A. There was a men named Rockinger.
Q. Spell, that please.
A.R 0 C K IN G E R
Q. Do you know his first name?
A. No, I don't
Q. Know where he was from, what his home city was, or anything like that?
A. No, I don't know that now either.
Q. You tell me you experimented on a man twenty times and you don't even know his first name, don't know where he is from, or anything about him?
A. We didn't talk about each other's first names nor about these details. It is possible that I did find out then where he came from and what his first name was, but I have forgotten it by now.
Q. Well now, can you give us the names of any of the others? It shouldn't be too difficult. I think I could remember the names of ton or fifteen men I worked with for such a time as that, on such an important problem.
A. There was a man named Sobotta.
Q. Spell that, please.
A. SO B O T T
Q. Can you give us any further information about him?
A. Sobotta occupied a special position there, because he was the man who went through the most experiments, and at the same time had a sort of superior position inside that group, and I think Sobotta was the man I talked with most of all. Consequently, I can say regarding him that he was a safecracker. He broke into a large Austrian State bank, among other things, and, so far as I know, he was an Austrian
Q. Well now, do you know the names of any of the others?
Q. Well now, do you know the names of any of the others?
A Yes, I remember a man Kloos and the name Sozlak or something like that. Kloos is spelled K L O or O O S, and the other, Z O S L A K, or something of that sort, I don't know that for sure either.
Q. Well now, don't you know any particulars about these men? It seems to me that you quite frequently, in the course of the experiments, after the men were unconscious and after they came to, you would ask them questions like the delicatessen dealer. It would seem to me that you would have gained more information about those men than you have during the course of the experiments. Don't you have more information about them to give us so that perhaps we can find them? Do you know where they are?
A. No, I have no idea.
Q. Did any of them survive the experiments?
A. Well survived the experiments. The witness Vieweg has corroborated that among others.
Q. And they were volunteers?
A. Yes.
Q. Yet you haven't found any of them and brought them here before this Tribunal?
A. How am I to find these men when I am interned?
Q Your defense counsel could well put out a notice and look for them. If we could get the information, perhaps we could find them. Perhaps you can remember the first name of Sobotta? Do you remember that? This is the man you talk ed to the most.
A. No.
Q. Don't remember him?
A. No.
Thank you.
A. I certainly don't remember his first name.
Q. Now, what was the reward that those volunteers were to got for being subjected to the experiment?
A. What they actually received as a reward, I don't know for sure. I know only from the documents here that Sobotta was released, and I know that he had theretofore been promised that he would be pardoned and that Himmler had personnally verified this when he paid his visit there. Then Himler, when the report was made at the conclusion of the experiments, said it again, and Rascher also said that they were to be set at liberty.
Q. Do you remember the name Sobotta from those documents, or did you remember it from your conversations with him?
A. I remembered it from our conversations. Particular ly, because a University professor at Bonn had the same name and that is why this rather unusual name stayed in my memory.
Q. Well, of course, when you remembered the professor at Bonn with the same name, you must certainly have asked the fellow "Are you any relation to him?" That is a likely question, wouldn't it be?
A. I don't know whether I asked that or not. In principle, the fact that a University professor should be a relative of a safecracker is not too probable, but maybe I did ask him, it is possible.
Q. You didn't find out from that course of questioning whether or not the fellow came from Munich, Berlin, France or where, did you?
A. As I have said, in the case of Sobotta, I assume that he was an Austrian.
Q. Well now, I have assumed here all along that you were perhaps a thoughtful physician and apparently a very conscientious research worker. It seems most unusual that a man of your caliber didn't have enough interest in the people that he was subjecting to experiments to have more information about them than you have. Didn't you care? You say, you tell us here, that you asked them whether they were volunteers. Did you just says "Are you volunteering", and not ask them any further questions? You weren't interested? It seems strange for a physician not to be interested in some of the background of the people that he is subjecting to experiments. Even Dr. Ding know some of the people that he was using in his experiments in Buchenwald.
