Street, you said the following: "This camp had been destroyed through a bombing attack and the inmates, for almost half a year, were housed in old baking ovens, in dog houses, reservoirs, and so forth." Is that correct?
Q And you saw that yourself for a half year?
A I was only there on three occasions. It was pictured to me in that way, and I found the camp in that condition, as far as I could determine at that time--it had been about four months after the destruction-it was rebuilt.
Q Witness, I am interested in the dog houses. How many of those dog houses were there? were they real, honest-to-goodness dog houses, or was that only a derogatory remark about some other kind of billets?
Q Was there a pissoir? active use?
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot understand; will you kindly go slower? BY DR. SERVATIUS?
Q Then it was a former pissoir which had been rebuilt?
A It had bot been rebuilt; itwas used just the way it had been.
Q Was this pissoir, or this latrine, still being used? robes in this camp.
A That was not the case? there were none. swear to that? was just submitted to you?
home in Kemnitz. I made some alterations, and then signed my name to this testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: please don't interrupt him. BY DR. SERVATIUS: record.
Q Do you have it before you?
Q Can you determine which places you scratched out? Were there many places like that which you scratched out, or were there just a few points?
Q And you attested to that? You swore to it?
A Yes. After I had made these changes I swore to this record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to the fact that this testimony which we have before us now has not been sworn to. However, a statement was present at the beginning of the document, which was much shorter than this, and a number of sentences which the witness just mentioned here are lacking in the statement. I would suggest, therefore, that the prosecution be charged with the task of producing the original, or have the original submitted to the prosecution, so it can be determined and proved just what he did strike out. So far as I know, he struck out a few sentences dealing with matters which he had just testified to here before the Tribunal. were no chairs, tables, or wardrobes. That is a sentence which was struck out I should like to call your attention to the fact that at that time the witness had misgivings and he did not swear to these facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you are talking about. We have got before us what is called a sworn statement, which was put in evidence and which is signed by the witness. The witness is now saying that that statement is correct, subject to any alterations which you have extracted from him in cross-examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: He said it might be entire sentences, your Honor. I should like to ask the Prosecution to produce the original document, because I have seen two statements, one of which is a brief one, with some of these passages struck out, and the other is a complete one, such as we have before us, and about which the witness says that it has been abbreviated and sentence, struck out.
THE PRESIDENT: All that the witness is saying, isn't it, is that, it was originally submitted to him in a certain form? He made certain alteration in it. Then, when those alterations had been made -- I don't know whether it was fair-copied or not -- he then signed it and swore to it, and that is the document that we have got.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my assertion is this: The document which we have before us does not have those sentences struck out; that is, the words which were struck out are still contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness any question you like about it BY DE. SERVATIUS:
Q How did you make your alterations known? alterations. Of course, it is difficult, because today I am not able to say just what I did strike out at that time since I did not retain a copy of this material.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr.President, if this document which we have before us were reproduced correctly, these struck-out passages would have to be shown, especially since the witness said that he made these changes and put his initials next to the struck-out passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign the document after it had been fair-copie Witness, did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied?
You know what a fair copy is, do you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I will try to remember exactly, your Honor. upon three or four of these statements were signed by me. Then these records were taken away and, on the same day or the following day, I was at Essen and swore to these statements.
BY SERVATIUS:
Q Was that without any changes?
A That was without any changes. I don't exactly remember. I'm sorry.
Q And what was the cause? why did you make these alterations? interrogated me on these matters. Notes were taken and thereupon Captain Harris -- I believe it was -- compiled this record and asked that I sign it.
Q And why did youmake these alterations these strikings-off?
A Because I could not swear to those things; the things that I struck out I could not swear to.
Q Was it incorrect or was it too far afield or too extensive?
AAt that time these matters were too far afield.** I think I can put it that way. And in part, incorrect. Of course, unintentionally. But I had to make those changes, and I did make them. red the passage that you struck off, would you recognize the passage that you struck off?
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: I am not clear on this. I don't know whether Counsel is claiming that we have another document, one which we haven't submitted. I don't know of any such. We submitted the only one that came into our possession -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got that original or is it with -
MR. DODD: There were a number of these made up and they were all signed as originals. The first was the copy made with the typewriter, the others carbon copies. It was a joint British-American team that interrogated the witness and this one copy was turned over to us and we submitted it. That is the only one we have ever seen.
THE PRESIDENT: I see in the certificate of translation it refers to a certificate dated 14-10-45, signed by Captain N. Webb -
MR. DODD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will find that at the end of the document, I think.
