I am surprised that this has not yet been done. Will the Tribunal excuse me? I shall not be able to use this document now. The document was communicated and handed over at the time of the declaration and statement of Mr. Herzog. The Tribunal will find it in Mr. Herzog's document book. It is the report on the evacuation of the column that went from Seygand the 8th of February, 1945. We have not other copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you identify the book of documents in which it is, so that we can find it thereafter, and then pass on to the next document?
M. DUBOST: It is the document book which was handed to the Tribunal by my colleague, Mr. Kerzog, when he gave his presentation on the question of labor.
THE PRESIDENT: And how is it marked?
M. DUBOST: It is No. U. K. 78, submitted under No. 46. A column of 1, 570 British soldiers, including soldiers of all categories, started on this date toward Spremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly this is the first document in your document book which has been handed up to us.
M. DUBOST: Right, Mr. President. I shall not read you now the document on the evacuation of the Seygand camp, since the Tribunal doesn't have the copy before it. I pass to document U.K.
THE PRESIDENT: I am just telling you that I rather think this may be the document, if it begins with "1,357 English prisoners of war." Does it begin in that way?
M. DUBOST: The document. Mr President, which you have before you has to do with the transfer of the British prisoners. The one which I wanted to read to you had to do with the transfer of French prisoners. I think that it is not necessary that I lengthen this discussion by lowing theTribunal that the British and the French prisoners proceeded in the same fashion. I shall, therefore, read the British document, which is the first in your book of documents;
"1,357 war prisoners of all ranks left on foot on the 28th of January, 1945 Stalag Luft 3 in three columns, and walked in stages of about 17 to 31 kilometer per day to Sprembert, whence they were sent to Luckenwalde.
non-existent. During the transport three prisoners at least collapsed and had to remain at Muskau" -- on the bottom of the page, three lines before the end, T-31 -- "They covered a distance of thirty-one kilometers to Muskau. Three men fell at this point, Lieutenants Kelly and Wise, and Warrant Officer Burton -- they had to be left at the hospital in Muskau." Page 2, at the end of the document: "In the course of the march" -- the last paragraph -- "aside from the Red Cross package which had been already mentioned, the only rations distributed to the men were half a piece of bread and a ration of barley soup. The supply of water is described as left to chance. There were fifteen who disappeared. The treatment of the FrancoBelgian column was even more rigorous. The camps were organized in a manner which was contrary to all the rules of hygiene. The prisoners were piled up in a very narrow space. They had no heat or water. They were put thirty or more men in a room.
The deposition of Mr. Boudoux is to be found in the report of the deported prisoners which has been submitted to you likewise in the course of the statement of Mr. Herzog. I suppose that the Tribunal has kept its documents of last Thursday -
THE PRESIDENT: We have kept these documents, but if we had them on the Bench before us you would not be able to see us.
M. DUBOST: Such observations can be found in the Red Cross report. with prisoner-of-war camps, has recognized in the course of its interrogatorie that the feeding of the war prisoners was entirely insufficient. The Tribunal will find on page 3 of the Document Book, which is before it, an extract from the interrogatory of Berger. The original is submitted under No.355.
"I visited -- second paragraph -- "a camp south of Berlin the name of which I forget. I shall perhaps later -- and at this minute I recognized that the food situation was very insufficient and there began a very violent, bitter discussion between Hitler and myself. Hitler was violently opposed to the continuation of distribution of packages of the Red Cross in the prisoner-of-war camps at the same rate as before.
As for me, I thought that in this case there would be long and great troubles -- difficulties -- of health for the people involved, which would result.
We present Document 826-PS, under No.356. This document comes from the Fuehrer's general headquarters. Meeting of -- this is on page 7 of your Document Book. This is a report on the trip to Norway and Denmark. Paragraph 3.
