THE PRESIDENT: I gave permission for an affidavit to be submitted a day or two ago. . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was for another Defendant. The only question is to the form and special interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been deposited before us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord; I had seen them. It is my mistake. Dr. Kubuschok right here comes into the picture once or twice. I had seen this application. And the only objection the Prosecution felt was in the somewhat leading form of the questions that were put, and perhaps my friends, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Baldwin could have a word with Dr. Kubuschok or whoever represents Seyss-Inquart, before they are actually delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The next one is an application in regard to the Defendant Sauckel. Dr. Kubuschok tells me there is another application on behalf of Seyss-Inquart which wasn't on the form in front of me. (Addressing Dr. Kubuschok): Perhaps you would develop that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart) The Defendant Seyss-Inquart is requesting your permission to submit a questionnaire or interrogatory to the witness Bolle. The examination of that witness has been refused by the Tribunal for the reason that this is cumulative evidence. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart begs to repeat his application to have those questions clarified, this time only by means of an interrogatory. The witness cannot be spared. In particular, the subject of his statements cannot be dealt with by other direct witnesses. The other witnesses which have been named in this connection can only state that they have been told by Bolle regarding the actual events. Bolle is the only man who can make statements based on direct knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, if other witnesses who have been granted are going to give what we call hearsay evidence, from what they heard from Bolle, why wasn't Bolle asked for instead of one of these other witnesses?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I do hot know what intentions my colleague who was defending Seuss-Inquart was pursuing. All I know is that he has asked for two other indirect witnesses. But I am told the only direct witness to the event can be Bolle, since it is to be expected that other witnesses for whom this matter is not quite so important -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will remember that I informed the Tribunal that all the interrogatories to Bolle were the same as interrogatories administered to another witness, van der Wense, except two, which I think dealt with the requisitioning of lorries and about which there could be little dispute. It seemed to the Prosecution therefore that here was clear proof that this witness was entirely cumulative. The interrogation is the same, word for word, as the interrogation to the witness, van der Wense.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That was probably not expressed clearly in the original application, namely, that those witnesses can only testify what they have heard from Bolle. In fact, we are here concerned with instructions given by Bolle personally, and he is the man who can testify to that; but if necessary we will agree that the subject of that evidence could be crossed off, as far as the other witnesses are concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the matter can be agreed upon, the Tribunal can scarcely decide on it without seeing the interrogatory to Bolle and the interrogatories to these other witnesses. Would it meet the case if we were to grant this interrogatory on the condition that if it appeared subsequently that other interrogatories when considered with this one were cumulative, they might be disregarded?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, as far as I am concenred.
THE PRESIDEN: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is the Defendant Sauckel, and Dr. Servatius and Mr. Roberts of my staff have been considering this carefully together. Dr. Servatius is not here. Perhaps Mr. Roberts can tell the Tribunal how far they got.
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: Dr. Servatius submitted a list of about 90 documents, a formidable number; but most of them are short extracts from various decrees and orders relating to the employment of labor, and it is difficult to find any reason for objecting to them. Dr. Servatius at my suggestion agreed to take from his list about ten or 15 as cumulative. There are about four documents relating to alleged ill-treatment of workers in the hands of the enemies of Germany, to which I have objected on the ground that they are not relevant, and as to those documents a decision of the Tribunal will be necessary on the question of principle.
My Lord, as Dr. Servatius could not be here today -- as I understand -perhaps we could discuss the matter with the General Secretary on his return at the beginning of next week, so that the matter could then be put in a convenient and more or less agreed form to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Then you haven't been able to make any agreement about the witnesses, have you?
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: My Lord, I thought the position as to the witnesses was this: That Sir David some weeks ago discussed it before the Tribunal and Dr. Servatius discussed it and Sir David conceded the calling of six witnesses and interrogatories from a number of others. That was considered by Dr. Servatius and he submitted his final and much-reduced list of eleven witnesses, and that I handed to an official of the Tribunal, and I understood that that has been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the date there? Is it the 4th of March, 1946
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: I have a document before me in German -
THE PRESIDENT: I see. And the Prosecution's -
MR. ROBERTS, K.C.: And the Prosecution's position was fully stated by Sir David when these matters were being considered before, and it would be now really for the Tribunal, I think, to decide on those two contentions -- one for six witnesses and one for eleven. What their decision should be -
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that takes us to the end of the listed ones. There were some that were received later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: There is one from the Defendant Frank who requests interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith. That was granted by the Counsel's Tribunal, and in an executive session.
