Download Study Guide International Military Tribunal – Nuremberg (IMT)

StudyGuide
InternationalMilitaryTribunal–Nuremberg(IMT)
DanielRêgo
LetíciaEscóssia
LucaPisano
MatheusBastos
1.HistoryandMandate
The Allied forces expressed their intent to hold Axis war criminals liable for
theiractionsasearlyasbeforetheendoftheSecondWorldWar.ThroughtheMoscow
Declarationof1943,itwasestablishedthatmajorwarcriminals,whoseoffenseshave
no particular geographic location, would be punished by a joint decision of the
governments of Allied countries (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
[USHMM],2016).Inspiteofthat,therewasnoclearindicationoftheestablishmentof
atrialuntiltheLondonAgreementof1945,whenthegovernmentsoftheAlliedforces
agreed upon the institution of an ad hoc trial, the International Military Tribunal
[henceforth, the Tribunal], for the prosecution of war criminals. Furthermore, the
LondonAgreementdefinedtheconstitution,jurisdiction,andfunctionsoftheTribunal
in a document that became known as the Charter of the IMT (International Law
Commission,1949).
TheTribunalwasofficiallyestablishedonNovember20,1945,sixmonthsafter
the end of the War, in Nuremberg, Germany (USHMM, 2016). Aiming to avoid the
failedjusticethathadpreventedproperaccountabilityofperpetratorsaftertheFirst
World War, the Tribunal’s main goal was to ensure a fair and prompt trial and
punishment for war criminals, thus, honoring the memory of the countless victims
(Bryant,2015).
As recommended by the Yalta Memorandum of January 1945, it became the
Allies’ ambition to formulate the trials in a way that could allow the prosecution of
perpetrators in two dimensions. In the first, an international tribunal would be held
with the purpose of prosecuting major war criminals, namely the key-leaders of the
ThirdReich;intheseconddimension,subsequently,theaimwouldbetotriallower
andmid-leveloffendersinoccupationalcourts-heldwithintheoccupationalzoneof
1
each Allied country (Heller, 2001). Bearing this in mind, the Allied Control Council1
drafted a law, the Control Council Law No. 10 (CCL No. 10), which enabled the
creationofzonetrialsandprovidedlegalauthority,furtherdefiningtheconstitution
ofthesubsequentproceedings(Marrus,1999).
AsthefirstoftheAmericantrials,theU.S.v.KarlBrandtetalcase,alsoknown
astheDoctors’Trial,openedinNurembergonDecember1946,withTelfordTayloras
chiefoftheUSprosecutionteam.Thetrialheldresponsibletwenty-threedefendants,
amongst leading German physicians and administrators, for conducting harmful or
fatalmedicalexperimentsonciviliansandprisonersofwar,thereforeparticipatingin
warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity(HarvardLawSchoolLibrary,2003).
Thoughsimilarinmanyaspects,astheCCLNo.10embodiedtheessenceofthe
IMT Charter, the Doctors’ Trial broadened the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, further
encompassing crimes against humanity as an independent charge, unrelated to war
actions (Bryant, 2015). Accordingly, the CCL No. 10 set the jurisdiction of the court
basedonArticleII,whichdefinedoffenses2as“violationsofinternationalconventions,
laws and customs of war and general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminallawsofallcivilizednations”(Malaguti,2008,p.118).
The defendants were indicted on four charges: (i) Conspiracy or Common
Designincommittingcrimes;(ii)CrimesAgainstHumanity;(iii)WarCrimes;and(iv)
Membership In Criminal Organizations, as defined by the IMT (Yale Law School,
2008). The case was concluded in August of 1947 and the verdict pronounced lead
defendant, Karl Brandt, along with six others, convicted with death penalty, nine
defendants were sentenced to prison and the seven remaining defendants were
acquitted(HarvardLawSchoolLibrary,2003).
