The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.7). International Military Tribunal

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter. It is not merely a transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite shortly.

      THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General Westhoff is in Nuremberg at the present moment, it would scarcely be fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was composed was submitted for cross-examination.

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, My Lord, I should like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not got the document in front of it; but it is a report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.

      THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course would be to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants, if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission—that is my submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to such reports by Article 21.

      THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation was made by the Prosecution in Nuremberg?

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in London. I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nuremberg. I will make inquiries on that point.

      THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the interrogation was made in Nuremberg or in London?

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London.

      THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nuremberg until Your Lordship mentioned it, but I can easily verify that point.

      DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff, from the witnesses’ block of the prison here in Nuremberg, with answers to other questions. So you see that he was here last week.

      THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

      [A recess was taken.]

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I might just add one or two words to clarify the position. I do this because this is a matter to which the British Government, in particular, attached very great importance.

      The position was that last September—on 25 September—the British Government sent a full report of this incident to the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That report included statements before a court of inquiry, statements of Allied witnesses, statements taken from German witnesses, including General Westhoff, a copy of the official lists of the dead, and a report of the protecting power. All that was sent by the British Government to the United Nations War Crimes Commission last September; and the statement of General Westhoff, which I certified as being a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, was part of an appendix to that report which was then in the custody of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and of which a copy was sent to me here.

      I provided that to my French colleagues and that refers to an earlier report made by General Westhoff at an interrogation which took place in London as a part of the matter of that report.

      The document which my learned friend was adducing today was a summary of a subsequent interrogation of General Westhoff taken in Nuremberg. My Lord, I wanted to get the position perfectly clear, if I could, to the Tribunal, because, as I say, the incident is one of some importance and the British Government report will be, I hope, tendered the Tribunal by my Soviet colleague, as the incident lies to the east of the line which we have drawn through the center of Berlin and therefore falls within the Soviet case.

      But I do not want the Tribunal to be under any misapprehension as to the nature of the earlier report that was made, the one which my learned friend referred to as being able to put in later should the Tribunal desire it.

      THE PRESIDENT: But you are agreed that the document which is now being offered to the Tribunal is not a government document within Article 21 of the Charter?

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I quite respectfully agree that that is not really the document on which I intervened. I intervened on the second one.

      THE PRESIDENT: At this stage we are not concerned with that document, only with the document offered in evidence to which Dr. Nelte objected, and that document is not a government document within Article 21.

      SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That I understand is so, but I was really intervening to explain that the second document comes. . . .

      THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand, yes. The Tribunal allows the objection of Dr. Nelte. It considers that the document which has been submitted is not a governmental document within Article 21 of the Charter and is therefore rejected. The Tribunal adheres to the decision which I announced just before we adjourned, namely, that if the Prosecution desires to do so, they can produce the interrogation of which the document submitted to them is understood by them to be a résumé; and if they do so, then they must produce the witness, General Westhoff, for cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel. In the alternative, they can produce and call General Westhoff himself and then, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel.

      M. QUATRE: I take notice of the Tribunal’s decisions and I should like to state that as I am eager not to lose time, and much time has already been lost in the course of today’s session, we shall not make use of this document now, nor shall we call General Westhoff. I shall simply request the Tribunal to note that we reserve the right to call General Westhoff, if necessary, when the defendants are cross-examined. May I continue, Mr. President?

      THE PRESIDENT: You may.

      M. QUATRE: I had reached, Gentlemen, Page 36 of my brief, concerning the treatment of Allied airmen who were prisoners. This point had already been discussed at some length before you.

      THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to say that the Tribunal will be willing to sit this evening until half past five, in order that the case against the Defendant Hess may be concluded; but it is very important that the case should be concluded tonight, against the Defendant Hess, because the Soviet Prosecution will require the whole day for their presentation tomorrow.

      M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I shall pass straight on to my conclusion. I shall say nothing about the treatment of Allied airmen. You know the circumstances, as well as the treatment of commando troops, and I once more beg the Tribunal’s pardon for having unintentionally spoken at such length. I shall now conclude.

      It is definitely the conception of criminal intention which was present in the drafting of the orders and directives which we have just examined. The reality of the acts perpetrated as a result of these decisions cannot be denied, nor should we overlook or underestimate this moral element, qualified by French penal law, to use the formula of an eminent jurist as “knowledge on the part of the agent of the illicit character of the acts performed by him.” The two defendants were fully cognizant of the illicit nature of orders which they knew would be scrupulously carried out.

СКАЧАТЬ