It was not requested in/consolidated applications, but heard in open court. There is obviously no objection to that in principle, that the Prosecution are aware of.
Then the defendant von Ribbentrop requests the book "America in the Battle of the Continents", by Sven Hedin -
THE PRESIDENT: Other Defendants have administered interrogatories to Mr. Messersmith, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the answers been received yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: They haven't been received, I am told.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it since they have been sent off?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: I will find out, My Lord. (Short pause). February 21.
THE PRESIDENT: You have seen these interrogatories, the ones now suggested by the Defendant Frank?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: There are about five of them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: The position is that we got them yesterday and they are still being discussed between my Delegation and the American Delegation. They actually haven't come to me yet.
THE PRESIDENT: we had better consider this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant, von Ribbentrop, who asks for the book "American in the Battle of the Continents" by Sven Hedin. That must be subject to the general use of books, and if there are passages that the Defendant wants to use, if he will tell me the passages then we can deal with their relevance when the individual passage comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: That also will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your lordship pleases. Then there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Schacht for the book "Warnings and Prophecies" by the late Lord Rothermere. The same, I submit, should apply to that. Any passages desired to be used can be extracted and shown to us and then their relevance considered when use is attempted to be made of them. Dr. Dix made agreement to that. Neurath. I understand that he wishes copies of the interrogations of Dr. Gauss, who is the gentlemen who is mentioned as a witness for the Defendant von Ribbentrop. The general ruling of the Tribunal has been, as I understand it, that the Defendants are only entitled to copies of interrogations which are going to be used against them, that is, their own interrogations, and it would be an extension of the rule which might lead us into general difficulties if this were extended to copies of the interrogations of other witnesses. Therefore the Prosecution object in principle to that.
But as I gather that Dr. von Luedinghausen wants it for the purpose of preparing the case, if he would care to come and see me or my staff, perhaps it could be conveyed to him and indicate any matters on which we can help him, we will be very pleased to discuss them with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Dr. Gauss?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't Dr. Luedinghausen come here?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would welcome that.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no objection to that, that will ease the situation. Both courses appear appropriate, that Dr. Luedinghausen could perhaps see you -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- with reference to interrogatories and see Dr. Gauss in the prison here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I welcome both of these courses.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That concludes the matters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Ribbentrop is concerned -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, acting for Dr. Horn, perhaps you could deal with that application with reference to Hilger.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I am certainly prepared to do that, but since I haven't been able to talk to Dr. Horn I must ask the Tribunal that by my statement Dr. Horn is not going to be prejudiced. legation in Moscow during theperiod when negotiations for a pact were conducted between Germany and Russia and until the outbreak of the war between Germany and Russia. He is therefore the person who is well informed about the attitude of von Ribbentrop and therefore of great importance as a witness. important witness, since Dr. Horn had asked for Ambassador Gauss. Dr. Horn has withdrawn, as far as I know, his application for Dr. Gauss and only wishes, in reference to some less important points, to submit to him either an affidavit or a questionnaire. I assume that Sir David will agree to that solution if I submit it in that form.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has just very kindly expressed his agreement to that course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I agree, My Lord, as I suggested, that if this witness Hilger is called as an oral witness an interrogatory be administered to the witness Gauss.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
That is all, isn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider these matters.
(The Tribunal adjourned until Monday, March 25, 1946 at 1000 hours)
THE MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendants Streicher and Ribbentrop are absent from this session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President, on Friday last I stated that from the first colume of the document book I will not read anything. That does not mean, however, that in my brief I shall not refer to one or the other document. The question arises whether, under these circumstances it is not necessary to take these documents which I will reler to and will no read now and to submit them in evidence to the Fourt, or whether it is sufficient if these documents are copied in the document book. I would be grateful if the Court would help me in deciding this question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My Lord, I have a suggestion to make that the Tribunal take these documents de bene esse at the moment and that when Dr. Seidl comes to make his final speech then any point as to admissibility can be discussed. With regard to the third book, for example, that consists of a number of opinions of various politicians and economists in various countries The Prosecution will, in due course, submit that these have no evidential value and in fact relate to a matter too remote to be relevant. But I should have thought the convenient course would have been to discuss that when we find what ultimate use Dr. Seidl makes of the documents, at the moment letting them go in, as I suggest, de bene esse.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal think that you should offer these documents in evidence now, and that they should be numbered consecutively. Probably the best way would be with the letter "H" in front of them -- H-1 and so on -- and that then, as Sir David says, as they are being offered all together, objection, if necessary, can be taken to them at a later stage -- objection on the ground of admissibility or relevance.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir. I want to refer once more to Volume I of the document book. The first matter of proof is a speech by the Defendant Rudolf Hess made on 8 July 1934. This document will have the number H-1, page 23 of the document. The second document can be found on page 27 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, to what issues has this speech got relevance?
