"But that you and Funk and all of the gentlemen with him in the Economy, if you had not slowed it down as you did, these excesses would not have happened,"
Q You collaborated with Dr. Funk also regarding those questions which concerned the economy of the occupied territories. Dr. Funk is accused of having participated in the spoliation of the occupied territories as well as of the destruction of the currency there and the economy in those countries, having done that in a criminal manner. Could you in as short a time as possible give us a few instructions regarding the attitude and the activities of the defendant Funk? Make it as short as you can.
A I believe two things must be stated at first. First, the influence of the Ministry of Economy upon the occupied territories was relatively limited; two, during a year during which I was active inthe Ministry these questions had ceased to be of particular importance. In general the following comment can be made to this question: Funk was constantly accused of thinking more of peace than of war. In all his publications, oral as well as written, he publicized his thoughts regarding a European economic policy; and I assume that these talks and these publications, that is, articles, are before the Court today. - He repeatedly spoke against a too strong exploitation of the occupied territories and took the position that the collaboration during the war was in the final analysis the basis of a future peaceful collaboration. He took the position that even during the war the confidence and readiness to collaborate should obtain in the economies of the occupied territories. He took the position that at no time the black market could be fought with a black market and we, out of the responsibility which we had for the occupied territories, should avoid everything which would bring disorder into the currency and into the economy of these territories.
marshal regarding these questions and had given him his viewpoint quite frankly. He also spoke against the exaggeration of the occupation costs, spoke repeatedly against them, and constantly fought for a lessening of the German expenses in the occupied territories. occupied territories than he had towards all the other European countries, and this attitude is best illustrated by the fact that in his speech in Vienna, if I remember correctly, he declared before the whole world that the clearing - which to a great extent could be traced to the inflationary tendencies in the delivering countries - he recognized these as genuine debts.
Q Dr. Heiler, the accused Funk is, furthermore, accused of participating in a criminal manner in the enslavement of foreign workers. This accusation particularly hits the time during which you were a collaborator of Dr. Funk. Could you tell us, as shortly as possible, how Funk thought regarding this point and how he acted regarding this point? could only be claimed, as far as Funk is concerned, during the time I was with him, within the framework of his responsibility within Central Planning. responsible for the procurement of foreign workers, or whether Central Planning did nothing more than ascertain the manpower needs of the various production spheres. However, regardless of what the tasks of Central Planning may have been, Funk's position within Central Planning has been the following. and export. During the time after the separation of the ministries, I believe no foreign worker was brought into production for the civilian procurement or production for export. To the contrary, Funk was informed constantly of the fact that, during that time, German and foreign workers were constantly removed from the production of consumer goods and put into armament production. accusation of this sort could be made against Funk. important to me. The supply for the foreign workers was a very serious question. I believe that even Mr. Sauckel will corroborate the fact that when this question came about, Funk was at once ready -- that is, in spite of the great existing need which was already present on the part of the German people, due to the many air raids, Funk took large amounts of supplies and put them at the disposal of the foreign workers. the foreign workers who worked in Germany and saw to it that they were supplied as well as was possible with food, shoes, clothes, and so on.
A Particularly shoes and clothing; Funk had no authority over the food question. I know this case which I mentioned, very correctly. Funk had a great deal of difficulty because of this for the Gauleiters, the District Leaders, due to the tremendous lack of goods, did their best to secure supplies for the inhabitants of their own districts, and they used every means to do that. Funk had a constant fight against the acts of Gauleiters, who took stocks which were reserved for the general supply, which were broken open and used individually.
Q Dr. Heiler, do you know whether Dr. Funk, during your time -- I always speak about the time during which you collaborated with him -whether Dr. Funk fundamentally took the viewpoint that the foreign worker should not be brought to Germany to work here, but, to the contrary, that the work itself should be taken from Germany into the foreign country so that the foreign worker could perform his work in his own home country and remain at home? to his general conception. The political disquiet and dissatisfaction which followed the movement of these large masses of human beings and the temporary uprooting of these people -- these movements were contrary to the policy of peace and rebuilding, which certainly was the policy of Funk.
