that the Brandenburg Regiment committed in action Tyrolians in Italian uniform and with Italian arms, against the Italians in Korfu?
A. No, I didn't know anything about that. The committment of one single company isn't the affair of an army group staff.
Q. Now, witness, Document Book XX of the prosecution.
Here the greater part of the exhibits contained in this book were not known to you before this trial. Therefore, I will just mention now those exhibits which were known to you. Those were 470, 475, 476, 477 and 473. Is that correct?
A. Yes, but I think 467 also belongs to those--because of the date it seems rather doubtful to me--which could have come to my knowledge.
Q. I just want to ask you about this exhibit. Please turn to Exhibit 467 on page 42 oi the German and page 56 of the English document book No. XX. On the second page of this document there is a report which, next to the signature, contains the date, "22nd of August 1944." That is a time when you were no longer in the Southeast. On the other hand, the heading to this report says: "Daily Report Commander in Chief Southeast on the 9th of October 1943." I submit to you the original of this exhibit. How can these two things be explained, that a daily report of the 9th of October 1943 was signed on the 22nd of August 1944. Otherwise it can't be explained here because between the heading and the signature there is no other signature.
A. I know that. I have looked at the original; it is incomprehensible to me because the first four pages of the original contain a detailed report of the 31st of August 1944.
Q. That is even later than the date by the signature.
A. And then comes a page with a heading which is also contained on the second page: "Daily report of the Commander in Chief Southeast from the 9th of October 1943." This page on the original has no signature and no identification and then the next page is dated 22nd of August 1944. That is obviously a part of the line given here again. How this page gets in here is not clear to me and I really can't explain it.
Q. From the incidents reported in this document can you assume that this refers to parts of two quite different documents?
A. I see that the document "9 of October 1943?" is in agreement with the contents because they talk about the transport of Italians back from the area of the Commanderin-Chief Southeast. From the total figure transported, for instance, the total from the 9th of October 1943, 9,659 officers, 225,616 men -- and then another 1,000 officers, and then a little more than 26.000 men. This page must therefore contain incidents from October 1943. As I said, it has no signature and has no connection at all with the other pages.
A. Thank you. That is sufficient.
Q. Witness, now please take Exhibit 470 on page 48 of the German and 64 of the English document book. These reports from the Commander in Chief Southeast to the OKW are dated the 7th of November, from the 17th 20th and 29th of November. Did you know these reports?
A. The first two named probably became known to me. The last two named are not known to me because they took place while I was absent.
Q. And then Exhibit No. 475, page 70 of the German, page 99 of the English document book. Did you know about the dally reports contained herein?
A. They were probably known to me up to the ones between the 29th of November and the 6th of December, because I was absent during that period.
Q. And now Exhibit No. 476, German document book page 76 and English page 107; these are daily reports from the Commander in Chief Southeast from the period between the 1st and the 23rd of December. Now, I would like to draw your attention to the report of the 23rd of December. This is on page 83 of the German document book. That's page 40 of the original, page 119 of the English. This is a report from the 23rd of December. Did you know this?
A. Yes, I probably knew it because it is a report which went from us to the OKW.
Q. It runs as follows: "According to enemy reports, the Jugoslavian Liberation Army lead by Tito is described as part of the Allied forces in the Southeast. Radio Beromuenster reports Marshal Tito was appointed in Cairo as an Allied Commander. The Allied Military Command has prepared plans to intensify operations of Jugoslav partisans and to give increased support to Allied units operating in Jugoslav Liberation Army is referred to as an integral part of the Allied Forces fighting in Southeastern Europe."
Now, why was this report given in this form to the OKW?
A. This report was probably monitored by us and since it concerned the Southeast it was passed on to the OKW.
In addition, I think I remember that on hand of this report the question which had already been referred to about the recognition of the Tito unit was again taken up by me.
Q. Now, did the Commander in Chief Southeast or did you yourself think that the news distributed by Tito was binding?
A. No, I don't know of any case in which a German headquarters office took orders on the strength of enemy news or radio. These could not be binding.