"All the war prisoners received in Norway a quantity of food which enabled them just to live without working. However, the cutting down of work requires such an effect on the war prisoners. If the food remains the same it must be expected that there will be a very rapid diminution of productivity." This note applies to the situation of the 82,000 prisoners of war who are captive in Norway, 30,000 of whom were employed at very hard labor of construction, and this can be found in the first paragraph of the document. Just read, on page 7:
We present now to the Tribunal a document, No.820-PS, page 9 in the document book. It has to do with the establishment of prisoner-of-war camps in the regions exposed to aerial bombardment. It emanates from the general headquarters. It is dated 16.8.1943. It is addressed by the Commander-inChief of the air army to the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. We submit it under No.358, and we shall read to the Tribunal paragraph 3:
"The Colonel, Air General Staff, proposes to set up prisoner camps in the residential quarters of the city, in order thus to obtain certain protection."
I skip a paragraph. This is two paragraphs.
"In view of the above, there is a question of setting up immediately such camps in towns where there are dangers of air attacks. The discussions with the City of Frankfurt have shown these towns will activate the construction of the camp by all means at their disposal."
The last paragraph:
"Now, there are in Germany about 8,000 war prisoners who are British and American aviators, without counting those hospitalized. In evacuating the camps actually in existence which might serve as lodging for those who have been made homeless, one would have war prisoners that are disposable for a sufficiently great number of camps."
War Prisoners.
Page 10. The Tribunal will find a document emanating from the headquarters of the Fuehrer, dated 3 - 9 - 1943, still in connection with the establishment of these new prisoner-of-war camps for British and American, aviators. We submit this document under No. 359.
"First, the Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe projects the creation of other camps for imprisoned aviators, for the number of the latter is more than 1,000 per month, and if the pace actually provided is becoming insufficient the Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe proposes the establishment of these camps within residential quarters of the cities, which will constitute at the same time a protection for the populations of the towns, and to transfer the camps actually existing -- including about 8,000 British and American aviators who are war prisoners into larger towns threatened by enemy aircraft.
"Second the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, Chief of War Prisoners has approved in principle this project." can be found a document F-551, which we shall submit under No. 360. This has to do with war prisoners, under Article 60 and following of the Geneva Convention, and the provision that the protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions that are made against the war prisoners, giving the right to be represented at the trial." In spite of the -
THE PRESIDENT: Where are you? We are on page 12 but we have lost the place.
M. DUBOST: Page 12 of the Document Book, page 12 of the Document Book,
THE PRESIDENT: But whereabouts on 12?
M. DUBOST: In the middle of page 12. I am now commenting on this order. I have explained to the Tribunal that Article 60 and following of the Geneva Convention provide that the protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions against war prisoners. The document which went under No. 360 shows that these provisions were violated.
We read -first line:
"The practical application of Article 60 and 66, particularly subparagraph 2 of Article 66 of the Convention of 1919, concerning the treatment of war prisoners encounters serious difficulties. For the application of a severe penal jurisdiction it is intolerable that precisely for the greatest offenses -- as for instance, the effective attack against the guard corps -- the death sentence cannot be executed except three months after its notification to the protecting power. The discipline of war prisoners necessarily suffers from this."
I pass over the rest of the paragraph. Page 13:
"The following arrangement is proposed: The French German will designate as -
THE INTERPRETER: I am sorry; I can't follow
M. DUBOST: This is page 12, not page 13. "In the case of death sentence a proper lapse of time shall be given to this effect."
On top of page 13. "It is understood that Germany is to reserve to itself in this regard the right, even if this is not explicitly stipulated, to execute the sentence immediately in periods of crises." Third paragraph: "There is no question of authorizing France, which might perhaps refer to Article 62, paragraph 3 of the Geneva Convention, to send a representative to the chief sessions of the German Military Tribunals." of the Geneva Convention in the report of the Netherlands Government, which the Tribunal will find on page 14 of its Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we better break off now.
(Whereupon at 1250 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1400 hours.)
Tribunal, in the matter of: The United States of
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will beabsent from this afternoon's session due to illness.
THE RESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. the absence of his counsel, the Tribunal directed that the presentation of the individual case against Hess be postponed, so that counsel could be present when it was presented. So far as the cross-examination of witnesses who testified to matters effecting the general case and not against Hess specifically is concerned, it is the view of the Tribunal that the cressexamination conducted by counsel representing the defendants equally interested with Hess in this feature of the case was sufficient to protect his interests, and the witnesses will therefore not be recalled. of January, 1946, to the effect that he is dissatisfied with the services of counsel who has been appearing for him and does not wish to be represented by him further, but wishes to represent himself. Article 16 of the Charter, to be represented by Counsel, the Defendant Hess ought not to be allowed at this stage of the trial to dispense with the services of counsel and defend himself. The matter is of importance to the Tribunal, as well as to the Defendant, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the Defendant that he should be unrepresented by counsel.