DR SEIDL: The speech of the 8th of July 1934-- is that it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it is the one on Page 23. It is 8 July 1934.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Mr. President, this speech deals with the question, peace or war. Since the accusation has been made against the Defendant Hess that he participated in the psychological preparation of aggressive war, and since he is accused of being a participant in the conspiracy, it seems to me important to illustrate the attitude of the Defendant Hess toward the question of a war, and it seems to be relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, We will allow you to read it.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not intend to read this speech now. I only want to submit the speech in evidence so as to have the opportunity later in my speech to refer to it, if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: From the first volume of the document book I will read nothing I only want to mention the individual documents and put them in evidence.
I pass to Page 28 of the document book. Here we also have a speech by the Defendant Hess, which he made on the 27th of November 1934. The number of this document will be H-2.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean 27 or 28 ? The speech of the 8th of December 1934 begins on Page 27.
DR. SEIDL: Before that there is on Page 27 -- yes, that was marked here incorrectly. a speech -- from the 17th of November 1938--1935, I'm sorry. It is Page 31 of the document book H-3. 11th of October 1936, H-4. Then a speech of the 14th of march 1936, page 33 of the document book, Exhibit H-5. The next exhibit is on page 35 of the document book, a speech of the 21st of March 1936, Exhibit H-6. Exhibit H-7 is a speech on page 36 of the document bock. Exhibit H-8 is a speech of the 6th of June 1936, on page 40 of the document book.
teitag in Nurenberg, 1936, H-9. Then follows a speech which can be found on page 59 in the document book in excerpts, Exhibit H-10. A speech of the 14th of May 1938 at Stockholm, on page 70 of the document book, Exhibit H-11.
The next exhibit is on page 78 of the document book, exhibit H-12. And submitted last Friday.
It can be found on page 164 of the document book. It is an affidavit made by the former Secretary, Hildegard Fath. It will bear the exhibit number, H-13.
The next exhibit is on page 86 of the document book. That is the second volume of the document book. That is a directive of 3 June 1936, Exhibit Nunber H-14. the conference between the Defendant Hess and Lord Simon, held on 10-6-41. These minutes begin on page 93 of the document book, and it will have the number H-15. flew to England. Nobody knew of this flight except his adjutant at that time. Hitsch. The Fuehrer himself was informed about the flight and the intentions connected therewith in a letter which was delivered to the Fuehrer after Hess had already landed in England. of the Foreign Office, and, as it has been mentioned before, on the 10th of June 1941 the conference took place between him and Lord Simon. This conference lasted two hours and a half, and in the course of the conference the Defendant Hess told Lord Simon about the motives which caused him to make this extraordinary undertaking. is to say, four points, which he maintained represented the intentions of Adolf Hitler, and that he expected that they would result in understanding and in the bringing about of peace. seen in the minutes that shortly after the conference the minutes showed him a Dr. Guthrie. As much as I am informed, this measure was taken to assure that the stenographers or the translators should not know from the beginning what it was all about.
In the minutes we also find a Dr. Mackenzie, and he is an official of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Kirkpatrick, who had already had converse with Hess.
to explain the reasons which caused him to make this step, and I quote on page 93 of the document book, about the middle of the page, literally:
I have to say that in the minutes, the Defendant Hess appears under the name -- the capital letter "J". The Defendant Hess, after the introductory remarks, stated:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, there seems to be a typographical error, probably in the date. The date is given as the 9th of August. You said the 10th of June, did you not?
DR. SEIDL: The 10th of June, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a mistake at the top of page 93 -9.3.41.
DR. SEIDL: On the cover of the document there is the following remark: "Minutes of a conference which took place on the 9/6/41 somewhere in England. On the inside of the document, there is the 9/8/41 and there must be a typographical error somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: There must have been. They put "8" instead of "6".