DR. BALLAS (former Counsel forKrupp von Bohlen): As former Counsel for the defendant Krupp von Bohlen, I wish to make a statement or explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What have you pot to do with it? We are now considering the suggestion made by Dr. Servatius that this document which we are now considering -
DR. BALLAS: I am sorry. I didn't quite follow you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We are now considering the document, D-288. You haven't anything to do with that document.
DR. BALLAS: Yes, Mr. President, it does deal withthis document.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What right have youto speak about it? You are only a former Counsel to Krupp.
DR. BALLAS: I want to give an explanation. I want to assist with an explanation. At present I appear for Dr. Siemers, Counsel for Grand Admiral Raeder -
THE PRESIDENT: But how can youhelp us about the framing of the affidavit of this witness by the Prosecution? You can't do anything about that.
DR. BALLAS: I think I can explain the different versions of the document. shorter than the document, 288, in the case of Sauckel, which has been submitted by the Prosecution. At that time I called the attention of Dr. Servatius to this divergence and we determined point by point just how far the deviation went. There are two documents -- the original, which was submitted in the Krupp file, which is a diversion from the document whichis being presente d in the case of Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: But this document was signed by this witness. There may have been some other document signed which was put in the Krupp file but this witness has said that he signed this document. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that it is material.
DR. BALLAS: It is possible, your Honor. I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that there are two different documents under the number, 286.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other member of the Defense that wants to ask questions of this witness?
(There were none.)
Then, Mr. Dodd, do you want to re-examine him?
MR. DODD: He, sir -- except that; I would like to say with respect to the Tribunal's question concerning this certificate of translation where the none, "Captain N. Webb," appears: I am informed that refers to a certificate which is attached to allBritish documents, and that is a certificate which goes along for the purpose of the translators. Undoubtedly, that is what it is. However, will have a search made in the Document Room and clear it up. It is hotter that way, but my British friends say that is so: they do send a certificate, and the only possible explanation is that it is the certificate, with a mistake in the date. But in any event, I will look into it.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the witness had the original of that affidavit put to him?
MR. DODD: I believe he has. I understood he had the one which is before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he acknowledged the signature?
MR. DODD: Well, I so understood. I can inquire. BY THE COURT:
Q Witness, you saw the signature ?
Q Is it your signature? BY MR. DODD: you told me that this was a statement you gave. Do you remember that? Do you recall when you and I talked, end you told me this was your statement; you looked it over and read it?
Q You read English as well as German, don't you? You have some knowledge of English. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, the document is being handed to you. It is in German, isn't it?
Q And it is signed by you, is it?
Q Is there any passage in it which you want to strike out of it?
A May I read the document first, your Honor?
A Yes (reading the document.)
Mr. DODD: While the witness is reading the document, I should like to inform the tribunal that we made a call to the Document Room and have been told by the officer there that there is only one D-288 and this is it; there is no duplicate signed, an Counsel for Krupp stated.
A (Continuing -- answering question put to him ) Yes; here there is an alteration which is set down in pencil. That is on page 2. And I struck out that. That was not written down by me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I submit the document which the Defense Counsel for Krupp received in the beginning? This is an English document, 288 - and the passages which allegedly were crossed off are marked off by me in red. If I am permitted to submit this document, I believe it might assist in the clarification of this matter. In this version there are many strikeoffs.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, that is a different document, as I understand it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't need that. We have this document before us, signed by the witness, and we have asked him whether he has anything in it which he thinks did not form part of the original document which he signed.
A (Continuing further) Then on page 1 it says, "Conditions in all of these camps were extremely bad." I would like to limit this statement -
Q Wait a minute. Witness, we don't want to know whether you think you expressed yourself too strongly. We only want to know whether the document represents the document which you signed -- accurately represents the document which you signed. If there is anything which you want to change now, you can say what it is.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Just one or two questions I want to ask you. Were prisoners of war employed at Krupps during the time you were supervising those camps?
A Supervising the prisoner of war camps? No, I did not. That is a wrong expression. I received the permission; the prisoner of war camps were under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht. I received permission to visit the prisoner of war camps, and they were working for Krupp. mentioned in this, prisoners of war?
Q What sort of work was it?
A These things were not under my jurisdiction. It depended on their trade. There ware many auxiliary workers but I am not able to give you any details for I was not concerned with those matters. I was only active in my capacity as a doctor and had my commitment with the people in that capacity only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD Mr. President, I have found that certificate and it is as I described it for the Tribunal, and it is a certificate by Captain Weber of the British Army service and that he received a copy of this document from the American team; and signed by him, Captain H. Weber, IMT Corps, British Army, European sector.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your case then,Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There are two more witnesses, Biedermann and Mitschke. I will dispatch with both of these witnesses, Your Honor.