A. As I said, I did talk with these people. Moreover since I associated with them for two or three months during these experiments and put them in the experiments and saw what they had to do, there is no doubt in my mind at all that they were volunteers. When I asked them questions, I didn't ask then in a critical spirit because I had any mistrust of them, but these questions I asked simply occurred in the course of the conversations I had with them.
Q. Well now, Doctor, Walter Neff's job there was more or less taking care of these experimental subjects, wasn't it? Hasn't he the block elder?
A. Neff was the block elder for this group, yes.
Q. Well now, he was in a position to know more about those experimental subjects than you, wasn't he? He perhaps had a card index file on them.
A. No, I don't believe he had a card index file.
Q. Well, he knew more about them than you did, didn't he? He lived with them. He was another inmate.
A. That's possible. I don't know how well he had known them before or how well he made friends with them. That, of course, I can't judge.
Q. However, you would be willing to admit that perhaps his testimony concerning these subjects is more reliable than yours?
A. I can't judge as to the reliability of Neff's testimony. I just don't know.
Q. Well now, these ten or fiftenn - Neff referred to them as "exhibitionists" or "exhibition subjects". Do you recall that?
A. It was Vieweg who used that term for the first time here -- "exhibition subjects."
Q. Well now, Neff stated that ten inmates had volunteered, didn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, he stated, that's on page 614 of the record, Your Honor. Well now, he also stated that only one of the subjects used in the experiments was released, didn't he?
A. Yes, that's what he said.
Q. The documents support his testimony, don't they?
A. Regarding Sobotta, he is specifically mentioned for pardon in Brandt's letter or Rascher's.
Q. Well now, do you recall Neff stating here that he remembers the first days of the experiments when they had the first series of experiments, and that he stated that Ruff and yourself were present? Do you recall that?
A. First, he said that huff was present on the first day in Luftwaffe uniform. Later, he corrected himself and said he was not in Luftwaffe uniform, and it wasn't on the first day either. Rather, he was in civilian clothes and it was a couple of weeks later.
Q. Well now, tell me, in these first series of experiments did you use these ten or fifteen men that you had at your disposal?
A. Yes.
A. Page 622 of the record - halter Neff, a man who lived with these gentlemen, who was the clock eldest, who knew who was going in and out of the low pressure chamber, stated that no deaths had occurred in this first series on that day, but this first series of experiments was not carried out on the volunteers? Do you remember that?
A. Neff said here that all those ten or fifteen men were not volunteers at all. I remember that very definitely and he also said that there were no fatalities. Not during the first few days, but I think he said during the first few weeks.
Q. He also said that these volunteers were political prisoners, didn't he?
A. Neff said here that all sorts of people were there - all classes or strata that you can imagine.
Q. Well now, when you made your plea or Rascher made his plea to secure the volunteers for these experiments, what form or in what manner did he appeal to the inmates of the Dauchau concentration camps?
A. Just how he did this I don't know. This was not done by Rascher, but by the Camp Commander on the basis of the discussion of Rascher's letter and the information given by the adjutant Schnitzler, from Munich, who was present at the discussion. As far as I know the people were asked at the roll call who wanted to volunteer and then a great number of volunteers --
Q. Now, you say roll call, do you mean roll call of only habitual criminals or criminals condemned to death because you only used criminals in these experiments, or did the roll call consists of all sorts of prisoners, political prisoners and everyone else?
A. Just how the roll call works I don't know, or whether a specific group was established a priori.
Q. You actually don't know very much about this, do you?
A. I had nothing to do with selecting them. There was a clear cut agreement with the camp commander which had been reached during this discussion. He had said that we would find enough, and told Rascher that he could pick the people who were physically qualified for the experiments.
Q. Now, what did you offer them as an inducement to undergo these experiments; that was the inducement, wasn't it, offering them a pardon if they successfully underwent the experiments?
A. I didn't offer than a pardon. I wasn't in a position to do that.
Q. You must have insisted before you worked on than that they were to be pardoned. that is the gist of the testimony, you would not use men who at least were not offered a pardon after you had experimented on than, would you? I am sure you wouldn't, would you, Doctor?
