MR, WALTON: (continued) Document 9, statement of Dr. Elizabeth Klein dated 17 September 1947, pages 49 to 52. Prosecution objects to this document because the International political struggles of Germany and the attitude of the SD therein may be of value to the history of such movements but it is immaterial as to whether the SD was a criminal organization. This has been decided by the International Military Tribunal and the issue in this case is whether or not the chief of that organization knew of criminal acts performed by the SD organization while establishing and maintaining the security of German Armed Forces in Russia.
Document 10, statement of Dr. Hans Ehlich, unsworn, dated 20 September 1947, pages 53 to 61. The attitude and the policy of the defendant Ohlendorf toward the Germanization of and assimilation of foreigners, the difficulties he had to maintain his ideals on these questions, the antipathy had had held for Koch and Thomas and the hatred he possessed for the monopolistic attitude of I.G. Farben, are material only if the issues in this case include whether or not this defendant made enemies during his career. Such statements while of interest to a treatise on the life and times of General Ohlendorf are not material. If they are offered to establish the point that the defendant did courageously maintain his ideals in spite of powerful adversaries then these documents are cummulative and are surplusage since Prosecution is prepared to admit this last named contention.
Document 11, the affidavit of Dr. Hans Roessner dated 13 September 1947 pages 62 to 79. This is a document which points out again the resistance maintained by the defendant to his political adversaries, his efforts in behalf of the cultural life of Germans, the scientific study, and achievement of German scientists, the religious policy of the state and the his relations with Nazi hierarchy. It is immaterial to SD activities in the occupied eastern territories of Russia.
Document 12, affidavit of Dr. Erhard Maeding, dated 22 September 1947, pages 80 to 90.
In the English translation the first page is missing. The Prosecution was not put on notices as to the full contents of the document but is willing to waive this technical objection if the contents are of the same general nature as the remaining 9 pages. The economic Spy system on the leading personalities in the German State was right and proper as the German people wanted it. The right of any country to make its own laws and to conduct its own international affairs is not an issue here. The same question of acts proven in Germany, whether legal or illegal, is of no concern to this Tribunal. It is when these or other acts result in the crimes against humanity or war crimes and are visited on peoples outside of the German border they do concern the rest of civilized nations of the world. Neither are the routine procedure practices in the SD, for Germany questions of material value for the Tribunal in this case nor are the relations between the SD with the Ministerial Department and gauleaders. The defendant's efforts in behalf of State reform for Germany is not material to the issue of criminal activities against the civilian population or Russian occupied territories.
Document 13, Statement of Dr. Halmut Seydel dated 3 September 1947, pages 92 to 98. Prosecution objects to the introduction of this document because the functioning of legal institutions in Germany and the proposed reforms therein are immaterial. The attempted counter action of the trend away from a constitutional state inside of the borders of Germany, the pointing out of Party corruption, etc., is of no material value to this case. The author in his closing paragraph - I cannot call him an affiant because it is unsworn - the author in his closing paragraph specifically states and I quote: "I did not know of the assignment in Russia." The Prosecution does not object to the introduction of Document 14 which is a statement of Sigrid Barlen, B-a-r-l-e-n, dated 3 October 1947, pages 100 to 102.
Document 15, this is a purported deposition of Dr. Franz Hayler, pages 103 to 121, In the English copy it is unsigned. The authority for taking the oath is not shown, no witnesses' certificates appear, the date when the deposition was taken is not shown, the authority before whom the answers were made is not shown.
If it is a deposition, no cross interrogatories were over put to the witness. If it is purported to be an unsworn statement no signature is attached. This is cummulative evidence of the fight inside of Germany against monopoly. As to the struggles with Himmler, as to collaboration with Professor Jessen, as to the defendant's opposition to Nazi hierarchy and other Internal German State matters none of which appear to be pertinent to the issues in the case. The interrogatee disclaims in his answers to questions 6 and 7 any knowledge of the details of the defendant's work in the SD and his participation in the Russian campaign.
MR.WALTON: To ducment #16, being the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Schlotterer, dated 4 October 1947, the Prosecution offers no objection.