1.1.LegalProcedures
ThestructureofanInternationalTribunal,suchastheIMT,hadnoprecedent
inthehistoryofInternationalCriminalLaw.Therefore,itisofparamountimportance
tocomprehendandhighlightthelegalproceduresitsCharterdetermine,asfollows:
1
The Allied Control Council was composed by representatives of the four Powers, an
enterprise that took responsibility over the administration of Germany after the fall of the
Naziregime.TheControlCouncilissuedLawNo.10inordertoprovidethelegalstructurefor
thesubsequenttrials(YaleLawSchool,2008).
2Crimesagainstpeace;warcrimes;crimesagainsthumanity;andmembershipincategories
ofacriminalgroupororganizationdeclaredcriminalbytheIMT(YaleLawSchool,2008).
2
Table0.1IMT'sLegalProceduresandComposition
Composition
The Tribunal shall consist of four
members, each with an alternate. One
member and one alternate shall be
appointed by each of the Signatories. The
alternatesshall,sofarastheyareable,be
presentatallsessionsoftheTribunal.
PoweroftheTribunal
(a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and
to require their attendance and testimony
andtoputquestionstothem;
(b)tointerrogateanyDefendant;
(c)torequiretheproductionofdocuments
andotherevidentiarymaterial;
(d)toadministeroathstowitnesses;
(e)toappointofficersforthecarryingout
of any task designated by the Tribunal
including the power to have evidence
takenoncommission.
Jurisdictionand
The Tribunal shall have the power to try
GeneralPrinciples
and punish persons who, acting in the
interests of the European Axis countries,
whether as individuals or as members of
organizations, committed any of the
following crimes: crimes against peace,
warcrimes,andcrimesagainsthumanity.
Crimesagainstpeace
Planning,preparation,initiationorwaging
ofawarofaggression,orawarinviolation
of international treaties, agreements or
assurances, or participation in a common
planorconspiracyfortheaccomplishment
ofanyoftheforegoing.
3
Warcrimes
Violations of the laws or customs of war.
Such violations shall include, but not be
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or
deportationtoslavelabororforanyother
purpose of civilian population of or in
occupiedterritory,murderorill-treatment
ofprisonersofwarorpersonsontheseas,
killing of hostages, plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of
cities,townsorvillages,ordevastationnot
justifiedbymilitarynecessity.
Crimesagainsthumanity
Murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, and other inhumane acts
committedagainstanycivilianpopulation,
before or during the war; or persecutions
on political, racial or religious grounds in
execution of or in connection with any
crime within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal,whetherornotinviolationofthe
domestic law of the country where
perpetrated.
Furthermore, the procedure of the debate shall respect the following general
course,determinedbyArticle24oftheCharter:
•
TheIndictmentshallbereadincourt.
•
The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not
guilty.''
•
Theprosecutionshallmakeanopeningstatement.
•
TheTribunalshallasktheprosecutionandthedefensewhatevidence(ifany)
they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the
admissibilityofanysuchevidence.
•
The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the
witnessesfortheDefense.Thereaftersuchrebuttingevidenceasmaybeheld
bytheTribunaltobeadmissibleshallbecalledbyeithertheProsecutionorthe
Defense.
4
•
TheTribunalmayputanyquestiontoanywitnessandtoanydefendant,atany
time.
•
TheProsecutionandtheDefenseshallinterrogateandmaycross-examineany
witnessesandanyDefendantwhogivestestimony.
•
TheDefenseshalladdressthecourt.
•
TheProsecutionshalladdressthecourt.
•
EachDefendantmaymakeastatementtotheTribunal.
•
TheTribunalshalldeliverjudgmentandpronouncethesentence
2.TheInternationalLaw
TheTribunalanditssubsequenttrialsarefrequentlyindicatedasmilestonesin
International Law, and established the basis for posterior international criminal
tribunals,culminatingontheRomeStatute,which,in1998,groundedthepermanent
International Criminal Court. Despite its own controversies, like its alleged “victor’s
justice”, the impossibility for defendants to appeal, and the retroactive nature of its
legal definitions, the IMT’s positive impacts include: (i) introducing the criminal
accountabilityforindividualsinvolvedinwarcrimes;(ii)implementingtheconceptof
crimes against humanity, what would ultimately lead to the development of
InternationalHumanitarianLaw(IHL);and(iii)anextensivereportontheatrocities
committedbytheNaziregime.