A. That was a clear cut statement, also that the people should be pardoned and that their sentences should be reduced. This was not simply a theory, but was set down in writing, and Himmler had made the same promise when he was there.
Of course, Himmler's idea about pardoning these non wasn't as conclusive as you stated, was it? You state in the original Himmler letter that Himmler was in favor of pardoning all the habitual criminals that were subjected to these experiments; now, did Himmler have a change of heart and later withdraw that promise, or what happened?
A. He didn't take anything back, at least I didn't know it if he did, but of course, I can't check whether or not he kept his promise. I can't force a man like Himmler to keep his word, more over at that time I had no reason to believe that this was a promise that was not to be kept.
Q. Well, now, when these volunteers, so to speak, did volunteer, were they warned of the hazards of the experiment?
A. They were not just'so-called' and I can say that they were really volunteers. I told them what the point of these experiments was, what they had to do, what they had to particularly take care of, and just what their active participation as experimental subjects was to be.
Q. Well, now, you must have told them that these experiments, gentlemen, you are going to go through are painless and they won't be harmful at all, you may go through some distortions, however, at that time you may be unconscious. When you wake up you won't realize you have gone through experiments; there is no danger of death, and that the purpose of this experiment is to benefit the German aviators, something to that effect; you must have said something similar to that to them?
A. Something similar, not in detail as you have said it.
Q. I should think you would have done it more in detail than I have, because I am no expert on that subject as you are?
A. I have already explained to them what altitude sickness is, explained what that they would became unconscious and this was the most important point, after waking up so far as they are clear in their minds they should pull the parachute release.
That was the most important thing, of course, and I also know very certainly I also told them that these were experiments in which nothing would happened as far as man's judgment goes.
Q. In other words, you impressed upon them that these experiments were harmless?
A. I told them that to the best of our ability we would see to it that nothing happened to then. I also told them there was a certain risk involved which could not be precisely calculated, but so far as the physicians were concerned they would see to it that nothing happened to these people.
Q. Well, now, Doctor, if that was the case, in the course of these high altitude experiments why was it necessary to use habitual criminals and criminals condemned to death; in other words, why was it necessary to offer that particular group of individuals an inducement to undergo such harmless experiment; why couldn't you as well call in the political prisoners and have said, "Gentlemen, we have an experimental program here", and explain to them how harmless the experiment is, and "if you will undergo the experiment we will give you one more loaf of bread than you are getting or one more piece of sausage a day, "which giving to them would be quite an inducement, whereas you used criminals, which as you say were justifiably placed in concentration camps and were a menace to the public, because they were criminals, and now you are going to subject them to a perfectly harmless experiment and allow them to go out into the public and commit some more crime; it doesn't seem logical if it is a harmless experiment; there must be some danger to it?
A. As to what group of subjects were to be chosen as experimental subjects I had no influence. Himmler as Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of Police issued the directive. We had no influence on that. That is true of the case of doctors all over the World, the doctor doesn't choose the people, the State does?
A. That is right. I am going to refer to it. I hope this is in order so we can read it, page 62, Document Book 2, Document 1971-PS. This is the Himmler letter to Rascher in answer to Rascher when Rascher sent in these preliminary reports. This is where Himmler says they shall be pardoned to a concentration camp for life. This is dated 13 April 1942.
"Dear Dr. Rascher:
I want to answer your letter with which you sent me your reports.
"Especially the latest discoveries made in your experiments have interested me. May I ask you now the following:
"1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death.
"2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these experiments.
"3. Considering the long continued exploited in such a manner as to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration Camp for life." That was pretty white of him, wasn't it? That is quite a pardon to give a man, isn't it? After you practically kill him you can recall his life and if you are successful in recalling him to life then we will pardon him not to go scott free, but to a concentration camp for life, that being all the evidence we have of pardon from Himmler, isn't it?
A. I did not make the experiments. I did not get the orders from Himmler to carry them out.
Q. You firmly indicated the attitude Heinreich Himmler had as to pardoning concentration camp inmates who had been condemned to death; he doesn't even mention habitual criminals who have not been condemned to death, that is his attitude.
I think it is exemplary, isn't it?