Q I now come to my last question. The last question I wish to put to you is the following. occupied by enemy armies, difficulties arose regarding the supply of these territories with money. At that time Hitler is supposed to have planned a law according to which the acceptance and passing on of foreign occupation money was to punished even by death. I am now interested, Dr. Heiler, in finding our not why Hitler planned to do this, but I only want to know, if you know it, how the defendant Funk acted in regard to this demand by Hitler and what success he had with it. interesting. I have rarely seen Funk as depressed as at that time, after he had taken cognizance of the so-called "scorched earth" law.
I believe he was the first minister who, at that time, created two very clear directives. One directive was from the Ministry of Economy in which he clearly directed that where German people are, the administration of economy must remain; where there is need of supply, the State must take care of the people and make sure their supply is safe. Reichsbank President. In this he directed that in the same manner, as there was an economic administration, the money market was to be administered by the remaining offices of the Reichsbank, and it was their task to keep the money market safe. the Fuehrer had already arrived in the Ministry of Economy. He demanded, at that time, the issuing of a lawful directive according to which the acceptance of occupation money was forbidden for every German; the punishment for doing it was death. Mr. Funk objected actively to this directive. He was very energetic about it. I believe he had the help on Mr. Lammers. He phoned headquarters repeatedly, and finally succeeded in causing the retraction of the directive of the Fuehrer.
Q Have you finished?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
(No response)
Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?
BY MR. DODD:
Q When did you join the Nazi Party, Mr. Heiler? Party?
Q Did you hold any offices in the Party at any time?
A No; in the Party, I had no office whatsoever.
Q You were the head of a trade group in 1938, the Reichsgruppenhandel? then on, Reich Group Trade. This organization was part of the organization of the economy and was subject to the Reichsministry of Economy. wasn't it?
Q When did you join the SS?
Q That was kind of a Party office, wasn't it, of the sort?
A I had no office there. There was no office. I became connected with the SS through the fact that in Munich 165 businessmen were locked up and I knew Himmler therefore from my student days. I had never seen him until then and the businessmen in Munich asked me to intercede for them in the summer of 1933 but I had no office in the Party or in the SS.
Q When did you become a General in the SS?
A I was never a general in the SS. After I had become a State Secretary, the Reichsfuehrer gave me the grade of a group leader of the SS.
Q A gruppenfuehrer -- isn't that the equivalent of a general in the SS?
A Yes and no. In the SS, there was a grade of a gruppenfuehrer and there was also a grade of a gruppenfuehrer and general of the police or the Waffen SS but the gruppenfuehrer, it was not a general but it was only an honorary grade. We had to make this recognizable because we did not wear the general's epaulets and not a general's uniform.
Q You know Ohlendorf pretty well, don't you?
Q He worked for you at one time. He was under your supervision. Isn't that so? the murdering of ninety thousand people; did you know that?
Q Did you know about it at the time that it was going on?
Q Did you know Pohl, the SS man -- P-O-H-L?
A May I ask you for that name again?
Q Pohl -- P-O-H-L?
A I don't remember. I don't remember to have known an SS man Pohl.
Q Do you know a man called "Gruppenfuehrer Pohl of the SS?"
A No -- Yes, I know an Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was the chief of the economy department of the SS.
Q Did you have conversations and meetings with him from time to time?
A Officially, I had a number of conversations with Pohl. Usually they were very unpleasant.
Q Well, that's another matter. How long would you say, between 1943 and the end of the time of your surrender, you met with Pohl to discuss matters of mutual interest between the SS and your own Ministry of Economics? Approximately, because I don't expect you to give an accurate account, but how many times, would you say?
Q Give that afterwards. Give me the figure first.
A Yes. Perhaps three or four times, three or four times, perhaps only twice. I don't know. times during the whole period between 1943 and 1945?