2.1.ThelegalaspectoftheIMT
In1943,thethreemainAllies–namelytheUnitedStates,theSovietUnionand
the United Kingdom – attended the Moscow Conference. It laid the foundations for
judgingtheGermanwarcrimes,aftertheAlliesagreedthat
[…] [t]hose German officers and men and members of the Nazi party
whohavebeenresponsiblefororhavetakenaconsentingpartinthe
above atrocities […] will be sent back to the countries in which their
abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and
punished according to the laws of these liberated countries […]. The
abovedeclarationiswithoutprejudicetothecaseofGermancriminals
whose offenses have no particular geographical localization and who
willbepunishedbyjointdecisionofthegovernmentoftheAllies.(The
MoscowConference,1943,PAGE).
Theaforementionedextractevidencestwomodelsoftrials:thefirstsheltered
underdomesticlawsandtraditionalnationaljusticeandthesecond,whichistheone
we are interested in, being the backbone for the IMT. Even though the Nuremberg
5
Tribunal is said to be the first international court to indict individuals, instead of
states,forwarcrimes,therehavebeenpreviousattemptstodoso.Themostrelevant
onewasthatprescribedbytheTreatyofVersaillestotrytheformerGermanEmperor,
WilliamIIofHohenzollern,whowas“publiclyarraign[ed][…]forasupremeoffence
againstinternationalmoralityandthesanctityoftreaties.”(PeaceTreatyofVersailles,
1919, Article 227). Back then, however, the Emperor was not tried, since the
Netherlands government, where he was assailed, refused to deport him (Gonçalves,
2004).
The International Military Tribunal began its work after the Charter was
completed.TheCharteristhelegalbasistotheIMTandwouldbeusedforitstrials.It
is important to assert that most of the Charter was truly novel legislation, meaning
that the defendants would be tried with ordinances that simply were not on any
previouscode(Gonçalves,2004).Thisfact,aswewillfurtherexplore,wasapointof
severecriticismagainstthelegitimacyoftheTribunal.
Thethreecrimesinwhichtheofficerswerechargedontrialwere:(i)crimes
against peace, which comprehended conspiracy, preparation and initiation of war;
(ii) war crimes, which consisted in “violations of the laws or customs of war […]
murder,ill-treatmentordeportationtoslavelabororforanyotherpurposeofcivilian
populationoforinoccupiedterritory”(CharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunal,
1945,Art6b);(iii)crimesagainsthumanity,whichincludedviolationsagainstany
population, either occupied or native, as well as “persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds” (Charter, 1945, Art 6c). It is important to highlight that the
subsequent American trials, such as the Doctor’s trial, had a fourth charge be
introduced by the Control Council Law No. 10 (CCL No. 10) – membership in
categories of a criminal group or organization, referring to those organizations
“declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal”, mainly the SS and the
SecretPoliceorGestapo(Indictment,1946).
ItisalsoworthhighlightingthatCountNo.3–crimesagainsthumanity–isthe
greater legacy of the Tribunal. Essentially, Counts No. 1 and 2 already existed, even
though the violations were not indictable (Gonçalves, 2004). In fact, this crime is an
expansion of war crimes extended to population within the country (rather than on
occupied countries only) and planned persecution based upon prejudices. However,
farfrombeingunimportant,itisindeedrecognizingthathumanbeingsnaturallyhold
rightsfortheveryfactofbeinghuman(Ramos,2009).