Document 17 the affidavit of Dr. Heinrich Malz, dated 30 September 1947, pages 124 to 126. This is cummulative to the point of the defendant's attitude and ideology on International Germanic affairs. It is Immaterial to SIPO and the SD in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 14 January 1948).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We really feel very much complimented at seeing everyone present today.
Mr. Walton, would you mind our taking up the matter of the document books with the counsel who have all appeared?
MR. WALTON: Not at all, sir, except that I am sorry to state that I was unable to find Mr. Glancy during the lunch hour. Dr. Hochwald has gone to call his office. Mr. Ferencz, I don't know why he was not here because he was sitting here when you made your announcement, but if the Tribunal will allow the two elder members of the prosecution to stand in lieu thereof, we can proceed with the business of the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: As soon as the phone calls go through I feel certain they will be here. They are in the building.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would you then went to proceed with your-
MR. WALTON: Not at all, unless the Tribunal feels that the full prosecution should be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn't necessary that they should all be here, but I think they should be rather well represented because they may went to make some observations. The thing that I am concerned with is if I don't take care of these attorneys at once they are going to slip out one by one, and I want to have them here in unison. So you may proceed for ten minutes or so and if they have not come by that time then we will take up the matter of the document books.
Dr. Hochwald, do you know whether the other two intend to be here?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Mr. Glancy is ill today.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I am sorry.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: And Mr. Ferencz will be presently before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, fine.
MR. WALTON: The next document to which the prosecution wishes to enter its objection is in Document Book I, being the same document book which was being discussed prior to the noon recess. Document No. 18, which is the statement of Luitpold Charlemayer, dated 21 August, 1947, Pages 127, 129, and which is again on the point of the personal feud between Himmler and Ohlendorf, again objected to on the grounds as being immaterial to the issues involving the activities of the defendant in the East. Document No. 19-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, I see Mr. Ferencz is here now, so let's take up the matter of the document books, if you don't mind. and we would like to suggest that even where counsel does not have all his document books but does have one or more, that he present those so that at least we can be working on them, awaiting the remaining ones which might still be in the process of being translated and mimeographed. I think it might be well to go down the list beginning with Ohlendorf, which, of course, we are now disposing of.
Heinz Jost. Now, this list indicates that we have Document Books I and II. Are there any more?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor, I have finished the Document Books I and II and can submit them if the Tribunal desires so. Document Book III is being translated at the moment, and a fourth document book unfortunately I was not able to complete yet, because two affidavits were only received during the last few days, but I shall hand in the document book by tomorrow for translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Erich Naumann.
DR. KLENNERT: Dr. Klennert for Naumann. Your Honor, I have four document books which I handed to the translation department. As far as I know only one of them has been returned as yet. Three further books are still to come, to be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they already in the translation department, II, III, and IV?
DR. KLENNERT: Yes, II, III and IV are in the translation department.
THE PRESIDENT: You are ready to proceed with No. I?
DR. KLENNERT: Yes, with No. I.
THE PRESIDENT: Otto Rasch. Of course, we know that you are hoping that you won't have to submit any document books.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes. I have prepared one document book, but since no ruling was made about my application as yet, I have not handed it in in order not to burden the translation department too much.
THE PRESIDENT: Nor to burden the attorney too much.
DR. SURHOLT: I have finished my work so far.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the marks of wisdom of a lawyer is never to do more work than he has to.
DR. SURHOLT: One should not contradict wisdom.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, very well said. The attorney for Schulz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: DR. Durchholz for defendant Schulz.
I have already submitted Document Books I, II and III. I have already submitted these three documents books, and I have another few documents which I shall probably receive back from the translation department at the end of the week. May I mention here that there is one document among them concerning the witness Karl Heinz Bent. The affidavit by this witness I have already completed a month ago, but after having summoned the witness at the time I wanted his signature. Suddenly the witness had been taken away from Nurnberg, and today I was told that tomorrow or the day after he would come back again so that I will be able to get his signature then. This was a delay which is not my fault.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which books are you ready to present now?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I only have a few documents which I shall submit as Document Book No. IV as soon as I have them all.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Attorney for the defendant Six.
