BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. No. Now I come to another question . Were you, yourself, a member of the SA?
A. No, I refused to become a member definitely.
Q. Were you a member of the Party, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Since when?
A. Since May 1933.
Q. How long were you a Party member?
A. Well, until the surrender, 1945 that is.
Q. In any of the other formations of the Party, you have never been, have you?
A. No, I was not in any formations.
Q. Did you hold any rank, any office in the Party hierarchy?
A. No. I expressly refused to take any office in the Party.
Q. Witness, you have also said that during the trial - or rather after the trial - a good deal of publicity was given to this case in the Hamburg press.
A. Yes.
Q. And that apparently in order to prepare the public for the trial after the appeal.
A. Yes.
Q. In the next higher instance.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you happen to know of cases where after such a great deal of publicity as was doubtlessly applied by the Party in this case, the demand was put to remove the chief of the administration of justice from office which could be the result of a propaganda. of this nature?
A. Yes, of course, in my case it was so.
Q. Is it therefore beyond doubt also for you that the pressure exerted by the Party on the administration of justice in matters of such kind was very strong?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, beyond the scope of your work with the prosecution, have an opportunity to evaluate the difficulties which a central office as for instance, the administration of justice could have had? Did you have any insight into any major office such as the administration of justice of the Land Hamburg; that is, a ministry?
A. Insight? No. But the general public prosecutor made statements about that to me.
Q. Then in 1935, after a trip that you made, you went to Berchesgaden - no, during the trip?
A. Yes, during the trip.
Q. Did you intend at that time to go to Obergruppenfuehrer Brueckner, one of the adjutants of Adolph Hitler, or did you want to speak to Hitler himself?
A. I had, asked for an interview with Obergruppenfuehrer Brueckner.
Q. Well, any arrangement like that had to be made with the adjutant, but did you intend to speak to Hitler or didn't you?
A. I had not made any demand of that kind.
Q. In other words, eventually there may be the possibility that you wanted to speak to Hitler?
A. It wasn't important for me to speak to Hitler.
Q. Did you at that time expect that Hitler would not tolerate such conditions -- as of course you could not tolerate, and would try to do something about it?
A. That, I believed, on the basis of his decree of June 1934.
Q. I see. You gave a very general construction on the conditions in Hamburg concerning the SA after the change-over of 1933. Was that judgment on your part founded on the experience which you had gained in your work with the prosecution?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, if I understand you correctly, were there quite a number of individual cases, or on the basis of your general opinion, did you have an opportunity to compare conditions with other cities and gaus?
A. No. I saw conditions as they were in Hamburg and that was sufficient.
Q. Then you described how the general prosecutor Drescher stated that he had tried to straighten out the matter Jansen with the SA. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore he pointed out the extraordinary difficulties arising from the fact that the SA leadership, evidently on the basis of the verdict which in their opinion was not justified, was dissatisfied?
A. Yes, it referred to the sentence pronounced.
Q. I see. But wouldn't it have been a logical consequence if these bad general conditions existed in Hamburg that the SA, before the investigating proceedings, could have seen to it that the whole matter could have been straightened out much easier in their sense?
A. I was not in charge of these proceedings.
Q. Therefore you can't say anything about it in detail?
A. On the basis of general conditions, of course, I happened to know what went on.
Q. I see. Your dismissal occurred in 1935 as you have told us. Did Dr. Rothenberger have anything to do with that fact, witness?
A. The question whether he had anything at all to do with it is a little indefinite.
A. I will make it more definite. Do you happen to know anything to the effect that Dr. Rothenberger caused you to be dismissed or contributed to that fact?
Q. I am convinced of that.
Q. You have no definite knowledge about it?
A. I have some knowledge to the effect that he was well informed about it.
Q. On what do you base that conviction and knowledge?
A. On 19 July 1935 the general prosecutor dismissed me from my job with the prosecution. Immediately I went to Vice-President Letz and offered my services to him for the court. I put myself at his disposal to be used in some work with the court. Mr. Letz replied immediately that he had been corresponding with Rothenberger about that case and therefrom he knew about Dr. Rothenberger's point of view to the effect that individuals of that kind were not to be used in connection with the court.