The Tribunal has therefore appointed Dr. Stahmer to represent the Defendant Hess, in place of Dr. Rohrscheidt.
Yes, M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: I beg the Tribunal to excuse me; I was completing the work which they had requested me to do in relation to concentration camps. I shall present to the Tribunal in a few moments, when I have completed the exposition of the question of war prisoners, the end of the French presentation relative to concentration camps, which consists of very few matters since we only have a few documents to cite, since, subject to proof which the defense may bring, the constant repetition of the same methods seems to me to be sufficiently established.
was already presented to the Tribunal under the number 324., and which establishes that a protest was formulated to the execution, or to the secret condemnation to death of three officers: Lieutenant Ten Bosch, Braat and Thibo. official report of the French Government concerning prisoners, is now in the hands of the Tribunal. This document was submitted by M. Herzog under the number 46,
THE PRESIDENT: Presented by whom?
M. DUBOST: M. Herzog.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes.
M. DUBOST: I ask the Tribunal to excuse me, so that I do not have to again present this document. They strove to keep the greatest possible number of war prisoners in order to be able to eventually exercise efficacious measures over the countries from which these prisoners cane. This policy was exercised by the legitimate capture of prisoners, and also by the refusal, which was systematically upheld, to repatriate the prisoners in the event that they were ill, a thing which would have been justifiable. cite the example of French prisoners. refer, indicates, on page 4, that in 1940 certain French military formations laid down their arms, at the time of the armistice, under the assurance which was given by the German Army that troops who had thus surrendered would not be put in captivity. These troops were, nevertheless, captured. The Alpine Army was about to be demobilized, and was west of the region of Vienna. They were made prisoners and were sent to Germany until the end of the month of July, 1940.
captured, and imprisoned after Hitler's orders which said that all French were to be seized who were of an age to bear arms and should be imprisoned. In short, it is only because of the private initiative of the High Command that all Frenchmen were not transferred to Germany. the German Army had in taking all those men to Germany, the German Army decided, in 1940, to create what they called front Stalags. The promise was made to the de facto French Government, which was established after the armistice, that soldiers who were kept in those front Stalags would be kept in France, Now, the forces in these camps were begun to be sent to Germany beginning with the month of October 1940.
In an additional report appended to the Document Book which you have, the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees points out the irregular capture of the troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau -- Document 668-F, not numbered; it is an appendix to the Document Book. The fortified sector of Haguenau included, among others, the 22nd Regiment of Infantry of the forces; the 81st Battalion of Chasseur; the 51st and 58th Division of the North Africal Infantry. I cite again the document which I have just announced, 668-F. these troops fought until the 25th of June, 1:30, and only stopped firing after an agreement between the Colonel in charge of the fortified sector of Haguenau and the German Generals, an agreement insuring to the troops war honors, and notably that they would not be made prisoners. The 51st and 58th Infantry Divisions, as well as the North African Division, withdrew towards Toul only after an agreement, signed on the 22nd of June, between the French General Dubuisson and the German General Andreas, at Theville and Groseilles, an agreement assuring military honor and assuring that troops would not be imprisoned.
THE PRESIDENT: What official document does this document come from?
M. DUBOST: From the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. It is an additional report which was made by this Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any number for that report?
M. DUBOST: The French number is 668-F. A copy of the document is included in the brief which is appended to the Document Book, which was submitted to the Tribunal this morning, concerning prisoners of war. We submitted it under the number 361.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report on the captivity?
M. DUBOST: This report will be submitted to you, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to be Additif No. 2 to the report on the captivity, for the attention of the French Delegation to the Court of Justice at Nurnberg.
M. DUBOST: That is correct, sir. The information which I have just read to the Tribunal are extracts from a note of Darlan to Ambassador Scapini on the 20th of April, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: But M. Dubost, is there anything to show that it is an official document, such as this book [indicating]?