One key aspect, possibly one of the main objectives of the court, is that the
Tribunal endeavored to deconstruct, supported by abundant evidences, the Nazi
ideology and perhaps prevent such violations from occurring again. By collecting
proofoftheatrocitiesperpetratedbytheNazis,theMilitaryTribunalexhibitedtothe
Worldthehorroroftheirideologyandpoliticalsystem(Ramos,2009).
6
As regards the Doctors’ Trial, the judges formulated ten principles of medical
ethics that, in an overview, sought to prevent non-voluntary, untested and painful
medical experiments with human beings. Those guidelines were further adopted by
the World Medical Association, and ultimately led to the development of Bioethics
(Ramos,2009).
2.2.Tribunalintrial:controversiesregardingtheIMT
Although the Nuremberg Trials were considered a success and a definite
milestoneininternationallaw,theywerealsosubjecttowell-foundedcriticism.Itis
frequently stated that the Tribunal and the subsequent trials were only victor’s
justice,acourtdesignedsolelytolegitimatethealreadyprejudgedofficersandmarked
byan“unwillingnessoftheprosecutingpowerstorelinquishtheprivilegesof'victors'
justice' by confessing to the crimes which they themselves had allegedly committed
whilefightingHitler”(Bidiss,1995,p.8).
Meanwhile,themainobjectiontotheIMTisaboutitslegalqualifications.The
tribunal undoubtedly violates the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime
without a law). As highlighted previously, most of the laws within the trial were
conceivedexpostfacto(afterthefact),whichmeansthattheydidnotformallyexist
when the crimes were perpetrated. Complementary to this argument is another
principle that determines that law may not retroact, implying that the Nuremberg
Tribunal would have had to judge the defendants only by the Nazi law, what would
haveinfactledthemtoabsolution.Tobypassthisissue,theprinciplesofnaturalright
wereevoked.Theexcerptbelowevidencesthat,withintheNurembergTrial,theNazi
lawwasinvalid,sinceitwasnotinaccordancewithsuchprinciples.
Theyalsorecalledthatnormsissuedbypeoplemustcameaftersome
principles universally valid and irrevocable, […] the right to life,
physical integrity, freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
freedom of expression, the right to non-discrimination, the right to a
fairtrial.[…]whatiscalled“naturalright”.[…]Positivesratesissuedby
people constitute the right only if they are in accordance with these
principles(Topalli,2015,p.92).
Finally,whenitcomestothesubsequentNurembergtrials,towhichbelongthe
Doctors’Trial,thereisonemoreobjectiontoconsiderwithregardstotheCCLNo.10.
Bycriminalizingthemereparticipationontheaforementionedcriminalorganizations
according to the IMT, CCL No. 10 reverses the burden of proof, subverting the
presumptionofinnocenceprinciple(Gonçalves,2004).
3.Argumentation
7
Here,themainargumentsposedbyboththedefenseandtheprosecutionare
presented.Itisimportanttobeawareofthefallibilityofthinkingthat,onlybecause
thedefendantswereNaziofficialsduringtheWorldWarII,itwasmucheasierforthe
prosecutionthanforthedefensebodytoprovethemguiltyornot.TheTribunalfaced
intense quarrels between prosecution and defense; both defense and prosecution
showed consistent sets of arguments. The main point to conduct the arguing was
whether the defendants were merely following orders by their superiors, at a time
whendisobediencewouldnotbetolerated;orhadtheyanactiveroleinundertaking
heinousactsthatneednotbebasedonstatutorylawtobeconsideredcriminal,but,
rather,onnaturalinalienablelaw.
Both ways of thinking could draw jurisdiction out of ancient legal principles
and novel war legislation. For example, the defense accused the Tribunal of being
based upon ex post facto (retroactive) legislation, which means it would judge acts
that could only became crimes after they were committed. That is linked to the
ancientprincipleofnullumcrimensinelege,alreadyaddressedonsection2.2.Tothat,
the prosecution said the CCL No. 10 would suffice for finding the defendants guilty,
oncetheTribunalwouldnotadmitanyreasoningagainstitslegitimacy(Blumenthal;
McComarck,2008).