DR. ULMER: Ulmer for Six.
mimeographed and translated already, that I could submit at any time now. Document Books II and III, I handed in. II has already been mimeographed in the German and it is just being translated into English. In order to speed this up I myself have given an English translated to the translation department, and the translation department will only have to review it. My Document Book No. III I have not received back mimeographed yet in German.
THE PRESIDENT: You say that you did some of the translating youself?
DR. ULMER: I had them made.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but you did it to assist the translation department?
DR. ULMER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you seem to be contradicting the wisdom of Dr. Surholt, doing more work than an attorney is required to do.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I might have a fourth document book but this will only consist of three or four documents. I am expecting these to come in within two days. That is only a small matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Thank you very much, Dr. Ulmer. Dr. Heim. Oh, he is not here. I haven't see Dr. Heim for a long time. Where is he?
DR. KUHR: DR. Heim is in the Tribunal No. VIII, where his client is just being on the witness stand at the moment. He, therefore, cannot appear. As his deputy I would like to make the following statement. Your Honor, Document Book I for Blobel has already been submitted. Document Book II we received back this morning from the translation department, and Mr. Hochwald informed me that the prosecution has the Document Book II for Blobel. We have in addiction a supplement to Document Book II of Blobel but this has not yet been received back from the translation department. It is possible that we shall hand in supplementary documents. and we shall try to have the translation speeded up. Submission of further documents is not intended.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would be ready to present Document Books I and II.
DR. KUHR: Document Book I has already been submitted, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you are ready to present II then.
DR. KUHR: Document Book II I could present. However, the supplement cannot be submitted as yet because it has not yet been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Lummert for Blume.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, my Document Book I has already been submitted by me at a previous date. The rest of my documents will be contained in Document Book II. I shall be able to submit the rest of the documents at the latest at the beginning of next week. They have already been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they all contained in one book, No. II?
DR. LUMMERT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you expect to have that book ready no later than Monday?
DR. LUMMERT: Monday at the latest. I can then present it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Handry for Sandberger. Oh, Dr. -- I see, yes.
DR. STEIN: My name is Stein, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. You constantly change your name.
DR. STEIN: Your Honor, I already submitted two document book. Both are still in the translation department. I also have a supplement to Document Book No. I which is being prepared, and I shall be able to hand in this book in about two days. Apart from that I am expecting from abroad about two or three further affidavits which I was unable to get before because I did not know the addresses of these foreign witnesses. At the moment I cannot give a definite date when I shall be able to submit the document books, since I do not know when the documents will be translated. I am not able to submit Document Book I already now because the matter is overlapping. There are various affidavits in both books which I wont submit in a proper presentation. I, therefore, ask for a term, I ask to be given time until the beginning of next week provided that the books are translated by them, and apart from that I would like to reserve the right that if they should not be completed by then in the translation that I Shall be able to submit the document books at a later date, but may present them to the Tribunal earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Stein. You understand the situation, and I am sure that you will cooperate to the utmost of your ability.
DR. STEIN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is deputizing for Dr. Gawlik? Oh, you are. Very well.
DR. KLENNERT: Two document books for the defendant Seibert have been handed in. They are still in the translation department. When the translation will completed I do not know, but I assume that this will be this week. Apart from that a supplement of a few documents was prepared and was either given to the translation department today or will be given to them today.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Mayer for the defendant Steimle.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Mayer for the defendant Stimle. III for the defendant Steimle.
THE PRESIDENT: And will that complete your documentation?
DR. MAYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you, Dr. Mayer. Dr. Fisch for Biberstein. Let's see, you have presented one document book. Do you intend to have any more?
DR. FISCH: No further documents. your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer for the defendant Braune.
DR. STEUBINGER: Steubinger for Braune.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STEUBINGER: I have two document book and one supplement which I have prepared. The first document book is completed and can be presented. The second document book is translation already, but it is still in the sorting out department, in the filing department, and the prosecution has not been able to have a copy as yet. The same applies to the supplement, part of which has only been translated. Document Book No. II I shall submit as soon as I am given the English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That could be rather quickly, couldn't it, maybe tomorrow?