Q. Witness, quite independently of the question as to whether your point of view was correct or not, could one be of the opinion, as chief of an office, that it was not justified to take any such steps without informing the superior about it?
A. The general public prosecutor reproached me for having done that and I rejected that reproach immediately and gave him my reasons.
Q. When were you re-engaged in Hamburg?
A. That cannot mean a reappointment in Hamburg. The ministry, when it received the order of dismissal issued by Dr. Drescher, canceled that orders and as I was later told in Berlin when I submitted my complaint against the dismissal, the ministry on the basis of the report, made by the general public prosecutor about the fact that I had been dismissed, had informed the president of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg. Dr. Rothenberger -- informed him on its own -- that against the Judge Wentzensen nothing should be done without first inquiring in Berlin.
Q. Therefore the order about the dismissal on the part of the general public prosecutor was not accepted by Berlin, by the Ministry?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. In July 1935; you mean your dismissal was suggested to the ministry in Berlin without having to go through the chief of the administration of justice?
A. No. Dr. Drescher personally dismissed me.
Q. I see. Witness, my question is: when was the centralization of the administration of justice?
A. On 1 April 1935.
Q. Your dismissal, the order?
A. 15 July 1935.
Q. Therefore the administration of justice of the Land Hamburg under Dr. Rothenberger in April 1935 ceased to exist?
A. Correct.
Q. After that time, did Dr. Rothenberger have anything to do with the administration of penal law in Hamburg, whatever it may have been? Did he have anything to do with it after that time?
A. Certainly.
Q. How?
A. For instance, when it was a question that, let us say a public prosecutor wanted to or was to become a judge.
Q. I don't mean questions of personnel. I mean the handling of questions of proceedings as was done before 1935 by the Chief of the Administration of Justice.
A. The influence of Dr. Rothenberger as President of the District Court of Appeals certainly did not decrease. He was always informed and kept informed about all important political cases.
Q. Witness, are you informed an how many cases Dr. Rothenberger exerted this influence of his?
A. No, I could not know this.
Q. And quite generally speaking, concerning the conditions in Hamburg at that time compared to other cities and gaus, wasn't that known to you?
A. I had possibilities of comparison with conditions in the neighboring city of Altona for a certain period. I worked as an assessor with the district court of Altoona under Prussian regime. The prosecution at Altona at that time belonged to the district of Kiel, and in Altona I saw that the matters of the administration of justice were handled differently, particularly as far as cases such as Buhk, Buhsenschoen, and others were concerned, dealing with the ill-treatment of prisoners --matters which were not prosecuted in Hamburg but in Altona, when I worked there under the Prussian regime, in 1936 and in the beginning of 1937, were prosecuted. That was definitely different in Hamburg because the man in charge of the administration of justice, Dr. Rothenberger, together with the Reichstatthalter, Kaufmann, the Gestapo Chief Streckenbach, and the General Public Prosecutor Drescher, had made a different arrangement.
Q. Do you mean to assert, witness, that course issued by Rothenberger and Kaufmann in Hamburg was more severe from the point of view of radical politics than in any other areas?
A. Yes. That I think I have explained by giving you the example of Altona.
Q. May I put to you in this connection that the first mayor of Hamburg after the war, Petersen, whom you also know, the brother of the former mayor, said about Kaufmann that contrary to all other Reichstattahlters and Gauleiters, he was one of the most moderate National Socialist Gauleiters and that there are other testimonies available which emphasized that fact about the connection between Kaufmann and Dr. Rothenberger.
