The second book entitled "History of Nomadic life in Mongolia" , exh. 2651, marked for identification only, was written by a Chinese, Chang Mu by name in 1805 or in 1849. This book is a translation from Chinese into Japanese and as may be seen from the Japanese inscription on the maps, the outline map attached to the book seems not to have been in the Chinese original of the book. At any rate the note of the Japanese translator on the map says: "Though the map is not attached to the original I have drawn up one out¬line map for the reference of the readers." The peculiar feature of this map s that the area of conflict is covered with an inscription and due to this it is impossible to understand where the boundary lies. Thus we see that both books have no probative value whatever and on this ground alone should be rejected by the Court to say nothing of the fact that the Defence finished the presentation of evidence and an attempt to continue their case in chief at this stage f the trial is a gross violation of procedural rules. It is also necessary to invite the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that when in rebuttal the Soviet Pro¬secution offered official historic Chinese maps the President remarked that "This boundary question may call for a major investigation which we may not be able to undertake at this stage. It may involve the close inspection of ancient documents not immediately available." (T. 38358). On this ground the objection of the Defense was sustained and the documents rejected. We offered the historic maps officially certified by the representatives of competent authorities while the Defense is now trying to offer outline maps void of any authenticity and taken from anonymous sources. If these maps are received in evidence by the Tribunal the Prosecution reserves the right of offering the historic documents which it has as its disposal. On all these grounds we ask that the motion of the Defence be rejected. Major-General A.N. Vasiliev, Associate Prosecutor from the U. S. S. R.