Q. And did you yourself make any attempts about the recognition of Tito as a belligerent force with the OKW?
A. Yes, I think I remember that at that time after reporting orally to General Field Marshal Loehr who was deputizing for Weichs, I spoke again with Warlimont or Buttlar about these things in the OKW
Q. And was it your view that now the Tito units were really belligerent forces in the sense of the laws of war?
A. No, absolutely not. But this question should be taken up again on hand of this report.
Q. On former occasions in your testimony you have already stated that the attempts to get the Tito bands recognized as a belligerent power were mostly based on reasons of expediency.
A. Yes.
Q. Not considerations which had anything to do with the laws of war?
A. No.
Q. And what in this case was the sense of the expediency consideration?
A. Exactly the same as before.
Q. And that was what?
A. That was the attempt or the hope that in this way perhaps the methods of the Tito bands would be freed of their brutality. It was the hope, that the treatment of the German soldiers who were captured by the bands would be better and, as I have already said, it was always an egoistic idea.
We thought that in some kind of recognition, also for reasons of expediency, our own fighting in the eyes of Hitler and the OKW would be esteemed much higher and that therefore the desire of the Commander in Chief Southeast for more troops would find more willing ears. This would also have the effect on, for instance, the question of the distribution of war decorations for the divisions which were also all the time behind the other theaters of war. All in all pure reasons of expediency.
Q. And what was the result of this request to the OKW?
A. It had no success at all. Everything remained as it was.
Q. Witness, Exhibit 477, page 85 of the German and page 121 of the English document book, contains daily reports from the period of the 8th to the 27th of February 1944. Did you know these reports?
A. I probably knew them.
Q. And then the daily reports in Exhibit 478.
A. I knew the first two pages of these.
Q. The report of the 12th of February and the 24th of February -those are the two?
A. Yes.
Q. And why didn't you know the later ones?
A. Because I was no longer active in the Southeast then.
Q. Witness, now please, Document Book No. XXII of the prosecution. Out of this document book, according to your total list, you only knew Exhibit 490. The other documents all occurred during the period in which you had left the Commander in Chief Southeast. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And what reports do you know in Exhibit 490? This is on page 68 of the German and page 78 of the English Document book.
A. The reports on the first page of this document book I didn't know because it doesn't concern the Southeast at all but only France and Italy.
The reports on the second page I probably knew.
Q. And the rest?
A. The others fall within a period after my activity in the Southeast.
Q. And now the last prosecution document on which I have questions to put; Document Books XXII and XXIII do not concern the defendant Foertsch. XXIV has already been discussed. XXV doesn't concern him at all.
A. XXV concerns me but wasn't known to me.
Q. Yes, wasn't known to you, so that now I have only to deal with Exhibit No. 553. This is an exhibit which was handed in separately to Document Book XXIV, Exhibit No. 553, NOKW-1639.
Q. These are the minutes of an interrogation made on the 12th of March 1947 in the court martial for the town of Belgrade by the organ of the State Commission for the Establishment of War Crimes of the occupier and his accomplices. It is an interrogation of Col. Joseph Sellmayer who is described here as Ia of the operational departments of the staff of Army Group F.
Witness, I submit to you the original. First of all a preliminary question. From the original, can you see whether this is a sworn testimony? There is nothing mentioned about this in the document book.
A. No. It cannot be recognized from the original that the testimony was sworn to.
Q. Witness, I have a question with regard to Page 3 of this interrogation which is on Page 13 of the original in the last four paragraphs. According to this, Sellmayer stated, according to basic order of Hitler from 1941, "Partisans fighting behind the German lines," must not be designated by the "honorable name," "de juro". That is, they were to be described as bandits and to be treated as bandits. And then I skip a sentence and then it goes on: "de jure, The People's Army of Liberation also falls under this, since according to Hitler, they are not to be recognized as a belligerent power. De facto, from the first day of my activity in the Southeast inside the Staff of Army Group F, there was no doubt that the People's Army of Liberation in its bulk now, corresponded to the provisions of International Law."
Can you explain how Sellmayer could make this assertion?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, that's inadmissible. I don't think General Foertsch would know the reasons upon which General Sellmayer bases his conclusions.
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, is this testimony of Sellmayer's correct?