M. DUBOST: This document, Mr. President, has no relation to the book which you have.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I know it hasn't, but this is an official document produced by the Republic of France, is it not?
M. DUBOST: That is right, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you show that this addition to the report on captivity is equally an official document with this one? That is what we want to know.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a report which was submitted in the name of the French Government by the delegation when I represent.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, this one here (indicating) is headed "Service of Information of War Crimes, Official French Edition". Now, that seems to us to be different from this mere typewritten copy, which has on it the "Appendix Number 2 to the Report on the Captivity." We do not know whose report on the captivity.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, you have before your eyes the official note of transmission from our government.
THE PRESIDENT: In this document? (indicating)
M. DUBOST: From this distance I think that is it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have this document, which appears to be an official document but this addition has no such seal upon it as this has.
M. DUBOST: There is a mention of an appendix in this document. The document speaks of an appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there mentioned in this document anything as to an appendix? The other document calls it an "Appendix" but it ought to be formally identified by a seal.
M. DUBOST: The letter of transmittal has a seal and the fact that the letter by which it was transmitted had a seal shows that this document is authentic. The letter through which this document was transmitted, that letter had a seal upon it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the explanation that you have torn off the Appendix from this document and have put in the Appendix separately?
M. DUBOST: I did not tear any document, Mr. President. I received an official document, whose authentic character is attested by the letter of conveyance or transmittal. The letter accompanying this document had an official seal.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this letter?
M. DUBOST: The letter is at the top of the paper, at the right.
THE PRESIDENT: I see the letter now, yes.
M. DUBOST: May I continue now, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
This document here (indicating) has a letter attached to it. This document here (indicating) is not referred to in that letter specifically, it is not referred to particularly in the letter. Therefore, there is nothing to connect the two documents together.
M. DUBOST: There is, it seems, a manuscript note on the margin. I have not the document before me here but I think there is a namuscript note in the margin and, Mr. President, you can see it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes you to put this in as one document. refers to the Appendix. If you will put the whole thing in together -
M. DUBOST: It is all submitted as one document; all these papers are submitted as one document. to the German Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden by the ex-ambassador Scapini, both dated the 4th of April, 1941. The Tribunal will find them reproduced in the document book before them, pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. It is dated the 4th of April, 1941, at the top of the page to the right, page 16.
"Mr. Scapini, Ambassador of France to his Excellency Mounsieur Abetz, German Ambassador at Paris.
"Purpose: Men captured after the Armistice Commission came into being and treated as war prisoners."
At the bottom of the page where it deals with the Geneva Convention:
"The Geneva Convention applies only to a state of war concerning captures. Now, armistice suspends war operations. Hence, any man captured after the Armistice Commission was created and treated as a war prisoner is wrongfully retained in captivity." vention. It states only that the French Armed Forces stationed in regions occupied by Germany should rapidly be brought back to the non-occupied territory and be demobilized but the Article does not say a thing which would be contrary to the Geneva Convention, that is, that they be taken into captivity.
Fifth paragraph of the same page -- "First Civilians. If it is admitted that civilians can not be treated as war prisoners by their capture before the Armistice, it is all the more a strong reason not to consider than as captured after the Armistice. I notice in relation to the subject, amongst those captured, they were carried out several months after the end of hostilities."
Then on page 18, the top of the page, concerning categories of civilians: "With reference to what you will find in my first letter, I wish to add that civilians demobilized who were going back to their homes in the occupied zone after the Armistice and were quite frequently captured on their way home and sent into captivity as a result of the initiative of local or military authorities.
"Secondly, as to soldiers, I call attention to the Convention that men who were freed after the Armistice and could not be provided, for one reason or another because of the difficult circumstances of the period, which the regular document of demobilization -- a number of them were captured and taken into captivity under the same conditions as the preceding period." the President wishes it I shall read it.
"Civilians not subject to military requirements: It is obvious that these men could not be considered soldiers according to French law. They can be classified, according to age, into three groups.
"(a) Men under twenty-one not yet mobilized. Example: Flanquart Alexandre, eighteen years old, captured at Courrieres by the German troops, in the Department Pas-de-Calous, at the time of the arrival of these troops in that region. His address in captivity is No. 65-381, Stalag II-B.