Then there is lacking affidavits, interrogatories, by Dr. Voss, Dr. Scharmann, and a witness by the name of Marnbach, and the witness Letsch who was an expert worker in the office of Sauckel. We have received interrogatories from the witnesses from the witnesses Darre' and Seldte but these have not been translated as yet.
I shall submit them as soon as they have been translated then.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I am concluding my case.
THE PRESIDENT: How, Counsel for the Defendant Jodl.
DR. EXNER: My Lords Justice, with your kind permission I should like to present my case in the following manner: First of all, to call the defendant Jodl to the stand. And as far as my documents are concerned, all except one will be used during his testimony in chief, on which occasion I shall submit them to the high Tribunal. I have throe document books which are in uniform order, U-1, U-2, 3, in continuous order; and I shallquote the page in each case, which in the case of the translation is found in the upper left-hand corner of the translation, and that is the page of the original. I am sorry to say that the documents are not contained in the order in which I shall read them, and this is due to the fact that they were received too late, and for other reasons as well. lacking and I hope that I shall be able to make up for this lack. I was granted the use of five witnesses but I shall forego the testimony of one of these witnesses. The four remining witnesses will take up but little time in their testimony. the Defendant Jodl to the witness box.
ALFRED JODL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. EXNER: sixty years old. That is a mistake. You attained the age of 56 the other day, for you were born when? of old Bavarian stock; you are a professional soldier; and what was the chief reason for your choice?
AA great grandfather of mine was an officer; my father was an officer; an uncle was an officer; my brother was officer; my father-in-law was an officer; and then I can say that the profession of a soldier was in my blood. attitude and conviction. Which of the political parties which existed in Germany before 1933 were you closest to spiritually? I was an officer, and especially in the offshoots of the post-war period as the parties existed then, if I took at the background from which I came, the attitude and convictions of my parents, I can say that I would be closest to the National Liberal Partyand their convictions and opinions. In any event, my parents never voted any other ticket except the National Liberal one. Weimar Republic. without reservation; and if I could not have done that I would have asked for my resignation. And at any rate, we southern Germans were interested in a democratic regime and in a constitution. This regime was nothing strange to us spiritually, for even our monarchies were democratic.
Q And such was your relationship to von Hindenburg?
A I knew von Hindenburg. I had been assigned to him after his first election to the vice-presidency when he spent his first leave in die tramszell. Then again, I was together with the leaders and Field Marshal von Mannstein. I was with the Hindenburg family for one day on their Estate Neudeck.
I can say briefly that I admired him; and when he was elected vicepresident for the first time, I considered that the first symptom of the second rise of the German people.
Q What was your connection with the National Socialist Party? before the Munich Putsch. On the occasion of this Putsch, the Reichswehr was per force drawn into this inner political development. At that time, with few exceptions, it met the test of obedience. And after this Putsch, there was a certain dissension in the attitude of the officer corps. There were various opinions about the worth or non-worth of Hitler. Before and after, I was very, very sceptical, completely sceptical, reserved and rejectant. I was pacified only when at that time Hitler, at the Leipzig law suit, gave the assurance that any differentiation of the Reichswehr would be rejected by him.
Q Did you attend meetings where Hitler spoke?
Q Can you tell us, please, which leaders of the party you knew? That is, before 1933.
A I knew only those who had previously been officers: for example, Epp, Huehnlein and Roehm. But I had no connection, or anything like that, with then after they had left the Reichswehr. I had lost touch with them.
Q Before the assumption of power, had you read the book "Mein Kampf"?
Q Did you read it later?
Q That was your opinion on the Jewish question?
A I was not anti-semitic. I am of the opinion that no party, no state, no people, and no race, not even cannibals, per se are good or bad in themselves, but only the single individual. Of course, I knew that Jewry, after the war and in the symptoms of moral disintegration that appeared after the first world war, appeared in a very provoking manner in Germany.
And that was not anti-semitic propaganda; those were facts, and those facts which were regretted very much by Jews themselves. It is like that. Any means of outcasting them and any excesses, any of these measures taken by the state were rejected very intensely by me.
Q The prosecution asserts that all the defendants have cried, "Germany awake. Death to Jewry."
AAs far as I am concerned, that assertion is wrong. At every period of my life I associated with Jews individually.
THE PRESIDENT: You can go on now. BY DR. EXNER:
A I was a guest of Jews,and some Jews had entry into my home. But these were the Jews who knew and recognized their fatherland. They were Jews whose human value was indisputable.
Q Did you on occasion use your influence for Jews on behalf of Jews? the government, and that they could sort of redeem themselves in that way?