3.1CountNo.1
ThefirstCountonwhichdefendantswerebeingaccusedregardedconspiracy
anditledtoanunexpectedclosure.Thedefensefoundabreachinthelegalbodythat
guidedthetrial.Thedefendantsdidnotdenytheiractiveroleinmedicalexperiments,
insteadfocusingontheideathattheysimplywerenottobefoundguiltyfortheiracts.
ThedefensearguedthatFranceandRussia,twoofthefourvictors,didnotrecognize
conspiracyasacrimeandthatconspiracywasacrimeundertheTribunal’sruleonly
ifitledtotheoutbreakofviolentwar,whichwasnotthecase.Thoseargumentswere
sosignificantthattheyhadtheprosecutorsrunshortofconcreteargumentsbesides
invoking the moral argument of the Tribunal’s responsibility to punish cases of
conspiracy to the committing of crimes against peace, as well as war crimes and
crimes against humanity, even if they were not prescribed by either the Control
Council No. 10 or the Tribunal’s Charter. In this logic, by proceeding otherwise, the
Tribunal’s decision would become “useless, anomalous and harmful” in the
prosecutioncounsels'opinion(Freyhofer,2004,p.61).TheTribunal’sannouncement,
twoweeksbeforetheverdict,wouldprovethedefense’sargumentsconsistent:
It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10 had
defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity
as a separate substantive crime; therefore, this Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy
considered as a separate substantive offense [...]. [i]nsofar as Count I
8
charges the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a
separate substantive offense, distinct from any war crime or crime
against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that charge (Mazal
Library,n.d.,p.956).
3.2.CountsNo.2andNo.3
Count No. 2 showed the paradigmatic legal quarrel that characterized the
judgmentsatitsfinest.Thedefendantsarguedthattheywerenotmerelyphysiciansat
work,committingatrocitiesattheirownwillduringnormaltimes.Theywere,instead,
soldiers at work, following orders, which came from their superiors, in wartime. The
Fuhreremanatedlegitimacyand,indeed,timewasnotatitsbestoddsduringtheWar.
Theprincipleofrespondeatsuperior(letthemasteranswerfortheirsubordinate)was
also raised by the defense body. It means that if one injures a person or property
while fulfilling obligations one was assigned to, the responsibility falls upon one’s
superior or master. Another argument the defense tried to raise was that the
definition of foreigner under the CCL No. 10 as long as the definition of war crime
under Control Council Law No. 10 was offenses against the civilian population of an
occupiedterritory(YaleLawSchool,2008),defendantscouldnotbechargedaslongas
the atrocities were committed against civilians that lived in German territory. The
Tribunalfound,nevertheless,15defendantsguiltyunderCountNo.2.
Nonetheless, the prosecution refused those arguments, by saying that Hitler
could not simply override statutory law, thus not recognizing his undeniable
legitimacy. Furthermore, it recurred to the Hippocratic oath3, to which all doctors
must swear and be guided by before exercising the profession. The Hippocratic law
constitutedcustom,prosecutionsaid(Freyhofer,2004).Also,therewereimpassesto
the respondeat superior argument, although the Tribunal and Nazi Germany
recognized the principle, the Tribunal recognized sovereign immunity (contained in
principlerexnonpotestpeccare-theKingcandonowrong).NaziGermany,however,
didnotrecognizethat,beingthedefendantsontheirrightreasonwhentheysaidthe
Stateshouldbefoundguiltyfortheiracts.However,theTribunalwouldneverbeable
of punishing anyone if it recognized this principle as valid for releasing the
defendants,onceHitlerwasdeadalready.