A. I don't knew just what the general procedure was with pardons in such cases as this. In general people condemned to death are happy if they are pardoned just as long as they don't die; now whether a person condemned to death could be set scott free I don't know, I can't judge. However, this was Himmler's directive. It was sent to the necessary offices, to the Chief of the Sipo, Gluecks, and so forth, and here it says people condemned to death are to be pardoned to concentration camp for life.
Q. Now, in the course of your experiments you only used so you and Ruff say, from 10 to 15 experimental subjects, all volunteers. Was it made clear to this group of experimental subjects, that is the one in the Rascher experiments and the one in the Ruff-Romberg experiments, and according to Ruff that numbers in the hundreds and up to 80 wore killed eventually in high altitude experiments. Now, was it made clear to these subjects when they volunteered for periments what they were volunteering for; did the subject know whether or not he was volunteering for the Ruff-Romberg or Rascher experiment, or merely for the Rascher experiment; how did he know when he got into the experimental chamber who was going to work on him, how did he know that?
A. Our men lived at the station and carried on the experiments continously, and I told them exactly what experiments were to be carried out and to what purpose they served. The other experimental subjects whom Rascher used, I had nothing to do with. Neff says they wore brought to the station with SS guards of some sort and that Rascher then carried out the experiments with them.
Q Well now,Doctor, each and every time an experimental subject entered the low pressure chamber, did you look at him and make sure ho was one of your ten or fifteen?
A If these were my experiments, then I usually called the people myself in person, and said whose turn it was. I had a list to see that the experiments were evenly divided among the experimental subjects.
Q Well, you took a list; what did you call them; numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten; or did you call them by names?
A The names were there.
Q You only remember three names and you used to call them by name?
A I remember four names.
Q Four out fifteen and you used to call these men by name and make sure, one would not have twenty times in the chamber and the other five; you wanted them to file in evenly, yet you can remember only four names of such an important project.
A That was five years ago and I carried out so many experiments during that time at Dachau and was in the office too, I cannot tell you the names of the people at the institute either.
Q Yet, whenever a person entered that experimental chamber, you knew whether or not it was one- of your men?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q And you checked up each and every test on these individuals and made sure that a wringer was not wrong in on you; did you?
A I knew who these men were.
Q Well now, what is your moral attitude, Dr. Romberg, as to the capacity of a prisoner or a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment? You have heard here at this Tribunal, some say that a prisoner could not volunteer for anything, some think he could and some think he was co*erced. What ever tie situation may be, what is your attitude concerning the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for a medical experiment.
A May I go into this in some detail?
Q Certainly.
A First we must discriminate in principle between what the state does and what the Doctor does. That the state can take criminals condemned to death and make them available for experiments and does so.....
Q Doctor, just a moment. Please, before you go into the attitude of the state and the doctor, let us go into this phace, whether or not a person incarcerated in prison can himself, of his own violation, volunteer for an experiment, regardless of state laws or of doctors. Do you think when a warden of a prison or a concentration camp commandant comes up to an inmates and says, "Will you volunteer for this experiment?" do you think he conscientiously volunteers; what is your attitude on that? You have heard it in the courtroom, you have heard three or four versions; now I want to hear your version.
A Yes of course. It is my view that we must discriminate between the philosophical freedom of determination and actual freedom of determination. The philosophical freedom of determination, I don't know anythink, nor docs anyone else know of freedom determination. Then we arrive at a decision, there is no such think as philosophical freedom. The person, of course, is also not free in the use of his will, but on the other hand, he is completely free in his choice between the various possibilities that he is confronted with.
For instance, if a man is condemned to death, he goes back to his cell nd finds a letter saying that if he volunteers for an experiment that is dangerous to life, he will be pardonned. You don't have to issue an order for him to do this, He is perfectly free to accept his death sentence or to go through the experiment. This is, of course, an extreme example.
Another example is a man sentenced to a long term who volunteers for malaria experiments, he is asked also, if he wants to volunteer .and ho can make a perfectly free choice. He is condemned to ten years imprisonment, he has the choice, does he want to accept the future of malaria, or ten years in prison.