A I knew that well; for at about that time, when I came to Berlin, in the later operational division, I did not find any preparations for war; but I found preparations for the use of the Reichswehr in the interior of the country. And that use of the Reichswehr was to be against the extreme leftists as well as the extreme rightists. But there were maneuvers of some sort which took place in this connection, maneuvers in which I myself participated. chancellor in the year 1933? surprise to me. And the next evening, when I was returning home with a comrade, through the rather excited crowd, I said to my friend, "This is more than a change of government; it is a revolution. Just how far it will lead us we do not know."
and the names of such men as von Papen, von Neurath, Schwerin Krosigk exerted a soothing influence on me and gave me a certain guarantee that there would be no revolutionary extremes.
DR. EXNER: At this point, I should like to read a part of the testimony put down by General von Vormann. This is page 208 of the third volume of my document book. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the page number quoted by me is to be found in the upper left hand corner, "Page 208 of the original"; and I should like to submit this document in the original.
This document deals with 1933. At that time Jodl was in the Group Command, and Vormann was a member of his unit (Gruppe). Under Figure 2, I shall read:
"Jodl, at that time Major with the General Staff, was my Group leader in 1933. He finally followed in the tracks of the then Chief of the Army Command, General von Hammerstein, and rejected Hitler and the Party altogether."
I shall now skip a few lines; they are not relevant. Then in the center of the page, I shall continue;
"When on 30 January 1933 Hitler was called as Reich Chancellor, Jodl was dismayed and astonished. I clearly recall that on the 30th or 31st of January, upon his request, I had to calltogether the officers of his unit (Gruppe) for a conference. At this conference he explained; Hitler has been called to the head of the Reich according to the existing constitution and the laws in effect. It is not for us to bring criticism concerning this,particularly criticism of the behaviour of the Reich President and Field Marshal von Hindenburg. We must obey and do our duty as soldiers. Criticisms in the former manner of the new measures of the new chancellor are not to be made in the future, for they are inconsistent with his and our own position.
"His entire speech showed great worry and apprehension for the coning development of the situation"; and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, this would be a convenient time to break of (A recess was taken until 1400 hours). (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 3 June 1946)
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Sir David, you were going to show these applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
I wonder if I might leave, for the moment, No. 1, which my friend General Rudenko will deal with because he will deal with another one, and if I might deal with the ones with which I am dealing?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The second one is on behalf of Defendant Kaltenbrunner and is an application to cross examine three witnesses whose affidavits were used by the prosecution. The first is Tiefenbach, and he dealt with conditions at Mauthausen; the second, Kandruth, who dealt with the same subject; the third, Strupp, dealt with the reception of orders from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner by Strupp as SS and Politzei Fuehrer in Warsaw. The prosecution submits that in these cases cross examination by way of interrogatories would be sufficient. Next, I don't knew if-
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories are all they asked for, certainly in the case of -- in all three.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: We will have no objection to cress interrogatories so long as they are not brought here as witnesses. Neurath to use M. Francois Poncet as a witness. The prosecution will be grateful if the Tribunal would allow that to stand over for a day or two, as my French colleagues are awaiting instructions from Paris at the moment and they have not got a reply yet. I don't think it will prejudice the Defendant von Neurath's case. It will be time for a reply before there is any difficulty as to time. Defendant von Schirach. I think that all that is now wanted is to use an affidavit from Dr. Otto Wilhelm von Volcano. The affidavit is twelve pages long and is a highly academic statement on the educational philosophy underlying the Adolf Hitler schools. The prosecution feels that thematter has been thoroughly covered by the Defendant von Schirach himself and also by his witnesses, Hoepken and Lauterbacher, and they feel that the affidavit would be cumulative and repetitive.