Counts No. 2 and 3 were so conceptually close that if one defendant escaped
one,theywouldfallguiltyundertheother.CountNo.3wasbroaderthanCountNo.2,
totheextentitcharacterizedascrimesagainsthumanityawiderangeofviolentacts
3
The Hippocratic oath is an ancient ethical vow doctors take at the beginning of their
profession. “I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and
myjudgment,butfromwhatistotheirharmandinjusticeIwillkeepthem”(BBC,2008)isa
passageofsaidoathcapableofunderminingapossiblealibiofcustombeingabovelaw-for
thedefendants’actionswerenotinaccordancewithcustom,either.
9
against any civilian population, grounded on political, racial or religious terms
(HarvardLawSchoolLibrary,2003).Thedefensetriedtoraisethesameargumentsof
being following orders, to which the prosecution said that when a soldier is
confronted with an order he knows is unlawful, he does not have the mere sake of
obedienceasavalidexcuseforcommittingit.Moreover,tendefendantswerepartof
theSS,ahigh-rankmilitarypolice,whichisnotcomposedbyordinarypeople(Koehl,
1962).Intheend,thesame15guiltyunderCountNo.2wereconvictedunderCount
No.3.
3.3.CountNo.4
Count No. 4 was the most symbolic of all. It functioned merely as an
aggravatingfactoralongsidetheotherCounts.OnemustremembertheInternational
Military Tribunal was established after the end of the Second World War. For that,
noneofthedefendantsconsideredthemselvestobepartofanycriminalorganization
by the Nazi Germany time. Thus, the defense tried to foster the argument that
membershipalonedidnotsufficeasevidenceforcharginganyoneguilty.However,it
wouldnotbehardtodisclaimthat,oncetheTribunalwasnotatalloverwhelmedby
theretrospectivityofitsjurisdiction.TendefendantswerefoundguiltyunderCount
No.4,nineofwhichwerealsoguiltyunderCountsNo.2and3.
4.Glossary
4.1.Jusadbellum
Also referred to as the “law on the use of force”, it seeks to regulate the
engagementandthelawfulnessineachstate,oranon-stateactor,intheuseofarmed
forces as the last recourse (Cerone & SáCouto, 2004). The Charter of the United
Nations (2014) authorizes resource to force only on self-defense from attacks by
other states/groups (article 51) or under authorization from the United Nations
Security Council (article 39 and following provisions of Chapter VII). Some use
customary international law to interpret the UN Charter in a way that also
comprehends protection of nationals abroad (rescue of nationals facing extreme
dangerincountrieswhosegovernmentsareunwillingorunabletoprotectthem)and
humanitarian intervention as two other reasonable purposes for the use of force
(Tsagourias,2010).
4.2.Jusinbello
The law of armed conflict, or “the law of war”, is the legal instrument that
regulates the actions committed in the course of the war, or the “conduct of
individuals and units toward combatants, non-combatants, property and the
environment” (Harvard Law School Library, 2016). It is also recognized as
10
InternationalHumanitarianLaw,asitaimsattheprotectionofthosewhoarenot,
ornolonger,involvedinwarfareactions(Cerone&SáCouto,2004).
4.3.Generalprinciplesoflawofwar
Four general principles are present in much of the laws and customs of war.
Theyare(i)militarynecessity–thepermissionofuseofallmeasuresindispensable
andnotprohibitedunderlawofwarforsubmittingtheenemy-,(ii)discrimination-
the distinction between military objectives and civilian objects - , (iii) unnecessary
suffering - the employment of strategies in a way to cause as little suffering as
possible-and(iv)proportionality-therecognitionthatsomeciviliansufferingcan
occuraslongasitisnotexcessiveinrelationtomilitaryadvantageanticipatedfrom
theattack(Gillette,2003).Proportionality,specifically,presentanimportantroleboth
injusadbellum,meaningthattheremustbeanimportantcausefortheuseofforceto
beallowed,andinjusinbello,meaningthatthemilitarynecessitymustbebalanced
withthelikelyharmtothecivilians(“Proportionaltowhat?”,2008).