A. It's correct, that Hitler forbade the description "partisans."
But I think that it wasn't as early as 1941, but in 1942. I am not sure of the date. Also correct is the fact that "De jure," the so-called People's Army of Liberation was not recognized as a belligerent power. It is not correct that in the staff of Army Group F the so-called People's Army of Liberation was regarded as corresponding to the provisions of International Law. I can only refer again to my repeated statements on this question. Correct is that the orders of the Commander in Chief Southeast envisaged a warfare such as took place in other theaters of war. This is valid for the military handling of the fighting, but not for the treatment and consideration of the Tito bands as belligerent powers.
Q. Your Honors, and this finishes the questions I have put to my client with regard to the Prosecution document books. And now I will deal with the two document books -- II and III -- of the Defense, and in connection with this I have a few questions to put to the Defendant.
I begin with Document Book II of the Defense, with Document No. 17. This is the second document in the document book which receives the Exhibit No. 16. This affidavit of Wilhelm Hammer is submitted by me as evidence that the Commissar Order was not valid in the Southeast. The affidavit which is on Page 4 of the document book, Document Foertsch No. 17, is offered as Exhibit No. 16, and it runs as follows:
"In September 1941, I, as a Captain in reserve, was ordered to go to Athens as a Field Intelligence Staff Officer (Ic) of the commander for Southern Greece; I stayed there until September 1942.
I learned about the so-called Commissar order only from hearsay, that is to say, from reports of some men who had been on the Eastern front. This order was not issued in the South Eastern area. Up to the present, I supposed it to have been valid only for the Eastern front. If this order had also been issued in the South Eastern area to the subordinate units, I - in my capacity as Ic of the commander Southern Greece - would have read it. This is not the case, as mentioned before."
This affidavit was taken here and certified by me. During the time when the English document book was copied and the stencil made under the date of 27th of August 1947, my name was not included. I think this is what the Prosecutor wanted to mention, but he saw it in the original. The second affidavit which I submit is Foertsch Document No. 18. This is on Page 6 of my Document Book II, and I submit it as Exhibit Foertsch No. 17. This is an affidavit....
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I have a question on the certification at the end of this document, which is on Page 6-A of Foertsch Document Book II. It appears from this that Dr. Rauschenbach has compared the signature on the affidavit with the signature of the affiant, von Harling, on von Harling's identification card. And on the basis of that comparison Dr. Rauschenbach it seems to me is certifying that signature. I believe that's entirely improper because I don't know if Dr. Rauschenbach is enough of a handwriting expert to tell from comparing the signature on the affidavit with that on the identification card.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honors, the Witness was there himself. I certified the signature in his present, and I can't imagine how one can establish the identify of a persons in any other way than by seeing his identification card. This sentence was taken here only in this affidavit. It wasn't prescribed at all in the provisions of the Military Tribunals that one must prove how the affiant of the affidavit was identified. And I think even more was laid down here than was necessary.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I will accept Dr. Rauschenbach's statement. I was confused by the language used in the statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances the objection is withdrawn?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; proceed.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. This affidavit of Franz von Harling refers to the relation of the Commander in Chief Southeast and also of the Defendant Foertsch to the SD. It runs as follows, on Page 6 of the English:
"At the end of May 1943 I was transferred to the staff of the High Command Southeast. I held the office of the third General Staff Officer (1c). In this capacity I was directly subordinated to General Foertsch.
On the basis of this function I can make the following testimony: With regard to the relationship between the High Command Southeast on the one hand, and the Security Service on the other hand, I must state that, during the period I was a member of this staff, the Security Service was subordinated to the Higher SS - and Police Chief in question, and, beyond that, received instructions from the Reich Security Main Office directly.
It is furthermore of interest in this connection that the Higher SS and Police Chief and not the Supreme Commander South-East had the executive power over the civilian population in the district South-East.
The Supreme Commander for South-East had no influence whatsoever as far as the operational area and the operational tasks of the Security Service within the sphere of command was concerned.
A constant content between the High Command South-East and the Security Service existed only to the extent that the written results of the counter-intelligence against the Mihailovic and Tito resistance movements were put at the disposal of the Security Service Commands in Belgrade and Zagreb."
