SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel von Brauchitsch.
DR. STAHMER: This witness shall give information about the position of the defendant with regard to the lynching of the terror fliers and his attitude toward enemy fliers in general. or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, interrogatorie were also allowed, on 9 February this year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my information goes, and again the witness has not been located. I have no objection to interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably Dr. Stahmer can decide whether it is necessary to call the witness. terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to me the sort of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed statement could be put in about this?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that because, as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said that he was not stating positively that it had been placed before the defendant Goering, Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, in American captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution have not objection to General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he should be alerted. He has not yet been located, but if he is located, then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in the view of the Prosecution.
DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, in English captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution have no objection to this witness.
If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I haven't had the chance to take this point up with my French colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would like to verify that.
I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.
DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the Nurnberg prison at the present time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and the Prosecution takes the same attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear some explanation from you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence -- what is the relevance of Field Marshal Kesselring's evidence.
DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant because it was said by the Prosecution that Rotterdam had been bombed without military necessity, had been attacked without military necessity and that that attack was still under way at a time when negotiations had begun for the capitulation of the city.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn't it be sufficient to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?
DR. STAHMER: Yes; sir, I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, domicile unknown to me at the present time, but he has probably been discharged from captivity and may be at Hamburg now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on the same point. As I understood it, I thought that -- My copy is very bad, but I read it that the defendant was not informed of the experiments conducted by two doctors; the first one, I think, must be Rascher, and Dr. Romberg on inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendanthimself never arranged for any experiments whatsoever on prisoners and Field Marshal Milch -- Paragraph A -is that the defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged between the witness and Wolffe concerning the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were employed, and that the witness did not even inform the defendant of this subject; that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon. the witness being called.
It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Ondarza, is that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be alerted on 26 January
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fieldmarshal Milch is in the prison. Again I should have thought that in these circumstances we would make no objection to Fieldmarshal Milch being called on this point. If the surgeon Ondarza can be located, then I shall vote that interrogatories would be done, but I don't feel very -
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if we were to grant the application to call Fieldmarshal Milch on this point and were to allow interrogatories for the other witness who had been located?
DR. STAHMER: I have examined the question whether these two witnesses would have the same information. That is not the case. The subject concerning Milch is slightly different, and the defendant Goering considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. Ondarza was for many years his physician and, therefore, is well informed, and, also, he is supposed to tell us that the defendant Goering did not know anything about the experiments which have been made with five hundred healthy people. I have not put that into my application, but I have just found out about that. There was a long protocol which was submitted by the Prosecution concerning five hundred brains. I have protested against that at the time and I was told that I should make this objection later at the appropriate time.
THE PRESIDENT: You can turn now to Koerner.
DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Koerner, who is in the Nurnberg prison-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, on our documents it is stated that the sugessted witness for Koerner is not located, but in the document of your application you say that he is in the Nurnberg prison.
DR. STAHMER: I have received that information, and at this moment I cannot say where I know if from.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if that can be checked.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: In the Nurnberg prison?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What about his evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Koerner was the Secretary of State and he can made statements about the purpose which was connected with the establishment of concentration camps in 1931, about the treatment of the people imprisoned there, and what Goering had to do with these things until 1934 while he was in charge, and the witness can also make statements about the measures and regulations, the purpose and the aim of the Four Year Plan, and also about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in November, 1938, about the atrocities against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art distorian, either in an English or an American camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, Is that interrogatories war allowed on the 9th of February. They have not yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr.Lohse or the next witness, Dr.Dunjes, the deals with the save point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR STAHMER: Also, the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to be important, consider the weight of the accusation which have been made against the defendant, and it seams to no be so important that I ask again to save him as witness here he are this Tribunal. The question is a very short one. We shall state own the defendant went about acquiring art objects in the occupied territories. That is very short Subject but, for the judgment of the defendant, it is very important; and Since the prosecution has made that accesation, this is a very heavy one.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the witness?
DR STAHMER: Lohse, sir.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please use Tribunal; the interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, and the prosecution respect ally submits that e could sea that Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary renew his application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Is there anything you want to say about Dr Dunjes?
DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Dunjes, also an art historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Dr. Dunjes is in exactly the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not thing I need reseat What I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Expect that he may be located. I do not know where he is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference to Dr. Dunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out whether he can be located or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Perhaps Dr Stahmer knows.
DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp of Hersbrwek.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say he was?
DR. STAHMER: In the camp of Hersbruck. That is not far from Nurnberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall make inquiries about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dunjes, do you know where he can be located?