A During my time in office, yes, three or four times; it was only one year. Economics cooperating in the financing for the building of factories near the concentration camps?
Q You don't know about that, do you?
A No. This question was never discussed with me.
Q What did you talk to him about? Ministry of Economy and the SS. The reason was: After I had taken over the State Secretariat in the Ministry of Economy, Himmler told me to turn over a factory outside of Berlin to the SS. I fought against this and I did not obey this directive by Himmler. There must be papers testifying to that. I then was directed to discuss this matter with Pohl during these conferences and during a personal conversation which Himmler demanded and ordered, I still fought against Himmler's directive because basically I was against the SS running their own factories. Himmler and Pohl? Himmler wrote me a letter in which he told me that he had ceased to have confidence in me and he wrote verbally that he had no desire to collaborate with me any more; that he had no more confidence in me.
This, I told to the defendant Funk in December. building of factories near the concentration camps?
Q You never heard of that before now? or the Ministry of Economy with the So, within the framework of financing such purposes. from 1943 to 1945, while you were the deputy to Funk in the Ministry of Economics, the questions of purchasing on the black market and so on in the occupied countries ceased to be of any real importance, didn't they. I understood you to say that a few minutes ago yourself. December I had a ministry which was toally bombed out, we did not get started to work again in January 1944. During that time, these questions were no more of a decisive importance, since the development was retrogressing already.
Q You also were, Mr. Witness, at the Vienna speech, to which you referred, which was made in 1944 and it had nothing to do with the occupied countries but was directed only at the satellite states. Are you aware of that or not?
A The talk in Vionna? Koenigsberg and Vienna, dealt not directly with the occupied territory but with Europe as a whole. Now, have you read that speech?
A Yes, I have heard the speech. It directly had nothing to do with it. about forced labor, you know, don't you, that he took an attitude of unconcern about the forcing of people to come to Germany. Do you know that?
Q Well, you know he has said on interrogation that he didn't bother his head about it, although he knew that people were being forced to go to Germany against their will. Are you aware of that?
Q All right. If you did know it, would that make some difference to you and would you change your testimony some?
Q Very well. Perhaps I can help you by reading to you from his interrogation of October 22, 1945, made here in Nurnberg. Among other things, he was asked these few questions and made a few answers.
"As a matter of fact, you were present at many meetings of the Central Planning Board, were you not," he was asked. Funk answered and said: "I only joined the meetings of the Central Planning Board when I required something for my small sector; that is to say, something to do with export and consumer goods in industries; for example, iron, and I had to fight on each occasion to get just a few thousand tons for my consumer goods industry."
The next question was: "Question: But during those meetings you attended, you heard, did you not, discussions concerning forced labor?" Funk answered: "Oh, yes, I did."
"Question: And you knew from those meetings, that the policy was to bring in more and more foreign workers to the Reich against their will?" Funk answered: "Yes, certainly."
"Question: And you never objected to that, I take it?" Funk answered: "No, why should I have objected. It was somebody else's task to bring these foreign workers in."
"Oh yes: did you believe it was legal to take people against their will from their homes and bring them into Germany" was the last question that I want to quote to you. He answered: "Well, many things happen in wartime which aren't strictly legal. I have never wracked my brains about that." oath on an interrogation here, would that change your view about Funk and would it cause you to change the testimony which you have given before the Tribunal here today?
remember such expressions by Funk. I do know and I remember distinctly that we spoke about the occupied territories repeatedly; also about the later development in Europe which was to result from the collaboration. We spoke about the procurement of workers and that Funk fundamentally had a different viewpoint than the actualities were and that he was not in agreement with what was being done. I can only repeat this and if you ask me here as a witness, I can only say what I know.
Q Did you go over all of your questions and answers with Dr. Sauter before you took the stand? You knew what you were going to be asked when you came here, didn't you?
