MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase “report of a British general.” I would say “a report of a government department.” It is signed and certified by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may exactly read in Article 21: “The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations. . . .”
My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a government department, for the purpose of this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.
It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not comply with the Tribunal’s desire that it should represent the best method to discover the truth.
The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.