DR. STAHMER: No sir. He lived at Frier, but whether he is there now I could not say.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses. Does it not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: These are all that you are applying for?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list?
DR. STAHMER: I cannot say now. I cannot see it clearly now how far the prosecution, which has not finished, will make it necessary for me to make further applications for witnesses or documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we discuss the documents the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I ask one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes .
DR. STAHMER: Considering the two witnesses, Coller and Koerner, I was told before that Coller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Koerner, Undersecretary of State. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces of the occupying powers and that may make it easier to locate the witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course we will do our best to help in locating them.
THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL -FYFE: Coller and Koerner. They are both witnesses to whom I made no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the Tribunal please if I were to explain the general position of the prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr Stahmer could deal with these points because they fall within certain groups which I can indicate quite shortly.
There are three documents which are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection.
No. 19. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and the Court can take judicial cognizance of it. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. 25. The Constitution of the German Reich (Weimar Constitution ) of 11 August 1919. Again I shall assume the Court will take jedicial cognizance of it. THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. 30. Hitler's Speech of 21 May 1035. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are already in evidence as far as I know. No. 4. The Rhine Pact of Locarno. No. 5. The Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935. No. 6. Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936. No. 9. The Treaty of Versailles. No. 17. The Speech by the Defendant von Neurath of 16 October 1935. No. 18. The Proclamation by the Reich Government of the 16th of March 1935. And then No. 7 was referred to but not read. That is the Speech by Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned. Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the moment referred to the three groups of books. No. l. The late Lord Rothermere's book, "Warnings and Prophecies." No. 2. The late Sir Nevilo Henderson's "Failure of a Mission." No. 3. The references to a number of editions of the "Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik." THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, do they not, in the ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are taken from those volumes of the "Deutschen Politik." SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the group together.
No. 8. Mr. Fay's book on the "Origin of the World War." No. 20. Mr. Winston Churchill's book "Step by Step." No. 24. The Defendant Goering's book "Building up a Nation." No. 26, which I have already referred to, is Mr. Dahlerus' book, "The Last Attempt." With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; secondly, the relevancy of the book can't be decided until we see the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us know what are the extracts on which he relics so that they can be translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not. Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the issue is not clear or in as far as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. One to which I have already referred comes into this: No. 8. "The Origin of the world War." No. 10. Speech by President Wilson of 8 January 1918. That is the "FourteenPoint Speech." No. 11. The Note of President Wilson of 5 November 1918. That is the "Armistice Note." No. 12. A Speech by Monsieur Paul Boncour of 8 April 1927. No. 13. A Speech by General Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in "What Really Happened at Paris," published in 1921. No. 14. A Speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927. No. 15. An Article by Lord Cecil on the lst of March 1924, and another on the 18th of November 1926. No. 16. Lord Lloyd George's Memorandum for the Peace Conference of 25 March 1919. May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only relevancy of these books and documents is as to the issue of whether the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. The Prosecution submits that that is closely removed from the issues of this trial and is just one of the matters against which the Charter proceeds and which should not be gone into by this Court.
It may be that I am wrong or so it seems difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose that there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr. Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which these documents are directed and where the document is located and to indicate what extracts he refers to. But in the issue of the Prosecution -- I speak for all my colleagues -- we submit that it is a completely irrelevant matter. If the Tribunal would be good enough to take the other points -- I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Nos. 21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They ought to be added. Then I have already dealt with No. 20, Mr. Churchills book. Apart from the question of extracts,again the Prosecution submits that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book has been quoted. No. 23 is a Missive of Monsieur Tohitcherin, stated to be the Foreign Commisar of the USSR, to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to which that is directed. The defendant Goering's book, which I have already dealt with, and I ask that we should get extracts. No. 28. General Fuller's book on "Total War" or an essay on "Total War." Again the Prosecution does not know the issue at which it is directed. Then my fifth category, No. 27, which is the White Books of the German Foreign Office."