"(b) Men between twenty-one and forty-eight who were not mobilized, who were demobilized or who were considered unfit for service."
"There were men especially assigned to the Army; there were two kinds. I will classify them into two groups: first men especially assigned to military formations, established according to the mobilization in different ministerial departments, according to the following chart (on page 21 at the top of the page). Those assigned especially, who were kept mobilized in the positions which they held at the time of the peace in military services or establishments.
"Example: Men in artillery storage boxes, civilians especially assigned.
Contrary to the preceding, the civilians who were assigned did not truly belong to military formations and did not depend on military authority. They were arrested too.
"Example: (I skip here several lines) Mouisset, Henri, especially assigned to the factory Marret-Bonnin."
I skip several lines -- "Address in captivity: No. 102 Stalag II-A."
Those people were not all freed, for from it. Some remained prisoners until the end of the war.
Arrest of Dutch Officers. We shall cite now document submitted under Number 304 RS, in your document book, shown on page 15 BIS. The text may be summarized in a few words. tion of the Dutch Army and receptured shortly afterwards to be sent, in captivity, to Germany. published in the Dutch newspapers a summons addressed to all career officers of the former Dutch Army who were on active service May 10, 1940, according to which they were to be present on the 15 of May, Friday, 1942, at the Barracks Chasse at Breda. ward to this barracks and the doors were closed after them, the officers had not kept their word to undertake no actions against the Fuehrer and as aresult of this they were to be kept in captivity. Breda to Nurnberg, in Germany.
Numerous obstacles were placed in the way. Six French officers who for reason of health, should have been sent back to their families. We shall cite a document already submitted under Number 297, page 23 of your document book and I read the first paragraph?
"The question of freeing French generals, war prisoners of the Germans for reasons of health or age was taken up on several occasions by French authorities."
"The Fuehrer, always, insofar as this question is concerned, maintained an attitude of refusal as far as thei being freed was concerned as well as their hospitalization in foreign countries or neutral countries.
"Paragraph 3. A freeing or hospitalization today is even less considered In the manuscript there is no reply given to the French note.
This note, in fact, was addressed by the Supreme Commander of the German Army to the German Armistice Commission, who consulted with General Staff on the point as to whether or not to reply to the request concerning the freeing of French generals who were ill, from the de facto government of France at that time. the German authorities, when for reasons of a patriotic nature, some of our compatriots who were imprisoned caused the Germans to feel or become sensitive to the fact that they were not willing to collaborate with Germany. The German authorities considered those of our compatriots who thug acted as not being assimilated and they were dangerous because of their courage and their determination. And the measures formulated concerning them were truly murderous. war prisoners, either because they took part in commando work or because they were anti-Hitler, or they were reproached because they tried to escape or even simply because they accused them of inactive resistance acts or simply because of ethical resistance against the Nazi regime. These murders were carried out by means of deportation and the internment of these prisoners in concentration camps. While interned in these camps they forced them to live under a regime about which you know and which naturally led them to death or they killed them quite simply with a bullet in the back of the neck, which was the method which has been described by our American colleagues and which I will not need to present or go over. given or because of the tolerant attitude of the German Government towards the population as to these acts or in other cases, they were handed over to the Gestapo.
I will she you at the end of my statement that in the last years of the occupation they had the right to carry out executions. extermination of combatants, captured after military action or operations; that of the commandos and that of aviators. In any event, they were selected from amongst the most courageous combatants and they were the ones who showed the greatest physical aptitude for combat. We can consider them, therefore, as the elite and the order for their extermination tended to annhilate the elite and terror to reign in the ranks of the Allied Armies. justified. The Germans themselves, moreover, used in a large measure, the commando operations. As far as their own men were concerned, when they became prisoners they always required that they be recognized as belligerants. However, they failed to give that quality to our men or those of the Allied Armies. Insofar as that is concerned, the major order concerning this was signed by Hitler and is dated the 18th of October, 1942, and it received most widespread carrying out.