DR. STEUBINGER: Yes, I hope so, your Honor. Of course, I cannot say exactly how long this will take, but Document Book I can be introduced today.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. STEUBINGER: I said this morning that I was prepared to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will take it just as soon as we reach it.
Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch.
DR, RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I handed in three document books. Document Book I has been translated and submitted. Document Book II has also been translated and should be submitted any day. Document No. III is being translated and it should take a few more days until the translation will be completed. Apart from that I am expecting two or three further affidavits from the Russian zone which should arrive sometime this week which will also be added to the document book, completed, is Document Book No. I, and can be submitted any time. Document Book No. II Should be ready for submission at the end of this week.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution has received Document Book No. II of Dr. Riediger's.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would be ready to proceed with your Document Books I and II.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes, I then could submit I and II.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Hoffmann. Are you here only as a Spectator today, I see you sitting back in the gallery, or are you really working?
DR. HOFFMANN: I only took that seat because I did not want to sit in the front row.
THE PRESIDENT: That is just your natural modesty.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, for the defendant Nosske who is my Client I am submitting seven documents which will be translated by Monday.
I could not call this a book, but I shall introduce the documents individually.
THE PRESIDENT: And you think they will be ready by Monday?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you very much, Dr. Hoffmann.
Dr. Koessl for the defendant Ott.
MR. WALTON: If your Honor please, there is one matter that concerns Dr. Hoffmann and myself, and since we are both here and since Your Honor has cited the occupational disease of lawyers to slip out. I would like to take up this one matter before we proceed further. On the 19th of December, in obedience to the direction of the court, we submitted an affidavit of the former defendant, Emil Hausmann. My understanding is that is Prosecution's Exhibit 188. I have forgotten the document number. However, there is a motion pending before the court already filed by the prosecution on the 19th of December. So far I have not received a reply or an answer to that motion. If I remember correctly the court stated in its direction that counsel for the defendant and the prosecution would file their briefs and that the court would make its decision in a written opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: The secretary is getting a little nervous about it too. He keeps writing me notes asto just what I am going to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: But the main thing I should like, if it is at all Possible that if the motion is decided in my favor I intend to use it in my closing brief. If not, I would like to know that now so that I can Still write the brief without reference to the document.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Hoffmann, will you please tell us whether you intend to file the reply brief?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I received the motion by the Prosecution and also prepared a reply. By the end of this week it will have been translated; however, I take the liberty of suggesting whether we and the prosecution will have to discuss the Hausmann affidavit as yet because of the fact that various Tribunals have made different rulings. This with regard to Ordinance Number 7, might complicate matters.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Hoffmann, you can quote in your brief those decisions which support your view that the affidavit should be excluded, and I presume Mr. Walton will certainly quote those which support his contention that it should be admitted. Then, of course, we will decided which one we like better and dispose of it.
MR. WALTON: Fur purposes of record, Sir, that document specifically is No. 4147.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Very well. Very well. Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for Ott and Schubert. I have ready for presentation the Document Books I and II for Ott and Document Books I and II for Schubert. For Ott only a small supplement is still to be submitted. I hope that this small supplement will be translated by the end of the week.
PRESIDENT: Well, are you ready to present Document Books I and II in behalf of Ott and I and II in behalf of Schubert?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, immediately.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you very much. Dr. Gick, for the defendant Strauch. Do you intend to present more than one document book?
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I have two document books which I have completed for the defendant. The document books, the second one in particular, I had to make without the cooperation of the defendant. I had to make it based on my own information only and by studying files and documents myself because I was not able to work with the defendant for some time. These two document books were already handed in to the translation department. As soon as the translation department returns them, I shall be able to submit them.
PRESIDENT: When did you hand Number II in, because Number I is already prepared.
DR. GICK: Number I is prepared -- I didn't know that yet. The second one was only handed in yesterday.
PRESIDENT: Is it a very long one?
DR. GICK: It is not very large, No, but I assume that it contains about 20 documents.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Mayer for the defendant Klingelhoefer.
DR. MAYER: Mayer for Klingelhoefer. Your Honor, I have one document book which I am prepared to submit for the defendant Klingelhoefer.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Dr. Fritz for the defendant Fondler. You have already presented one document book. Do you intend to have anything more?