A Her, Dr. Sauter told me the viewpoints and the phases about which he would question me and what would interest him.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the prosecution wish to cross examine? Dr. Sauter, do you want to re-examine?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
(The witness retired)
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there are a few interrogatories missing. One has arrived and has been translated. I would like to put the request that at a future time, perhaps in connection with the case Schirach, I may then read these interrogatories. And furthermore, Mr. President, I would like to give a few general statements to the Court. I have rend extracts from various documents and I have requested and I would like to ask that all of them be accepted as evidence and I would like to repeat this request; thus, my case Funk has been terminated, and may I express another request at this moment; namely, that during the next few days, the accused von Schirach may be excused from participating in the sessions in Court so he may prepare his case. During his absence, I will represent his interests or, when I am not here, my colleague, Dr. Nelte. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is appearing for the defendant Schirach?
DR. SAUTER: I am, sir; and if I cannot be present, then Dr. Nelte will be here. One of us will always be in Court and will take care of his interests.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well, Dr. Sauter. Now the Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there was a document which you didn't refer to. I think it was an affidavit of a witness called Kallus. Were you offering that in evidence? It was an interrogation of Heinz Karl Kallus.
DR. SAUTER: The interrogatory referred to by the President has already been received and at the time it is in the process of translation. I shall submit it as soon as the translation has been received by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have a translation into English.
DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that what you havehere is an affidavit by Kallus, and in addition there is still an interrogatory which is in process of translation and which I will submit later.
THE PRESIDENT: This takes the form of an interrogatory, questions and answers, what I have in my hand. I am only asking whether you want to offer it.
DR. SAUTER: Then I don't know. Yes, I offered it in evidence. I requested that judicial notice be taken of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You gave it a number then, did you? What number will it be?
DR. SAUTER: Exhibit Funk No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Now, Dr. Kranzbuehler.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for the defendant Doenitz): Mr. President, first I would like to ask permission to keep a secretary, in addition to my assistant, in the courtroom, in order the facilitate the submission of documents. of documents, and I shall use the document book of the Prosecution and the document books which I am going to submit myself. These document books consist of four volumes. The table of contents is in Volume I and in Volume 3. tion, USA No. 12, I should like to correct an error in translation which may be of significance. It says there, in the German text, under "1939", "Konter-Admiral, Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote", and that in the English text has been translated by "Commander-in-Chief". The correct translation should be "Flag Officer of U-Boats". That point is of importance to the fact that Admiral Doenitz, until his appointment to Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in 1943, was not a member of the group which the Prosecution considers criminal.
GB-190. That is the chart which the Prosecution has submitted, a naval chart. This is the chart. It shows the position of the German submarines to the west of England on 1 September 1939, and the Prosecution uses that chart as proof of the question of aggressive war. to have started earlier from their home bases. The first document which I offer as Doenitz 1, is to prove, first, that the positions of German U-Boats stated by the Prosecution were tension measures which were taken by every nation in Europe, and that they in no way represented preparatory measures for an aggressive war against England, because such a war was not planned.
I read fromthe document, Document Book No. 1. It is an excerpt from the War Diary of the Naval War Command of September 1939, and I read the entry of 15.8:
"Prepared(for Case Weiss) the following measures:"
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Page 1 of the document book, Volume 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: "15.8. Prepared (for case Weiss) the following measures:
"From 15.8. Spee and all Atlantic submarines ready to sail.
"From 22.8. Transport Westerwald ready to sail.
"From 25.8. Deutschland ready to sail."
And then we find the array of these ships:
"21.8. Report B service about tension measures French fleet.
"23.8. Report B service: Continuation of French tension measures of fleet to 3rd grade. English and French blockade measures off ports.
"25.8. B Service reports: German and Italian steamers are watched and reported through France."
And then the directive:
"31.8. Arrival Order I of OKW for waging the war: Forceful solution in the East, attack against Poland 1 September, 0445 o'clock. At West responsibility for starting hostilities unequivocally to be left to England and France. Respect strictly neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland. No hostile actions or such that could be interpreted as hostile. Luftwaffe only in defense.