I *---* attention to No. 4 document, to the Angle-France policy of extending prewar; No. 5 serving the document as to the Western policy of extending the war; No. 6 is a secret file of the French General Staff; No. 29, documentation and reports of the German Foreign Office regarding broaches of the Hague regulations for any warfare and crimes against humanity committed by the power at war with the German Reich. These last documents seem to raise quite dearly the issue of the two questions in the Reich Committee of breaches of regulations and abuses of warpower through the people, or of the same thing. Contention of the prosecution is that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the convention, and it is no answer even if it were true that some one else had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason. It is quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal were to embark on a further chart of investigating there the allegation, however conjecturally founded, that some one else had not maintained these conventions. colleagues of a matter which is completely irrelevant, and therefore we object to any evidence, whether it is all documentarily intended on their part. Of course, we all along have taken the view we have not any objection to defense counsel having access to these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory as to the background of these, but we object to their introduction in evidence for the reasons I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, I will say in the first instance. Do you care to say, or are you agreed, that so far as the books are concerned that you would be wiling to produce these extracts upon which you rely? You cannot expect the documentary room to get the whole bock translated.
DR. STAHMER: It was never intended to, and I believe that in my lists of documents I have made preface where I have pointed out, and I was prepared to mention the exact quotations, so therefore this objection is not right.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Another point the prosecution is concerned is with the books which we have mentioned, and which has referred to the Treaty of Versaille. Here also I will give specific information as to what extent I wish to quote from these books. As a matter of principle, the defense must have the right, however, to take a position in that direction.
THE PRESIDENT; All these books which Mr. Fyfe refers to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice of, of course, you can make comment upon them if you wish; of any document of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you were referring to the Treaty of Versailles. It is not a question of a document.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, the report referred to the Treaty of Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with only of which today were itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Since considerable objection has been made, or rather, since a considerable part of the accusation has been made by the prosecution consisting of the fact that the defendant has breached the Versailles Treaty, naturally the defense has to consent to the question if and how the breach of the Treaty took place and if and to what extent that Treaty is still violated. So far as these books and dissertations are concerned, these questions are all important. I believe that about this question, a decision can be reached only after I have presented the quotations, and that will be the case at the beginning of my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you precluding the question of validity, as with that question of justice?
DR. STAHMER: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this case also the defense should have the right to demand a presentation of the Reichs books, because the contents of the Reichs books will to a great extent provide information about the question of the interests at war, and that will state also a reference to these books that are important. Here also, in my opinion, it will only be possible to make a decision after the quotation from these Reichs books have been read. Furthermore, the presentation of the report concerning the breaches of the Hague has been demanded. does not belong in the same work in this trial. Whether on the other sides such breaches have been committed, this statement in my opinion is of importance in two ways: First of all to reach a just decision one has to make sure whether the attitude or behavior on the other side was really correct and beyond reproach, or, it is furthermore of importance that the question depends upon whether or not on the side of the defendants it was not a question of revenge or of retaliation.
THE PRESIDENT: We I say, I believe you just covered the topic with the exception of Numbers 20, 23, and 28, Number 20 is the Winston Churchill book; Number 23 is the Tchitcherin book; and Number 28 is the General Fuller book. We will take these.
DR. STAHMER: Number 20 -- taking this step by step -- that is concerned with a statement in which Churchill as one was concerned with the question there of the Netherland agreement, 1935, of England. That was a sort of agreement by England as concerned Germany's separation from the Versailled Treaty. that it can be used for the question as to what extent Germany has re-armed, to what extent England has re-armed, and finally in that book and in various places there are instances in reference to this now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I say with the greatest respect to Dr Stahmer that he has but reinforced my point, that if Dr Stahmer is putting forward the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision on the matters before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate whether other belligerants have commited breaches of conventions, then, as I say, I join issue with him in toto, I cannot add to the matter. But with regard to Mr Churchill, Dr Stahmer makes three points, one that some passage in the book gives color to the idea that by the Naval Agreement the validty of the Versailles Treaty was affected. That is a point to which there, are obviously many answers, including the facts that France was a party to the Treaty and the United States was a party to a treaty in the same terms. But clearly Mr Churchill's view as to the legal effect of one treaty or another expressed in a book, is in my opinion clearly irrelvant. of Mr Churchill himself. And I requestfully sudmit, without going into detial, that Dr Stahmer has by his examples confirmed the argument that these matters are irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I don't wish to say more.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr Stahmer, the Tribunal would like you to go back from the question or if you like, deal with anything you have to say about Sir David Fyfe's observations about Mr Churchill if you prefer to do that now, but afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further about Documents 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should develop your argument as to how they can be relevant.
For instance, Documents 10 and 11, the speeches and notes of President Wilson. How can such documents as that have any bearing upon this trial or indeed upon the validity of the treaty of Versailles?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, These passages form the foundation of the Versailles Treaty and they are significant therefore for the interpretation of the Treaty. And furthermore, it is important to refer to the speeches, in order to judge the contents of the Treaty and the question whether Germany rightfully or wrongly has separated herself from the Treaty, that is, whether it was a breach of the Treaty, or whether the Treaty in itself gave Germany the right to withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further about No.20, 23, or 28?
DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Twenty-three refers to the very same questions regarding an interpretation and the contents of the Treaty of Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: Your statement about the Foreign Commissar of the USSR in 1924 -
DR. STAHMER: 1924?
THE PRESIDENT: 1924. Very well, you insist on the interpretation of the Versailles Treaty, and as General Fuller's book -
DR. STAHMER: That only - - General Fuller also refers in this speech first of all to the person of Hitler and to the question of rearmament, that is to say, German rearmament.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the bench.) consider their decision upon your witnesses and upon your documents.
Have you anything further to say upon it?
DR. STAHMER: No, sir.
(Professor Franz Exner, Counsel for the Defendant Jodl approached the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR EXNER: May it please the court, I take the liberty to mention something merely for the reason that there is a certain danger that matters of proof may be refused which for my clients also are of crucial importance. It concerns evidence which will show that on the opposite side as well,- war crimes, or breaches and violations of international law have occured.
far as we are concerned here in this trial. The Defense would certainly not think of making Defendants of the Prosecutors, but this point is certainly not irrelevant.
law. Retaliations justify an action which under normal circumstances would be illegal. That is to say, retaliations of that importance or significance in cases where individual actions are the answer to a violation of international law committed by the other side. If, therefore our own actions can be justified -- if you want to justify them as retaliations -- we can only do it by proving that violations of law have preceded it on the other side.
Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known that this war in the beginning was conducted relatively -
THE PRESIDENT: The argument which you are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer and will, of course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the Bench).
Will you continue, then, Dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known that in the beginning of this war international law was respected on both sides and these the war was conducted humanely. It was only in the second phase of the war that there was a terrible bitterness among the fighting powers and on both sides things have occurred which were not according to international law. In my opinion, it is entirely important in the judgment of the criminal action, whatever that may be, to consider, the motive If the motive of the action is not known, you cannot judge the action itself. And the bitterness which was started psychologically by the manner in which the war has been conducted on one side or the other was the motive for actions which normally cannot be justified. of proof are declared irrelevant.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the Bench).
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for the Defendant Raeder): I would like to refer to the manner in which we are speaking now about evidence, and I want to say inprinciple, if I understand the Tribunal correctly, then we should talk today about the relevancy of these witnesses and documents which are : still to be brought here, and which were mentioned in the tribunal's decision of the 18th of February.
in our hands. I therefore ask the Tribunal to understand why I object against it. In no case was it possible to discuss relevancy of documents of the Prosecution weeks before they were presented. We could never discuss that. If I have documents before me, the same as most of the documents about which we have spoken, then as Defendant's Counsel I must be able to submit these documents without consent of the Prosecution. building has to be examined after we have presented the quotations and then the Prosecution will decide whether they are relevant. Sir David has also said that various books which are here are not relevant. If this instant motion by the Prosecution is granted, then that is an extraordinary limitation of the Defense which I cannot accept without objection.
The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court has decided that each letter and each document could be presented and therefore I don't understand why we are now arguing about the relevancy of documents which are here, since in my opinion the Court has already said that we will argue only about the relevancy of documents which are still to be procured.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I had explained this morning -- in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn on behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop -- what the Tribunal was seeking to do today, to follow the provision of Article 24-D, which provides that the Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and Defense what evidence if any they wish to submit to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall rule on the admissibility of any such evidence, and I point out that the reason why the Defense had been to some extent treated in a different manner from the Prosecution was because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has get to find all the witnesses and bring them here and the Tribunal his get in many instances to find the documents or submit the documents, and therefore it isn't reason able that the Tribunal should be asked to bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance with the Charter, until theTribunal has heard argument upon the admissibility of the witness or the document.
And that is what it is doing. I thought I fully explained that in answer to Dr. Horn's argument. of a document or the admissibility of a witness until you have actually heard the passage in the document which is relied upon or the questions put to the witness which are said to be relevant or irrelevant. Therefore, the final determination upon the question of admissibility will be when the witness is put in the witness-box and asked questions or the documents or passage from the document is actually produced.
DR. SIERMERS: Yes, sir. Excuse, but I believe that this does not answer one point. witnesses which are not as yet at our disposal. But it is a different thing in the case of these documents which are already here in this building and which are at our disposal as Defense Counsel. To give an example: The White Books which Sir David has mentioned here, why should we now argue about the relevance of these White Books?