MR. KING: I object. Just a moment, witness. Obviously this is a leading question and testimony on the part of Dr. Wandschneider. Thirdly I don't think it has the slightest bit of relevance to the direct examination of this witness. I therefore object.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't either necessary nor proper to compare the testimony of other witnesses with this witness. You may do that in argument. Just examine this witness for his views and his testimony. The objection is therefore sustained.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, then you mentioned the Buhk case and in connection with it you mentioned the then senior public prosecutor Reuter. Reuter told you about that secret agreement having been made between Streckenbach, Kaufmann, Rothenberger, and Drescher. Did that secret agreement concern itself with a certain individual case or a number of individual cases, according to what Reuter told you?
A. No. That was a general arrangement. That was what Reuter explained to me.
Q. The draft or that secret agreement itself, was that made orally or put down in writing?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Do you know that Reuter himself was a member of the SD -- security service - in Hamburg?
A. That question seems to suggest the answer. I am of the opposite opinion. I believe it is quite impossible that Dr. Reuter was a member of the SD. He never told me about that organization and it can never be assumed or recognized.
Q. Do you happen to know that Dr. Reuter at that time had the best connections in the Party Chancellory, to the deputy of the Fuehrer Hess, and on the basis of these good relations he was promoted after he left Hamburg to be Senate President in Cologne after he had been a prosecutor before?
A. You connect two questions here, defense counsel. The first I answer "no" the second, by "yes." It is not correct that Dr. Reuter had the best relations to the Party Chancellory and to Hess.
Q. When did he have good relations to them?
A. His friends employed a statement that he had made about the bad conditions in the administration of justice in Hamburg, as cause to institute an interrogation by a Party court against Dr. Reuter. That was how the relations to the Party and to Hess started.
Q. Witness, is it true that Senior Public Prosecutor Router was a very ambitious man who had strong personal ambitions to become General Public Prosecutor?
A. That is a standard you want me to apply?
Q. I want you to give me an evaluation.
A. I can give you that evaluation. Dr. Reuter was a man who opposed injustice ant who in a leading position himself could have never participated in committing any injustice. He personally was of the opinion that in the course of his career an the administration of justice he had been discriminated against.
Q. Witness, you spoke before of his motives, but you don't answer my direct question. Was he an ambitious man, or wasn't he? One may state and debate the motives.
A. Certainly, to a certain extent, of course he was ambitious.
Q. Witness, please understand my question correctly. Everything depends upon the character of that person because you have no direct knowledge of the happenings themselves.
MR. KING: I think the witness has answered the question to the best of his ability.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. Then I have no further questions in cross examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Skok, would you recognize the signature of Dr. Reuter if you saw it?
A. Yes.
Q. I have here a letter in which Dr. Reuter's signature appears twice; on page two and on page 54. I submit the document to you and ask you if those signatures are Reuters. The document is to be identified as NG-656.
(Witness is offered the document)
A. Yes. That document bears the signature of Dr. Reuter indeed.
Q. Do you, by your knowledge, happen to recognize that document which is before You?
A. Yes, I know that document.
Q. What document is it, please?
A. It is the application which Dr. Reuter had written in Hamburg at the time. That war in 1945 when he lived with me, and in that document he listed all the cases which he had told me about since 1935.
Q. The prosecution at this time offers, first, the document NG-2240, as Exhibit 598.
THE PRESIDENT: 598 is 2250 according to my notes.
THE WITNESS: That is here. (Offers document to Mr. King)
MR. KING: 2250 is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering 598?
MR. KING: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
MR. KING: We offer the exhibit, or the document NG-566, as Exhibit 599.
THE PRESIDENT: I had it written down 656. Which is correct?
MR. KING: If I said anything different, your Honor, it was inadvertently so. It's NG-656.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: We have no further questions of this witness, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness is excused)
MR. KING: The prosecution calls the witness Timmermann.
HANS JOHANNES DIETRICH TIMMERMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your righthand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION HANS TIMMERMANN BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Timmermann, would you state please for the record your full name and your present address?
A Hans Johannes Dietrich Timmermann, born on the 3rd of January 1893 at Hamburg, address Hamburg, Ifflandstrasse 28.
Q Now, Dr. Timmermann, can you tell me what official or judicial position you occupied in Hamburg during the course of the - I withdraw that, from 1933 onward?