"In case of opening of hostilities by Western powers: Defense only at the same time sparing of forces., Reserve beginning of attack-activities. The army holds the 'Westwall'. Naval commercial war with centre of gravity against England. To augment the effect one may count on declaration of zones of danger. Prepare these and present them. The Baltic to be safeguarded against enemy invasion."
The next document, Doenitz No. 2, will prove that the British submarines were active before the start of the war and right at the beginning of it. It is on page 2 of the Document Book. May I only point out that on the 1st of September, 1939, already, electro-motor noises were heard at WANGEROOGE. On the 4th of September, several reports arrived concerning English submarines seen in Heligoland Bay. participating in the planning of the attack against Norway. That is the document GB-83. The Prosecution has submitted it as proof of the fact that the Admiral played a big role in the occupation of Norway. I shall refer to this document later in detail, in the course of examining the witnesses. But I should like to clarify a few facts now. On the document -- and I submit it in the original to the Tribunal -- there is a stamp which clarifies when the document was received. bases had nothing to do with the question of aggressive war, as far as Commander Doenitz of Submarines was concerned.
I submitted the documents, Doenitz 3 and Doenitz 4. They are on page 3 and 5 of the Document Book. Doenitz 3 is a war diary of the Chief of Submarines, of the 3rd of November, 1939, and I read from the second paragraph:
"At the same time Naval War Command reports that there are possibilities for the establishment of a 'Base North' which seem to be very promising. In my opinion the immediate beginning of all possible efforts to arrive at a clear judgment of the existing possibilities is of the greatest importance." such a base, which are identical with the statements in Document 83.
In the case of this "Base North", as one can see from Document Doenitz 4, a part of Murmansk is considered, and it is known that these considerations were in full accord with the Soviet Union. continuously made in every naval command -
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit fast over these documents and I am not quite sure that I am following what use you are making of them. This base mentioned in the report is Murmansk?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Murmansk.
And I want to use it as proof, Mr. President, that such considerations and thoughts about bases have nothing to do with the questions as to whether one wants to wage aggressive war in the country where these bases are considered. The considerations about Murmansk were taken in full accord with the Soviet Union, and in the same manner Admiral Doenitz considered bases in Norway. That is the subject of my proof.
THE PRESIDENT: But the fact that Murmansk was suggested as a base, to be taken with the consent of the Soviet Union -- if it was the case -- doesn't have any relevance, does it, to taking a base in Norway without the consent of Norway.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, the relevance seems to me to exist, because Admiral Doenitz as Commander of the U-Boats in both cases only received the order to state his opinion about bases in a certain country, and that just as in the case of Murmansk, also Norweg and Bruntheim, he could not have any judgment in the matter.
COLONEL SMIRNOV (of the Russian Prosecution): Document No. 3, the one being referred to by the Defense Counsel for Doenitz, states something about northern bases, but nothing is mentioned in this document about the plans of the Soviet Union, and to discuss here certain plans of tie Soviet Union, in my opinion, is absolutely incorrect, since there were no plans of the Soviet Union; there were no plans for the development of northern bases.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: If the representative of the Soviet Union has any doubts that that base was considered in full accord with the Soviet Union, there I shall prove that by calling a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: But the document doesn't say anything about it.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: The document says nothing about it, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't think you ought to make statements of that sort without evidence and at the moment you are dealing with a document that doesn't contain any evidence of the fact.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, may I read the document, Doenitz No. 4?