With in this possibility, he is perfectly free in his decision. That the situation exercises certain eo ercion on him, is quite clear. That is nothing unusual as far as the doctor is concerned. I have already said that the state apparently recognised the fact that a person can volunteer, because all over the world it has given prisoners a chance to volunteer.
The second question is what is the doctor's position? He always says the state is the law and secondly, the doctor is perhaps more accustomed to formulating a decision, when there is a coercion element in the situation than other people. He is inclined to regard such conditions as voluntary conditions. For example, decisions for women in child delivery are made in event of a caesarean operation. The doctor does not arrive at that decision because he wants to, but because the situation makes it necessary. He has to confront himself with the problem, perhaps if I should let it be a natural birth it will be successful and perhaps not. He has to draw his own conclusions in this situation. Perhaps if a person is wounded and says I was asked at that time whether I wanted my arm to be amputated or not and I said I don't want it to be amputated and you can see new I have my arm. Undoubtedly there are such cases. The doctor has to say honestly to the patient that in his knowledge and to the best of his knowledge your life is in danger, if we don't amputate this arm. Now, make up your mind, if we don't amputate, you are in great danger, if we amputate you are bound to recover, but you won't have one arm. Now, from the tale told by this man, who did not permit the amputation, we know that, and there are some people who desire to let the amputation take place and some people who desire not to, they are in a situation, where by fate they are under coercion. Fate has placed them in this situation, and it is one which the doctor is more familiar with, because again and again comes upon such patients.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, we will suspend the examination at this time for a moment. The Tribunal would like to examine German Document Book 2. Will counsel hand a copy to the Tribunal?
MR. HARDY: I will check my files on this Document. It may be that one of the photostats are missing.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to examine that Document book.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, would not the official text of the document, as it appears in the record of the International Military Tribunal Trial disclose the status of this.
MR. HARDY: That may net have been used before the I.M.T., I am not sure, Your Honor. It has an I.M.T. number, I don't know, whether it was used or not, can you ascertain that?
JUDGE SEBRING: They quote on the Niebergall affidavit here, "I certify that Document No. 1602-PS was introduced into evidence as Exhibit Nc. U.S.A. 454 in the Trial by the International Military Tribunal of Hermann Goering, et al."
MR. HARDY: I will check the original in the I.M.T. file.
JUDGE SEBRING: U.S.A. 454.
THE PRESIDENT: This document, as it appears in the German document book, varies greatly. There is more text in the German than in the English document book. They do not correspond. Now the photostat as returned hero manifestly, contains much more text than appears in the English document bock. The English opens with a short paragraph of four lines, then follows a long paragraph and then two very short paragraph. Now the photostat shows either three very long paragraphs or two long ones and two short ones. Now, the certificate, attached to this document in the English document book, certified that the English translation is a true and correct translation of the original document, which it manifestly is not. The first page of the photostat shows double printing, what happened, I cannot tell, the double printing is there together with a white blur, which makes part of it illegible. Now this document, according to the certificate attached thereto, was admitted before the International Military Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: It appears there are obviously two different documents, your Honor, I will have it checked in my files and the files of the International Military Tribunal and I will try to report on it at 1:30 if I can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is much interested and is quite dissatisfied that we have in cur document bock a manifestly incorrect translation of an important document, together with a certification that it is true and correct.
MR. HARDY: It is surprising to me that this was not noticed as this document was placed in its entirety into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a peculiar circumstance, the Tribunal is confronted with. I will return the German document and original photostat and counsel will make an investigation of the result.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS R0MBERG - Resumed
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, at this time I would like to clarify the difficulty with Document NO 1602-PS. It seems that this document exists in better condition than the photostat originally put in as an exhibit, and contains the paragraph that I was about to read from the English translation. Now, when this was introduced before the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal prosecution saw fit to only introduce the pertinent sections to their case, namely, the first paragraph, the third paragraph, and the last two paragraphs, and they had what they referred to as a partial translation of the document and indicated it was a partial translation by so heading it "Partial Translation of Document 1602-PS" and indicated the blank spaces by dots.