A In 1933 I was a Judge with the District Court at Hamburg. At the end of 1937 I was promoted to the position of Director of the District Court. I worked at that time in the penal administration of justice. In 1933 I was a member of the penal chamber and as deputy of the presiding judge was active in that function for a time. Later I continued to work with the penal chamber, also temporarily as a judge with the District Court of Appeals in a penal senate, and after my promotion to the Director of the District Court I was investigating magistrate for a while then in a Penal Chamber as presiding Judge, and during the war in various positions, partially as an associate judge. In 1942 I became presiding Judge of a Special Court Chamber and I was in that position about a half a year or maybe a little longer. Later I became Chief of the District Press Office and I also was in charge of a department for the war economy of the District Court. Then, after the catastrophe I was transferred from the administration of justice to the Civil Administration and established a branch of the Investigating Office (Feststellungsbehoerde).
Q Dr. Timmermann, I observe from the translation booth that they did not fully understand the last part of your statement, I think perhaps because you were speaking too rapidly. Would you kindly repeat what you said but more slowly?
AAfter the catastrophe befell Hamburg, I was turned over by the Administration of Justice to the Administration of Hamburg and I took change of the branch office Linkes Alsterufer, of the investigation office.
I was in charge of that until the surrender. That branch office later was incorporated into the Kreisamt for restoration of damages.
Q Dr. Timmermann, I do not want to unduly embarrass you but you are at the present tine not employed, is that correct?
A No, at the present time I am not employed. My denazification proceedings have not been completed yet.
Q Dr. Timmermann, were you ever an honorary collaborator with the SD?
A Yes, I was honorary collaborator of the SD without being a member of the SS.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Timmermann what function did you perform as an honorary collaborator for the SD?
A I had to make reports about the public opinion and the morale in the population and about various fields in particular. It was said that this was an organization which should replace the opportunity which did not exist at that time of National Socialism of a free statement of opinion.
Q And you made these reports if not in your capacity as a Judge, at least at the same time you were serving as a Judge, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did your appointment to this job as an honorary collaborator for the SD, was that with the knowledge and approval of the Senator, Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes, at the beginning of my work I informed the Senator because under no circumstances did I want to be suspected of spying against my office, and Dr. Rothenberger told me about his appreciation of the fact that I had come to him frankly and told him about it.
Q And what more did he say about it? Did he approve of your taking that job while you were a Judge?
A Yes, certainly he quite approved of it.
Q You were a Judge of the Fourth Penal Chamber in the early part of May 1942, were you not?
A Yes.
Q Were you present as a Judge of the Special Court when the system of review and preview was inaugurated by Senator Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes, I was present.
Q Did you attend the initial meeting which was presided over by Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us what Dr. Rothenberger said the purpose of the review and preview was to be?
A Dr. Rothenberger started by pointing out the case which had led to Hitler's speech in the Reichstag against the Administration of Justice and he said that so far relations between the Ministry of Justice in Hamburg and the Gauleitung had been very good and he hoped it would continue to be so and under no circumstances similar events should happen in Hamburg and he also stated that the administration of justice would have to tolerate a certain amount of guidance.
Q I would like to ask you briefly, Dr. Timmermann, to tell us the manner in which the review and the preview system worked. Now in the first place can you tell me how frequently the meetings were held?
AAccording to my recollection these meetings in the beginning occurred once a week, then later once in two weeks and I believe after Dr. Rothenberger left they only occurred once a month.
Q Can you tell me approximately how many people, justice or judicial administration officials or judges were present at these weekly meetings?
A There were, in addition to the President, a Dr. Briest who was personnel referent, furthermore -
THE PRESIDENT: Give the number without the names.
BY MR. KING:
Q Can you give us the number without going into detail, Dr. Timmermann?