But of course it is an affidavit; it is not a question of an oral witness, and if the Tribunal feels that they ought to have it, the prosecution does not wish to press their objection unreasonably.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the affidavit been translated yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, I have certainly got an English -- I have read the English translation of it, My Lord, so I assume that it has been translated into theother languages. and Frank to put an interrogatory to General Donovan. If I may put the objection quite shortly, that raises the same point as the application, on the 2nd of May, 1946, for Mr. Patterson of the United States War Department, and the objection of theprosecution is the same as I made on that occasion, that when you are cross examining a witness as to credibility you are bound by his answer and should not, in the opinion of the prosecution, be allowed to call evidence to contradict him. So it is on exactly the same point, the relationship between the Witness Gisevius and the United Stales Office of Strategic Services. approval of certain documents which are in his possession. The prosecution has no objection to the application. They reserve the right to make any individual objection when the documents are produced at the trial. the Defendant Jodl, whose case is now before the Tribunal, to use an affidavit of Dr. Lehmann. There is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that application we have already heard. We have heard the arguments for that in full and the Tribunal will consider that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. for the use of a decree of Hitler of the 20th of July, 1944, and the prosecution has no objection to that. which my friend, General Rudenko, will deal with, the application of the Defendant Goering.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Members of the Tribunal, the Soviet Prosecution has several times expressed its view respecting the application of Defense Cou nsel to call witnesses in regard to the mass shooting by Fascist criminals of Polish officers in the forests of Katyn. Our position is that this episode of the criminal activity on the part of the Hitlerites has been fully established by the evidence presented by the Soviet Prosecution, which was a communication of the Special Extraordinary Stave Commission investigating the circumstances of the mass shooting by Hitler Fascist aggressors in the Katyn forests of Polish officers prisoners of war. This document was presented by the Soviet Prosecution under the Number 54 on 14 October 1945, and it was admitted by the Tribunal and, as provided by Article 21 of the Charter, is not subject to argument. calling of three supplementary witnesses -- a psychiatrist, Stockert, a former adjutant of the Pioneer Engineers Corps, and a special expert of the staff of the Army Group Conner. following reasons: as absolutely unreasonable since the Tribunal cannot be interested in the question of in what manner the conclusion of the commission was drawn -- a conclusion which was published in the Hitler Whitebook. No matter in what way this conclusion was drawn, the fact of the mass shooting by Germans in the Katyn forest has been absolutely established by the Extraordinary State Commission. trist who was a member of the Hitler Commission, not on the basis of his competence as far as medical science is concerned, but as a representative of the German Fascist military high command. Katyn forest, having been a member of the Pioneer Engineers Unit which carried out the executions, and since he is an interested party, he cannot give any objective evidence on this matter.
cannot be admitted as a witness because he, in general, did not know anything at all about the camp of the Polish prisoners of war, and Eichhorn in general could not have known that all the facts pertaining to the matter were. The same reasons apply to his potential testimony on the fact that the Germans have never perpetrated any mass shooting of the Polish people in the region of Katyn. Moreover, Eichhorn cannot be considered as an objective witness. Prosecutors, the Soviet Prosecution especially emphasize the fact that these bestial crimes of the Germans in Katyn were investigated by the special, authoritative State Investigating Committee, which went into all the details, and the result of this investigation has established the fact that the crimes in Katyn were perpetrated by Germans and that they really are only one link in the chain of many bestial crimes which were perpetrated by the Hitlerites, a great many proofs of which have previously been submitted to the Tribunal. insists on the denial of the application of the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Kaltenbrunner, Sir David was right, was he not, in saying that you were only asking for cross-interrogatories, which the Prosecution do not object to?
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I have no objections to questionnaires, but then I would ask that those witnesses be heard in my presence outside of this Courtroom, and then, on the basis of this questioning, the questionnaire can later be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: But are the witnesses here?
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: We granted interrogatories ,and you now ask for crossinterrogatories; that is all you ask for, and that does not involve bringing the witnesses here at all.
The cross-interrogatories will be sent to them; they will answer them. If, for any reason, on the cross-interrogatories being answered, you want to make further application, you can always do so.
DR. KAUFMANN: The rule of the Court so far was, as I understood it, that I have the right to cross examine in this room, if the Prosecution submit, affidavits of those witnesses here. That has so far been the ruling of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it depends on what the substance of the affidavit is. If it is a matter of importance, no doubt we -- he have never made any general rule, but we have generally allowed the witness to be brought here for cross examination if the matter is of importance, but in the matter is of less importance, then we have very frequently/directed that there should be cross interrogatories.
DR. KAUFMANN: May I add to this last sentence? I consider this testimony extremely important. The Court will probably know the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Again, in your application, you say that three interrogatories were used by the Prosecution on the understanding that the deponents would be subject to cross interrogation. That means, I suppose, cross-interrogatories. It does not say cross examination; it says cross interrogation. Do you want to have them brought here for cross examination?
DR. KAUFMANN: That is what I had intended, unless my first suggestion is accepted. My first suggestion is simpler, in my opinion, said it would save time if I were allowed to be present at the questioning of the witnesses outside of this room.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we understand your point of view, Dr. Kaufmann, and we will consider it.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering): May I make a brief statement on General Rudenko's statements? referring to Article 21, I believe, of the Charter. I do not believe that this regulation would oppose an application. It is true that government reports are evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I think the Tribunal has already ruled that that Article does not prevent the calling of witnesses, but General Rudenko, in addition to an argument based upon Article 21, also gave particular reasons why he said that these particular witnesses were not witnesses who ought to be called.