This order preceded other orders of the OKW, which show that the question had been carefully studied before becoming a final order of the Chief of the German Government. book, an order signed by Keitel which we submit under Number 326. This order formulates the policy that all parachutists who are in small groups or alone it is dated the 4th of August, 1942, page 25 and the Tribunal will see it is signed by Keitel, paragraph 3 - but it has already been read and the Tribunal will excuse me from reading it. the press and radio, announced the decision taken by the High Command to execute all who engaged in sabotage activity. the "Volkische Beobachter", 8 October 1942, it states:
"In the future all troops concerned with terrorism or sabotage among the British soldiers and their allies, will not be considered as soldiers but as bandits; will be treated as such by the German troops and shot on the field of battle without any concern whatsoever, no matter where they entered in action." of the Wehrmacht, which is dated the 14th of October 1942, paragraph three, page twenty-seven.
"In the period of total war, sabotage becomes an essential requirement of operation. It is our purpose to point out our own attitude. The enemy can prove some of our own propaganda copies." the notes of this meeting, dated the 14th of October 1942, the General Staff of the Army.
"Sabotage is an essential element, and we have developed it ourselves as a means of combat."
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraph?
M. DUBOST: The third paragraph. Then the sixth paragraph.
"The intention to liquidate in the future all groups of terrorists and saboteurs who conduct themselves or act as bandits has already been received by radio. Consequently you must consider that the task of the General Staff ot the Army is only to give directives for practical execution in order that troops may know what they should do so far as these groups are concerned."
Page thirty. The Tribunal will see what were the orders which were given as far as treatment and what the German General Staff called "Groups of terrorists and Brittanic saboteurs." So far as other saboteurs are concerned, the commandos of the adversary were assured that the German General Staff never considered their own groups of commandos, terrorists, and saboteurs.
Paragraph one, fourth line:
"This order is to be applied to any group of the British Army in British uniform or not in British uniform." I cite: "We must exterminate them without any consideration or comment."
Paragraph (b). "Members of terrorist groups and sabotage groups of the British army who in uniform have conducted themselves before our troops in dishonorable fashion contrary to the law of nations must be kept in separate custody."
I skip two lines and I read: "The instructions on the treatment to be inflicted upon them will be given by the General Staff of the Army; in effect, the juridical service and the department for foreign countries."
Finally, page thirty-one, paragraph two: "A group of terrorists and saboteurs will always henceforth be considered as acting contrary to the laws of war. For example, aggressors, saboteurs, agents, soldiers in uniform or not in uniform carrying out aggressions or aggressive acts, acts of barbarism, according to the opinion of our troops."
Paragraph three. "In that event the groups will be annihilated to the last man during combat or when they try to escape," Fourth paragraph.
"It is forbidden to intern them in war prison camps."
uniform, were captured during these commando operations, the German troops were to be their judges and to judge whether they had acted according to the laws of war or not; and without any appeal subordinates could annihilate them to the last man even when they are not engaged in active fighting. These orders were applied to British commandos. under the number 364, and which confirms the information which we have just brought to the Tribunal by the reading of the preceding document. It seems useless to read this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dubost, had the document on page thirty-one been received before? - the one you just read?
M. DUBOST: Document thirty-one, which I have just read, was not read.
THE PRESIDENT: The next one hasbeen read, has it not, 498?
M. DUBOST: Document 498, which I said to the Tribunal that I was not going to read from, was read by our American colleagues. The Tribunal will find it nevertheless in this document book on pages thirty-two and thirtythree.
THE PRESIDENT: There are two points to which I wish to draw your attention. In the first place, it is said that document itself may be put in evidence.
You haven't offered in evidence any of these documents; you have just been reading from
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, they were all filed, all of them
THE PRESIDENT: They have all been put in evidence already?
M. DUBOST: Excuse me, Mr. President, some were filed, and I
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, "have been put in evidence by some other member of the prosecution;" is that right?
M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. When I cite I
THE PRESIDENT: That was filed by the American Prosecution, was it not:
498, on page 32?
M. DUBOST: 498 was filed under the number USA-501. I said
THE PRESIDENT: I am speaking of 498, page 32.
M. DUBOST: 498 is the American number 501. The number 498-PS,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: I don't want to read it. I just want to comment
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. With reference to the document
M. DUBOST: I will ask the French secretary to give them to you