Now, what happened when our document book was put together. The prosecution here desired to use the same document and only the same portions thereof that had been used before the IMT and, apparently when they re-translated the document or recut the stencil and certified it by a different individual, they inadvertently didn't indicate that this was a partial translation and, by the same token, the document that want in was one that was hazy and they could not reed it, so when they cut the stencils for the German copy the German copy had the hazy one to go by and were unable to include these words.
Now I will pass this good copy of the original exhibit up to you for your perusal, as well as the type of translation that went in before the IMT, and I only want to use the portion that was used at that time, which is contained in our document book number 2 in the same manner.
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraphs?
MR. HARDY: The paragraph is the first paragraph - now this is of our document book now, the translation we have now I want to use it as is.
But it is paragraph number 1 in the German - number 2 and 3, in the German, and then the last two brief paragraphs in German before where the signature appears of Rascher. And you will note the copies as such. I have here another mimeographed German copy, two copies of it, that contain it in the same manner as this here, that I just received that I can give the defense counsel for their use. I will have other mimeographed copies of the German cut and deliver it to them later. I want to pass this up.
TEE PRESIDENT: Have you a complete translation of the document?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution didn't see fit to translate the document in its entirety because of the immateriality of the other paragraphs. If Your Honor requests it, we will have it.
THE PRESIDENT: As long as this confusion has occurred, the Tribunal desires the entire document translated--
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: ---furnished to German counsel and to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there will be no question but what counsel for both sides have the entire document before them.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I notice also the stenographic notes there. If those could be translated, have them also, if they can be read. I don't know whether they can or not.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this document for the following reasons. This document was submitted by the prosecution before. It has been ascertained that within this document there is a discrepancy between the version in the English document text and the version in the German document text. The German text says "illegible" while the English text contains this portion of the document. I should like to state that if a document is illegible for the purpose of copying it must also be illegible for the purpose of translation, which apparently was not the case.
Is this document now being submitted to complete the previous submission, or is this a completely new document?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is a very simple hurdle due to the confusion, then I will offer this as cross examination document and assign it the same number that it has now and use it here now, the paragraph, in the same manner as if we were introducing a new document.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: You say that this photostatic copy which has now been furnished the Tribunal is a correct photostatic copy of the original?
MR. HARDY: That is right.
JUDGE SEBRING: May we not meet the objections then by having the interpreters who are here in the courtroom read this document, translating it as they go and read it into the record?
MR. HARDY: That would be perfectly suitable, Your Honor. Do you mean the document in its entirety?
DR. VORWERK: I believe I understand the prosecutor correctly if I believe that this document NO 1602-PS is withdrawn as the original document and he now wants to submit to as a document for cross examination.
MR. HARDY: It is immaterial the manner in which I do it, Your Honor. I don't think the objection here has any basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the Tribunal now has before it a good clear photostat of the entire document in German. If the translators will now read that document, and it will be of course translated into English for the record, will that satisfy you? Will that be a satisfactory solution for you? The entire document then will be read into the record. You may examine the photostat of the entire document in the German language.
MR. HARDY: He has a copy of it in the German language, Your Honor.
mimeographed.
THE PRESIDENT: A copy of the entire document?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a satisfactory procedure to you?
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, the point is whether this document is to be submitted merely for identification, for cross examination of the defendant, or whether it is submitted as a document and is accepted by the Court as a document exhibit. In the latter case it would have to be given to me 24 hours beforehand.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not impressed with that objection. That is the general rule but unless counsel shows some good reason why in this instance the rule should be enforced, the matter coming up, the tribunal would not be inclined to cause delay and confusion by simply waiting 24 hours for you to read what you can read now. It is an unfortunate error but there was nothing intentional about/it. The employee who copied the document simply neglected to state that it was a partial copy instead of a complete copy and that man, the person who certified to it to be a true copy, also neglected to state that it was not a complete copy but a translation merely of a portion of the document. In other words, those who prepared this document, the stencils for the English document book simply copied the sheet which was in the record as it was introduced before the International Tribunal. It was a careless mistake but it is easy to see how it could have happened.