A I believe about ten or twelve. There may have been more sometimes
Q Dr. Timmermann, may I ask you if these weekly meetings were not made up of the following roster: the presiding justice of a penalsenate, the presiding justice of the Special Court Chambers of which there were four, the Prosecutor General or his Deputy, the Prosecutor for the District Court and the Prosecutor and the Presiding Judge of the Special Court in Bremen, the Personnel Referent, and the President of the District Court; is that a complete roster of the individuals who attended these weekly meetings for preview and review conferences?
A Yes, that must be about right.
Q And you said before the number was approximately ten or twelve?
A Yes.
Q Now as a practical matter, how did the preview and review system work? Can you tell me how a case was brought to the attention of Dr. Rothenberger at these meetings?
A The presiding judges of the Chambers of the Special Court were instructed to submit the cases, make notations about these cases in writing, to give details, and they were told the most essential points had to be put down. It was not important to mention every detail of the cases but those which were considered important by the Judges themselves, also those cases that were pending for the next week and those cases that had been dealt with the previous week, and later, of course, according to the different intervals of two weeks or one month.
Q Let me summarize, the reports concerned not only the cases that had not been heard but cases which had been heard on which the decision had been reached by the Court, is that right?
A Yes.
Q In the first instance on cases that had not been heard, that constituted the preview?
THE PRESIDENT: That is very obvious to us from other testimony. You can assume we understand that.
BY ER. KING:
Q All right then, did Dr. Rothenberger attend all of these meetings?
A Yes, as long as he was there and it may be occasionally somebody deputized for him, but I would say he attended them when he was in Hamburg.
Q When the facts of a case in preview were discussed in a matter, what did Dr. Rothenberger say in regard to the facts of a particular case?
A The cases as far as the facts were concerned, and the actual and the legal consequences were discussed in general and Dr. Rothen berger stated his opinion.
Q His opinion as to how the case should be decided?
A The Judge first of all said what he intended his decision to be, provided the indictment submitted by the prosecution could be approved. In other words, he said for instance, that in his opinion this looked like a case of five years in the penitentiary and then it was discussed in general, and the prosecution also stated it's opinion, and then Dr. Rothenberger stated his as to whether it was possibly correct or whether it was necessary to pronounce a more severe or lenient sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued HANS TIMMERMANN.
- Resumed BY MR. KING:Q.- Dr. Timmerman you testified before the luncheon recess how the reports were made by the judges at the preview conferences, now assume for a moment that the same case is discussed a few weeks later in a review session and assume further that the Judge in deciding the case has come to a different conclusion than was suggested for the same case in the preview conference, can you tell us in that situation what the reaction of Dr. Rothenberger was?
A.- That all depended as to the reasons that the Judge gave for having changed his mind.
Q.- Let me ask you a further supplementary question then: Suppose the Judge said as his reason that he did not think that the law permitted him to decide the question in the manner which had been suggested in the preview session?
A.- I cannot remember any such cases, what happened was that the Judge had an opportunity to explain why he had changed his mind usually by saying what evidence had been established at the trial. In fact what happened was that the preview was based on the indictment material produced by the Prosecution and then that material was discussed at the preview, and under the assumption that the facts of the case were correct, it was suggested that perhaps a penitentiary sentence might be passed; and then at the review the Judge had to explain why he had deviated from this line by showing that the facts of the case as produced by the Prosecution had not been found to be correct.
Q.- Yes, Dr. Timmerman, do you recall in your experience whether or not the law against Poles and Jews was applied in the Hamburg Judicial Administration?
A.- Yes, naturally that was applied. It was a law that had been promulgated, and therefore it was applied. I remember that the President of the District Court once at a conference of judges made special reference to the law. As far as I remember he was referring to a case which had occurred in Altona, and where the law against the Poles had not been applied with sufficient severity.
Q.- Are you referring to the Komorowski case?
A.- Well, I don't remember the name of the defendant, but I think it was a case which Dr. Hennings, District President, had tried at Altona. As far as I remember a sentence of two years in the penitentiary had been passed on the Pole for a sex crime and the President of the District Court pointed out to the judges that the sentence was too lenient.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to Dr. Rothenberger as the President or who?
