-4- Witnesses which deal specifically with the question whether the Outer Mongolian Border Guards did normally guard the disputed territory to the east of the River and not only the western bank of the river are admissible in rebuttal as this is a new point, but that insofar as the bulk of their evidence deals with the general story of subsequent Japanese violations and the resulting fighting, the Tribunal will probable exclude it on the ground that that should have formed part of the original prosecution case. In view of the limited portion of this evidence which is likely to be admitted it is for the USSR Division to consider whether it is worth while to bring the witnesses over. 29. IPS Doc. No. 3156 Letter sent by Beriya to Molotov Decision: The Committee thinks that this is too general to be admitted as rebuttal. 30. Report of Military Topographical Dept of USSR Armed Forces General Staff. Decision: In view of the mistake referred to the Committee thinks that this document would be admitted in explanation. 31 to 42 Inc. Decision: In view of the Committee none of these can be described as rebuttal evidence in the proper sense of the word and should have been part of the original case for the Prosecution and can only be got in now not as rebuttal at all, but as the result of an application to the Tribunal to allow the Prosecution case to be reopened having regard to the points raised at pages 7748-9 and 15539-41 of the Record. In the Committee’s opinion the question of the sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway which is covered by items 31 to 42 inclusive is not of itself a matter of sufficient importance in the case to justify such an application at this stage.