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, today I submitted another document book, Fendler Nuaber II, but it consists only of two documents. It should be completed in a few days, and apart from that, I am expecting one further affidavit, and I would like to submit that as well, it it should be received before the end of the presentation of the evidence.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Dr. Ratz for the defendant von Radetzky.
DR. RATZ: Dr. Ratz for the defendant, von Radetzky. Your Honor, my two document books have been translated, and mimeographed for some time already. I am prepared to submit the document books at any time, but I am about to get another three or four affidavits which I have not yet received, but I hope that I shall have them at the latest at the beginning of next week, and shall be able to submit them as well.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. ruehl for the defendant Link, or I mean -
DR. LEHMANN: Dr. Link has informed me that his books are not ready yet.
PRESIDENT: Well, I think I was correct, saying "Dr. Ruehl for the defendant Link." Dr. Koessl for the defendant, Schubert -- well, he has already given us that. Dr. Belzer for the defendant, Graf.
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, I would like to make my statement from here. I have prepared one document book. I am waiting for a sign to start with the presentation.
PRESIDENT: You are waiting for what?
DR. BELZER: I am waiting for a sign to begin my presentation.
PRESIDENT: We will give you that sign this afternoon. Thank you very much. Well, I think school is out for the pupils here, with the exception of Dr. Aschenauer, Dr. Belzer, and two or three who are immediately ready. You may continue with your objection, Mr. Walton. We would suggest that those attorneys who have all their documentation ready to present might come next rather than those who are only partly ready.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I take the liberty of expressing a general request.
The presentation of evidence is being delayed a little, and that is why I want to make the request that for the beginning of the final pleas a few additional days will be given us. Too many technical difficulties would arise of one considers the translation difficulties. Perhaps instead of Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday, the final pleas should be started.
PRESIDENT: It isn't quite clear just what you request, Dr. Aschenauer. We have now scheduled January 26 for the summations. Now, do you ask that that be modified?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes. I should like to ask to postpone this for a few days so that we have more time for preparation. It is just like this, that the presentation of documents will not be finished befor* Monday, and before the final pleas are made, all the pieces of evidence have to be considered. The final pleas can be handed in at the earliest on Friday or Saturday next week.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, one full week will be allowed for the preparation of the summations, regardless of when we terminate the actual taking of testimony and the receipt of document books.
DR. ASCHENAUER: For preparation, then let us assume that the presentation of documents is concluded Monday week, in that case.
PRESIDENT: You mean next Monday?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Next Monday. Let us assume that the presentation of documents is concluded by then, then we get eight days to prepare ourselves. That would mean Monday week. Then the final pleas could be translated at the earliest on Monday week. This suggestion for handing in the final pleas department on that date, but the translation department takes a few days as well.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, arrangements are being made for an acceleration of the translations of the final arguments. It will not be necessary to mimeograph these arguments so long as you have the German copy ready, enough translations will be made for the delivery, that is, to say, the reporters will have a copy, the interpreters will have a copy, and then as it is delivered the summations will go into the transcript and it won't be necessary to bring it out in a separate document, so that in a matter of a couple of days we will have a summation as it appears in the transcript.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In that case, may I therefore conclude that my final plea will not be handed into the translation department before Monday week.
PRESIDENT: Yes, well, your case is just a little bit different, Dr. Aschenauer, because you more or less have taken the burden of submitting the law which applies generally to those who fall in, let us say, the category of the defense advanced by your client, Ohlendorf, so that if you should want a little more time, we are certainly disposed to let you have it, but there is no reason why the next defense counsel shouldn't be ready to begin at the time we have indicated because he won't need to have so much time to prepare his argument.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, my colleague objected with the following argument which is of importance. They will coordinate their pleas to my final plea because I shall make general statements and they shall follow me.
PRESIDENT: But I can't believe that every attorney is going to wait until that very last moment to prepare his argument, and there is no reason why they can't be preparing their argument right now; however, you can be assured that everyone will be allowed ample time to prepare his summation. that is what we say now, and that is what we are going to insist upon, but if because of some circumstances over which you have no control it is necessary that you have a little more time, naturally, that will be granted. As it stands now, let us say that you will be ready to submit your written argument a week from next Monday for translation, so that you will be ready to deliver it, let us say, on Wednesday of that week.