THE PRESIDENT: It is Doenitz 3, isn't it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I arrived already at Doenitz 4. I had read from Doenitz 3. I will now read from Doenitz 4:
"17.11.39. F.O. Submarines receives orders from Naval War Command concerning trying out Base North. The Naval War Command considers the trying out of the bases by 'U 36' due to sail within the next days highly desirable. Supply goods for banker 'Phoenizia' in Murmansk leaving with fishing steamer to Murmansk on the 22nd of November." only in accord with the Soviet Union and happened in accord with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I want to show that -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal thinks you oughtn't to make these observations on these documents which really don't support what you are saying. Document No. 3, for instance, doesn't bear any such interpretation, because it refers to attacks which it was suggested should be made against ships coming From Russian ports, in paragraph 2. And equally the other document you referred to, Doenitz 4, on page 5, doesn't bear the interpretation which you are putting upon it.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I am afraid that the contents of both documents have been presented too quickly by me. For anyone who know such war diaries, many things are easily understood which are otherwise not so easy to understand. for the establishment of a base north exist. These possibilities can only be political possibilities, because one can only establish a base in a country if that country agrees. that that base will be tried out with a supply ship, a fishing steamer, and a "U"-boat. That show in my opinion convincingly -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) The question I was raising was on the statement by you that the Soviet Union had agreed, and these documents do not bear out any such statement.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I mean that from the document Doenitz 4, that can be clearly seen. It is not possible.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Right here I must say I protest against the interpretations and unbased statements. I certainly am against misrepresentation of the documents, their weight, and the manner in which counsel is misinterpreting these from his very first steps in defense. I do not belong among the number of magicians, and I do not like to disguise things. I cannot suppose what kind of deductions will be made, deductions out of one or another document. I am a member of the legal profession, and I am accustomed to operating with legal documents the way they are. I am accustomed to operating with the contents of the document the way the contents are expressed. to the defense counsel the absolute impossibility of drawing such conclusions as he is attempting to make. I would like to ask that the defense counsel be forwarned so that he would limit himself only to the correct interpretation of the documents, and not misinterpretations.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, I would be grateful if the Tribunal would consider a general point of procedure.
We have several objections to a considerable number of Dr. Kranzbuehler's documents. I have got out a short list grouping as far as is possible our objections, which I can hand to the Tribunal, and, of course, to Dr. Kranzbuehler now. It is a matter for consideration by the Tribunal whether it would be useful to see that list before the Tribunal adjourns tonight, and maybe here tender certain observations of Dr. Kranzbuehler upon them. Then here the Tribunal might be able to give a decision with regard to certain of the documents before sitting again tomorrow, and thereby save some time. the most profitable procedure under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that at a certain point of time we should adjourn for the consideration of your list, and then hear Dr. Kranzbuehler on it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you suggest?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir. I was going to submit my list to the Tribunal and explain it, and then the Tribunal could hear Dr. Kranzbuehler upon it, and adjourn at whatever time it is suitable.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: May I make a statement in that regard?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I do not agree with that proceeding, Mr.
President. For this Tribunal, as an attorney, I have done very little so far; but I am of the opinion that now I have to start and that I have to be granted permission to submit my documents in that order in which I intend to do it; and consider it correct for my job of defense. sentation of the prosecution I had said that I should like to speak about the relevancy of the documents presented by the prosecution. I believe that comparison shows that I cannot be expected to submit to this change of situation. mit them, and to a further extent that I thought necessary so far. But I ask the Tribunal to decide that I should submit my documents now, and that the prosecution should be limited to make their objections after my documents have been submitted individually.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The inconvenience of that course, My Lord, is the I shall then be interrupting Dr. Kranzbuehler every two or three documents, and making a specific objection to an individual document, which will take a great deal of time. I thought it would be more convenient if I indicated to the Tribunal my objections to the documents in the usual way by classes, then to make individual ones. most convenient for then.
The last thing I want is to interfere with Dr. Kranzbuehler's presentation but, on the ether hand, the method that he suggests will mean individual objections, because, of course, an objection is useless if it is put in after Dr. Kranzbuehler has developed the document. Or, if it is not useless, it is at any rate of very much loss weight.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, supposing that Sir David Fyfe presents his objections to the documents now, whether in groups or in whatever way he elects, and you then answer him individually upon each document, pointing out the relevance in your view of each document; how does it harm you that the Tribunal will then consider your arguments and will rule upon them, and then you will know What documents the Tribunal have ruled cut, and you can then refer to any of the other documents in any way you please?