Q I submit as the next exhibit, Exhibit Foertsch No. 19. This is an excerpt certified by me from the Pay Book of the Defendant Foertsch in reference to part of his leave. The Exhibit runs as follows:
"Excerpt from the M i l i t a r y P a y B o o k also serving as identity card No. 2 for the Colonel in the General Staff ....................................Hermann F o e r t s c h ....................................--------------------Page 23 Leaves of over 5 days 1. From 3 September 1941 till 23 September 1941 to Babelsberg near Potsdam (21 days) Reason:
Recreation leave.
3 September 1941 Seal Signature Colonel and Adjutant"
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I think we must have the original Pay Book of Foertsch rather than a sheet of paper signed by Dr. Rauschenbach. If he saw the book himself and it's available, I think it should be produced.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honors, I have adhered to the custom which was usual up to now in the Tribunals. For instance, if one quotes from a book of law or some other extensive document some for which one, for special reasons, cannot leave with the Secretary General because it is needed and one cannot have it all the time, up to now the Tribunal have allowed that the Defense Counsel get a certified excerpt of such and submits it as the original.
But I am quite willing to show the Prosecutor the original itself, which I have here, for reasons of comparison, if that is sufficient. And, on the other hand, he can have a photostat copy.
(RECEPTION POOR DURING PROSECUTION AND TRIBUNAL TALKS)
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That will satisfy my objection on that grounds, Your Honors. I have another objection. Your Honors will recall Exhibit 14 which was submitted into evidence on the 10th of October. It was a survey information sheet. There were two of them you will remember. This was "for information I" and concerned the days of absence from the Headquarters of the Defendant Foertsch. The first entry on that Exhibit was 1941, to the effect that Foertsch was absent from 31 August to 27 September, and the proof which is indicated will be offered to sustain that. And it stated to be Military Pay Book, Document Book II of Foertsch.
(MIKE NOT TURNED ON FOR ABOVE)
This is the Military Pay Book, in Document II of Foertsch, and it says that Foertsch was on leave from 3 September 1941 to the 23rd September 1941 and not from the 31st of August to the 27th of September. I ask your Honors that Dr. Rauschenback be asked to explain the discrepancy.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that.that is a matter which you can handle in cross-examination. And in the light of Dr. Rauschenbachs statement that you might make use of the Pay Book you can take care of it in the cross-examination, if you should so desire.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Yes, Your Honor, this gives extra weight to a previously admitted document.
THE PRESIDENT: And it will be so considered in your crossexamination if you so desire to comment upon.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, I was just on the point of putting a question to the Defendant, and I would like to mention again that the survey the Prosecution mentioned before was not intended by me to be submitted as an exhibit but only for information purposes, and I only gave it an exhibit number at the suggestion of the Tribunal so that this statement about the leave was not supposed to have the weight of an exhibit.
I wanted to ask the defendant supplementary questions about it.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q Witness, with regard to this, I ask you the following. You have just heard that the statements which you made in your list, Exhibit 14, about the period of your absence in September 1941 is not in agreement with the contents of the Pay Book. How can it be explained that you were away for a longer time from your office than it says in your Pay Book?
A The entry of my leaves in the Pay Book did not contain the days taken for the journey but only the days which officially were to be counted as leave. From the Southeastern area, in general, two to three days were reckoned for the journey at the beginning of the leave and at the end of the leave, and I remember quite definitely that on the 31st of August I left Athens and at the end of my leave I was at the OKW to report orally to Keitel and from a Prosecution document which has been dealt with here it can be seen that during the 27th of September I came back via Belgrade.
Q Witness, and are there notes in the hand of other persons which can prove how long you were absent?
A Yes. My personal orderly officer, Rittmeister Graf Schmettow; while he served with me for 16 months, he made brief notes of a personal nature in his diary and told me that the days when I was absent were set down there.
Q Your Honors, I will call the orderly officer Graf Schmettow as a witness here, which request has already been approved by the Tribunal.-- and then back again to Exhibit No. 19. The second entry shows a leave from the 19th of March till the 4th of April. Which year was that, Witness?