4.4Adhoc
This latin expression means "for this purpose only". Therefore, an ad hoc
committee is formed for a specific purpose, usually appointed to solve a particular
problem(LegalDictionary,n.d)
4.5.Effectivecontroldoctrine
TestmadebytheInternationalCourtofJusticeandotherinternationalcourts
toevaluatethedefactopowerastatehasoveracombatant(ICJ,1986;ICTY,1999).It
makes possible the application of the ultra vires doctrine or the “effective control
doctrine”, under which a state has responsibility over individual acts even if they
exceededauthorityinstructions.
4.6.Expostfacto
The Latin expression can be translated into "after the fact", addressing
situations under which laws are drafted or adopted after the concerning act is
committed,thusmakingitillegalatapresenttimeeventhoughitwasalegalactwhen
it took place. The same can be applied to increases of penalty for a crime after it is
committed(LegalDictionary,n.d).
4.7.Nullumcrimensinelege
As the one of the pillars of criminal law and international criminal law, this
principle states that there should be “no crime without law”, meaning that an
individual should only face criminal prosecution if the action performed was
criminalizedbylawbeforeitwascommitted(CornellUniversityLawSchool,1992).
4.8.Counts
11
In a criminal procedure, a count is the part of the indictment that sets the
charges, or the various offenses that the deffendant is accused of committing (Legal
Dictionary,n.d).
4.9.Indictment
An indictment is the document, “written accusation”, that charges the
defendantswithoffensespunishblebylaw(LegalDictionary,n.d).Accordingtoarticle
18.4oftheICTYStatute,isa“concisestatementofthefactsandthecrimeorcrimes
withwhichtheaccusedischarged”(UnitedNations,2009).
4.10.TheSS
Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei,
commonlyknownasthe"SS",wasoneofthesevenbranchesoftheNationalSocialist
Party, which formed the Nazi movement (Cornell Univeristy Library, 2015). A
document of the IMT “cites evidence of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes
committed by the SS in its administration of the concentration camps, wholesale
exterminations of the Jews, and sanctioning of human experiments” (Cornell
UniveristyLibrary,2015,p.1).
5.UsefulLinks
This section aims to provide further researching sources so that judges,
prosecutorsanddefenselawyersmayhaveabetterpreparationforthetrial.Bearing
in mind the unprecedented nature of the Nuremberg Trials, it is of paramount
importancetobeinformedoftheinternationaltreatiesandconventionsupto1946.
5.1TheAvalonProject
ThisisanonlinedatabaseorganizedbytheLillianGoldmanLawLibraryfrom
YaleUniversity.Itcontainsthemostimportantdocumentsandinformationregarding
theInternationalMilitaryTribunal.Westronglysuggestthereadingshereprovided.
AvalonProject:IMTdocuments
5.2HarvardLawSchoolLibrary
Like the Avalon Project, this database contains useful transcriptions of the
trials, which can help aligning the vocabulary, the logical sequencing and, more
generally,thefunctioningoftheIMTduringthedaysoftheconference.
12
HarvardLawSchoolLibrary:Doctors’Trialtranscriptions
6.References
McCormack,T.L.H.,&Blumenthal,D.A.(2008).TheLegacyofNuremberg:Civilising
InfluenceorInstitutionalisedVengeance?MartinusNijhofPublishers.
BritishBroadcastingCorporation[BBC].(2008).AguidetotheHippocratic
Retrieved
February
25,
2016
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7654432.stm>.
Oath.
from:
Bryant, M. (2015). A World History of War Crimes: From Antiquity to the Present.
London:Bloomsbury,2015.
Cerone, J. SáCouto, S. (2004). International Criminal Law: a Discussion guide.
Washignton,DC:AmericanUniversity.
Cornell University Law School. (1992). Legal information Institute. Retrieved July 7,
2016,
2016
from
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nullum_crimen_sine_lege>
Freyhofer, Horst H. (2004). The Nuremberg Medical Trial: The Holocaust and the
OriginoftheNurembergMedicalCode.PeterLang,2004.
Harvard Law School Library. (2003). Nuremberg Trials Project - Introduction.