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: "I know that my arrival has not been understand correctly by anybody, my coming here; because it is an extraordinary step that I have taken that I cannot expect it -- the understanding. Therefore I would like to begin by explaining how I arrived at this."
I continue on page 94:
"The idea came to me when I was in June of the last year, during the French campaign, with the Fuehrer."
The following remark, I believe, I can leave out, and then I quote:
"I have to state that I came to the Fuehrer convinced, as we all were, that sooner or later -- but in the end certainly -- we could conquer England; and I expressed the opinion to the Fuehrer that we must naturally demand from England therestitution of goods, such as the value of the merchant fleet, etc., which had been taken from us once by the Versailles Treaty.
"The Fuehrer then contradicted me immediately. He was of the opinion that the war could possibly lead finally to an agreement with England, which he has attempted since he is politically active. I can testify, that since I have known the Fuehrer, since 1921 the Fuehrer has always spoken about it, that the agreement between Germany and England had to be achieved.
As soon as he is in power he will do that, he said. And he told me at that timein France that one should not impose any severe conditions, even if victorious, on a country with which it was desired to come to an agreement.
At that time I had the thought that if in England one knew of this fact, it might be possible that England on its part was ready for an agreement."
"Then came the Fuehrer's offer at the conclusion of the French campaign--his offer to England. The offer, as is known, was refused; and this confirmed all the more my resolution that under these circumstances I must go through with my plan. Closely following that came the air war between Germany and England which on the whole -- seen on the whole -definitely caused heavier damage to England than to Germany. Consequently, I had the impression that England could not give way without losing con siderable prestige.
That is why I said to myself, now I must realize my plan all the more, for if I were over in England, England could be enabled to cultivate negotiations between Germany and England without loss of prestige."
I quote then from page 97. After a short statement by Dr. Mackenzie, Hess continued:
"I was of the opinion that apart from the question of terms for an agreement, there was still in England a certain distrust of a general nature to be overcome. I must confess that I faced a very critical decision, the most critical in my life; and I believe it became possible for me through the fact that I realized, not only on the German side but also on the English side, I pictured an endless row of children's coffins with the mothers crying behind them."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, have you got the original document there before you?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Might it be handed up?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
(The document was handed to the President).
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. SEIDL: "And vice-versa, the coffins of mothers with the children behind them.
I want to mention certain points which, I believe, plan a certain part here from the psychological point of view. I must assert something. After the defeat in the Great War, the Versailles Treaty was imposed on Germany; and no serious historian is now of the opinion that Germany was responsible for the World War. Lloyd George has said the peoples stumbled into the war. I recently read an English historian -Farrar -- who wrote about Edward VII and his policy at that time. This historian Farrar lays the guilt for the war on the policies of Edward VII. Germany had this treaty imposed upon her after her collapse, which was not only a frightful calamity for Germany but also for the whole world. All attempts of politicians, of statesmen in Germany, before the Fuehrer came to power, that is to say, when Germany was a democracy of the purest water, to obtain any sort of relief were unavailing."
I forego the reading of the following part of the minutes. There took place another conversation about various points, among others: the subject of the conversation then was the strength of Germany in the air and the preparations with regard to the building of U boats. I don't believe that these questions are relevant in the present connection; and then I would like to pass on to that part of the minutes where the proposals are made, which Hess submitted to Lord Simon. We find this on page 152 of the document book. From the minutes we can see that Hess, at that time, had written down the proposals which he wanted to submit previously, and these notes he had given to Dr. Mackenzie, that is to say, Mr. Kirkpatrick, who read them, or, that is to say, translated them; and I quote on page 152, at the bottom of the page, literally:
"Basis for an understanding." And here I have to ask the Tribunal to go from page 152 of the document book to page 159 of the document book, for the reason that the first point of the proposal apparently has been represented in the wrong fashion.
Dr. Mackenzie which expresses the first point quite correctly, and I quote:
"In order to prevent future wars between the Axis and England, there should be a definition of interest spheres. The interest sphere of the Axis is Europe, and England's sphere of interest is the Empire.
I ask now to return to page 153 of the document book. Here we find the second point of the proposals which Hess had made, on the last line.
"Dr. Mackenzie: 2. Return of German Colonies." top of the page:
"3"--is it possible that in the document book by error the figure 2 was repeated? It should be 3.
