Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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