Retrieved
May
10,
2016,
from
<http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/5_05.h
tml>
Harvard Law School Library. (2016). Program on International Law and Armed
Conflict.
Retrieved
July
7,
2016,
2016
from
<http://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=310988&p=2079383>
Heller,K.(2001).TheNurembergMilitaryTribunalsandtheOriginsofInternational
CriminalLaw.OxfordUniversityPress,2001.
International Court of Justice [ICJ]. (1986). Case concerning the military and
paramilitaryactivitiesinandagainstNicaragua(Nicaraguav.UnitedStatesof
America), judgement of June 27, 1986. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/6503.pdf.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. (1999). Tadić (IT94-1) “Prijedor”, Judgement of July 15, 1999. Retrieved July 10, 2016 from
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acjug/en/tad-aj990715e.pdf
13
International Law Commission - United Nations General Assembly. (1949).
Historical Survey of the Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction.
A/CN.4/7/Rev.1.
Retrieved
May
10,
2016
from<http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_7
_rev1.pdf&lang=E>
Malaguti, M. (2008). Can the Nuremberg Legacy Serve any Purpose in
Understanding the Modern Concept of “Complementarity”? In The
International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions. Politi and Gioia,
2008.
Marrus, M. (1999). The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in Historical Context. Bulletin of
the History of Medicine, 73,106-23. Retrieved December 18, 2015 from
<http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Moral%20Issu...man%2
0Ex perimentation/Nuremberg%20Doctors'%20Trial.html>.
Mazal Holocaust Library. Nuernberg Military Tribunal. Volume III. Retrieved
February,
2016
from
<https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/03/NMT03-
T0956.htm>
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2016). International Military Tribunal
at
Nuremberg.
Retrieved
May
10,
2016
from
<https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007069>
Yale Law School. (2008). The Avalon Project: Control Council Law No 10. Retrieved
February12,2016from:<http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imt10.asp>
Bidiss, M. (1995, 05). Victors' justice: The Nuremberg tribunal. History Today, pp.
40-46.
Retrieved
05
12,
2016,
from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA16889622&v=2.1&u=capes
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=a2c39158e213d2ab3f34e2c5dedb59ca
Charter of the International Military Tribunal. (1945). Retrieved 05 12, 2016, from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp
Gonçalves, J. B. (2004). Tribunal de Nuremberg 1945-1945: A gênese de uma nova
ordemnodireitointernacional.RiodeJaneiro:Renovar.
Indictment of the International Military Tribunal. (1946). Nuremberg. Retrieved 05
12,2016,fromhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count.asp
Marques, G. B. (2007, jan./jun.). A responsabilidade internacional dos Estados e a
noçãodecrimesinternacionais.EspaçoJurídico,pp.7-20.
Peace
Treaty of Versailles. (1919). Retrieved 05
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html.
13,
2016,
from
14
“Proportionaltowhat?”(2008,December30).TheEconomist.RetrievedJuly10,2016
fromhttp://www.economist.com/node/12867302.
The Moscow Conference. (1943). Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Retrieved0513,2016,fromhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp
Topalli, I. (2015, 11). The Role of Natural Law after the World War II (Case of
NurembergTrial).Juridica,pp.87-97.
Tsagourias, N. (2010). Necessity and use of force: a special regime. Netherland
Yearbook of International Law, 41, 11-44. Retrieved July 10, 2016 from
http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9
789067047364-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1132973-p174102858
Cornell Univeristy Library. (2015). Brief on Die Schutzstaffeln der
Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the
“SS”).
Retrieved
July
7,
2016,
from
http://hydrastg.library.cornell.edu/fedora/objects/nur:00671/datastreams/p
df/content
Legal Dictionary. (n.d). The Legal Dictionary. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2326
UnitedNations.(2009).UpdatedStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalTribunalforthe
Former
Yugoslavia.
Retrieved
July
10,
2016,
from
http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf.
15