"3. Indemnification of German nationals who had their residence before the war or during the war within the British Empire and who suffered damage in their persons or property through measures of a Government of the Empire or through any occurrence such as tumult, pillage, etc. Indemnification on the same basis by Germany of British subjects.
"4. Armistice and peace to be concluded with Italy at the same time."
Then there is a personal statement by Hess. "The Fuehrer has repeatedly indicated these points to me on general lines in conversations as the basis for an understanding with England." reading of the other passages marked in red. bring the proposals made by Hess to the knowledge of the British Government. That was Exhibit No. H-15. Indictment of preparing the seizure of power by the Nazi conspirators, of sponsoring it; that with regard to the military, economic, and psychological preparation for the war as mentioned under Count 12, be also sponsored it; that he participated in the political planning and preparation of aggressive wars, and of wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances, as mentioned in Counts 1 and 2 and that he participated in the preparation and planning of foreign political plans of the Nazi conspirators as listed under Count 1.
Prosecution against Rudolph Hess. It is therefore my duty, in producing evidence, to also point at the circumstances since 1933 which led to the outbreak of war, and in that connection I must say the following: a non-aggression pact was concluded which has already been submitted by the Prosecution as GB-145. On the same day, that is to say one week before the outbreak of the war and three days before the planned attack on Poland, these two nations concluded still another secret agreement. This secret agreement contained es sentially the limitation of the spheres of interest of both nations within the territories between both nations.
THE PRESIDENT: You aren't forgetting, are you, the Tribunal's ruling that this is not the opportunity for making a speech, but simply the occasion for introducing documents and calling witnesses. You will have the opportunity of making your speech at a later stage.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, yes. I do not intend to make a speech. I intend only to say a few introductory words to a document which I will submit to the Tribunal. Lithuania, Finland, and Esthonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, we haven't yet seen the document. If you are going to put in the document, put in the document.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I can submit the document at once. It is an affidavit by the former ambassador Dr. Friedrich Gauss. In the year 1939 he was the Chief of the Legal Department of the Foreign Office, and as traveling companion of the German plenipotentiary at that time he was present airing negotiations at Moscow, and he has actually written the non-aggression pact which has already been submitted, as well as the secret agreement. He drafted it, and I want to submit it herewith to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you hand in the document?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I intend to read parts of this document later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal doesn't quite understand what this document is because it isn't included in your document book and it doesn't appear that you made any application for it or made any reference toit, and it is in German; it isn't translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, when I prepared the document book for the defendant Hess, I did not have this affidavit. It dates from the 15th of March 1946. At that time, when applications about material evidence for Defendant Hess were made and discussed, I had no definite knowledge of the connections which would have enabled me to make application at that time. The excerpts which I intend to read from this document are short and it will be possible for them to be translated here in the Court by the interpreters present without difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a copy for the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, yes, a German copy, that is.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that wouldn't be any use to me. I don't know whether it is to all the members of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecuting Counsel any objection to passages being read from this document?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I did not know about the existence of this document and therefore I strenuously object to having it read into the record and I would wish that the procedure that has been followed in the past be preserved now. When the Prosecution was presenting its evidence it always resented copies of it to the Defense Counsel and the counsel for Hess is presenting a document which is absolutely unknown to anybody and the Prosecution certainly would like to familiarize itself with it beforehand. I do not know what kind of secret treatieshe is talking about and what the basis or foundation for it is. I would therefore say it is at least hearsay rather than anything else.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecutor of the Soviet Union states that he had no knowledge as to the existence of this secret document which shall he proved by this affidavit. Under these circumstances I am compelled to make the application to call Foreign Commissar Molotov of the Soviet Union as a witness, that is to say, so that it can be established first whether this agreement had been concluded in fact; secondly, what the contents of this agreement were and thirdly -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the first thing for you to do is to have a translation of this document made and until you have a translation of this document made the Tribunal is not prepared to hear you upon it. We do not know what the document contains.
DR. SEIDL: As to what the document contains, I had already started to explain that before.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal is not prepared to hear from you what the document contains. We want to see the document itself and see it in English and also in Russian. I do not mean, of course, you have to do it yourself Dr. Seidl. If you would furnish this copy to the Prosecution they will have translated into the various languages and then, after that has been done, we can reconsider the matter.