Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 07

by Various

FIFTY-FIRST DAY
Tuesday, 5 February 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this morning’s session on account of illness.

M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): One of the counsel would like to address the Tribunal.

DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces): In the name of the organization I represent, I make application that the testimony of the witness, Van der Essen, who was heard yesterday should be stricken from the Record for this reason: That the witness made declarations, firstly, concerning the alleged wanton destruction of the library in Louvain; secondly, concerning the treatment of the local population during the Rundstedt offensive, which led him to the conclusion that orders to this effect must have been received from higher quarters.

I wish that this testimony should be stricken from the Record for these reasons: Firstly, as regards yesterday’s testimony there was no question of testimony by a witness. A witness should base his testimony on his own knowledge, which can be based only on his own observations. These prerequisites are not present in the points to which objection is made. For the most part the witness repeated statements made by other people, some of them actually made by people whom he himself did not know. The knowledge of this witness can consequently be ascribed only to a study of the documents.

Secondly, any third party is in a position to give similar testimony as soon as the documents to which this witness had access are put at his disposal, and if he is also in a position to talk to the people to whom the witness talked and who gave him his information. It is consequently proved that this witness, Van der Essen, was not a genuine witness at all, because such a witness cannot be replaced by a third person who may happen to come along.

Thirdly, although the Tribunal, in accordance with Article 19 of the Charter, is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, this evidence must be rejected because it has no probative value which can be determined by the Court. This emerges of necessity from the fact that the sources of the witness’ testimony cannot be taken into consideration.

I regard it as my duty to point out that the introduction of such indirect proof cannot lead to the discovery of the truth regarding the points in dispute.

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal would like to hear, M. Faure, what you have to say in answer to the motion which has just been made.