DR. ASCHANAUER: Very well.
PRESIDENT: Let us tentatively agree upon that.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. Your Honor, but this does not mean to say that the presentation of documents will have to be concluded by the defense by Monday. Surely it will be possible to present some documents, if necessary, on Monday, on Tuesday, or Wednesday, next week.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
DR.BELZER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. The suggestion I wanted to make is similar to the one my colleague, Hoffmann just made. I am in difficulties with two witnesses, Zimmermann and Wohlgemut, which have been approved by the Tribunal. I have been trying for weeks to get affidavits from these two witnesses to avoid their having to come here. Mr. Pace intervened, but still we were not able to get these affidavits in the meantime. I just heard that the one witness, Dr. Wohlgemut, will arrive here on 14 January. I shall try to get an affidavit from this witness immediately and shall include it in document Number IV, and shall try to submit this document book still this week. Concerning the other witness, Zimmermann, it might be necessary that he should be visited at his present place of residence in order to obtain an affidavit from him.
It is possible that I might only be able to get this affidavit at the betinning of next week, and I shall only be able to submit it at that date.
PRESIDENT: Well, where there is a situation as you have already described, and the Tribunal has already approved the witness, certainly we will receive the affidavit at the first moment that you are physically able to obtain and process it.
DR.PELZER: Thank you, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MAYER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Merely for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask that I might be allowed to summarize-that the final pleas, have to be handed in one week after the conclusion of the presentation of documents?
PRESIDENT: They should be ready by one week from next Monday.
DR. MAYER: I thought this was merely an example, Your Honor. It is possible that this might be delayed and that the presentation of documents might not be concluded by Monday.
PRESIDENT: Well, Yes, one week from the date we conclude the proceedings.
DR. STEIN: Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stein.
DR. STEIN: I have an inquiry to make. I intend to hand in a closing brief as well as my summation. I would like to ask whether this closing brief also has to be submitted within a certain period?
PRESIDENT: It would be highly desirable that that brief be in the hands of the Tribunal at least--not later than the day you make your final summation, but if for any reason you don't have it ready and would indicate to the Tribunal that you would submit it say two or three days later, we will receive it then.
DR. STEIN: Thank you.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I beg your pardon for intervening, but in order to be clearer about the time, it would be better to fix a definite date concerning the questions we have discussed.
I just explained for my defendant, Six, and was praised by the president for doing this, that I had my documents translated myself at least in document book II in order to avoid delays, but in fact it is like this, that as long as I have not received back the document books completely, I cannot take the responsibility of not being present at the proceedings and already starting to work on my final plea, my final summation. The translation of the document when received from the translation department has to be reviewed by the conscientious defense counsel. It is a rather vague concept if we are told that one week after the conclusion of the presentation of documents the final summations have to be handed in. This last date of presentation of documents might be Wednesday, the 21st or a day earlier or a day later. Your Honor, you originally fixed the 26th of January as the time for the submission of the summations. Looking at the calendar, may I ask for myself in a more precise manner that the submission of our summations should be fixed for the second of February at the latest, that is, one week after the originally intended 26 January. It is easier to have a definite date, Your Honor. I don't know when my colleagues will have finished with their last document. If I knew it was the second of February, I wouldn't need to know, but if you said of course, to have everything prepared by the second of February, that would help me a great deal, and I think the entire work and cooperation would be made easier.
PRESIDENT: Do you have something, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the prosecution is prepared to proceed with the rebuttal case immediately as soon as the defense is through with the introduction of any documents or evidence. However, we cannot proceed with our rebuttal until the defense is through. therefore, it is important for us, too, that we set a definite date when the defense will have all their documents in or it will be too late. I would like to remind the Tribunal that the prosecution's case was finished in two days. Since then the defense has had three and a half months, when they had all the evidence before them, and the prosecution and the Tribunal have instructed the defense to have their documents ready and submit them to translation.