A.- No, that was Dr. Korn, President of the District Court.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has no further questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WANDSCHNEIDER:Q.- Witness, the preview and review was established after Hitler's speech of April 1942.
Do you know that even before a decree by Guertner had resulted in an arrangement which provided for direct contact between the individual judge and the individual Public Prosecutor?
A.- I believe I recall that but I cannot tell you for certain as regards that decree by Guertner. I don't know anything about it, but just a second, when I took over the Chamber of the Special Court, I think I did occasionally negotiate with the Prosecutor.
It is possible but I cannot tell you for certain.
Q.- Was it always the presiding judge in Court who was the Chairman of the Preview of their case?
A.- I said before that the Prosecution attended it and the Presidents of the Penal Senate and the President of the Special Courts and Dr. Rothenberger presided over the meeting. The presidents of the Court attended. Dr. Korn attended the meeting and also I believe the Presidents of the local Courts later on attended these meetings.
Q.- At those conferences were the facts of a case established in any way concerning a forth coming trial or was that reserved for the taking of evidence in the trial itself?
A.- The facts of establishment of the case was reserved for the trial itself. The preview was based on the material of the indictment, provided that the evidence proved at the trial did confirm the material.
Q.- I will now depart from this subject and I want to ask you a question about your work in the SD. You have told us, Dr. Rothenberger agreed with you doing that work?
A.- Yes, he did.
Q.- Have you any idea why Dr. Rothenberger agreed with your doing it?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Why was it desirable with Dr. Rothenberger for you to work in the SD?
A.- I imagine he gave his consent so as to not become himself subject to criticism. When I began my work he told me that the SD was trying to base it's reports on a decent foundation. That had not always been so before. He told me about unpleasant occurrences which were supposed to have happened at an earlier period, but had now been overcome.
Q.- In this connection I would like to ask you a concrete question: did Dr. Rothenberger by having Judges in the SD, want to avoid any informing about or spying the administration of justice?
A.- That is quite possible, that is quite possible and I am inclined to believe it was so.
Q.- Were the previews or reviews ever furnished with the - I don't think I will ask any more questions about that. Do you know when that was put into practice, when the order was given?
A.- That was after Hitler's speech.
Q.- You can't remember the exact date?
A.- No, I can't.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION HANS TIMMERMAN BY MR. KING:Q.- Just one question, a matter of identification, your Honor?
I show the witness Exhibit 597 and ask him if that is a report of the conference he attended with Korn in which the question of the application of the laws against Poles and Jews was discussed?
A Whether that conference was held on the 5th or 6th of May, 1942, I can't tell you. As far as I remember it was not held only such a short time after the preview and review method had been introduced.
Q Excuse me, go ahead.
A Just a moment please, but I cannot remember that Korn, the president of the district court of appeal, mentioned the fact that that law against Poles was to be applied also in the case of offenses which were committed before that law was promulgated; I don't know about that; but this transcript is quite in accordance with my memory of the conference.
MR. KING: That is all, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has one additional witness, rebuttal witness, in the case Rothenberger, but that witness has not yet arrived He was requested at the same time that the other witnesses were, but so far he has not put in an appearance. That is the witness Segelken, and we will put him on as soon as he arrives. Until that time we have no further witnesses in the case against Rothenberger,
THE PRESIDENT: We consider it highly important for orderly procedure that the defendants, except as you have made agreement to the contrary two days ago, should finish their testimony before the rebuttal goes in. It will be more desirable if we have the testimony of the defendants finished first. Of course if we have to fill in at some time, we may be required to do that.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, perhaps I could fill the time now because I still have two defense witnesses here, but I first have to ask you to approve these witnesses. One of them is the witness Fritz Valentin; he is a witness from Hamburg. I had intended to ask him here, and then I sent him a wire and told him not to come when the other day the Court announced its ruling, that the Hamburg witnesses whom. I asked were not to be summoned. Although I have an affidavit from him, Valentin, I attach great importance to this witness -