متن حقوقی ارسالی را ترجمه کن خط به خط کوتاه به شکلی که یک خط فارسی سمت راست در جدول و یک خط ترجمه در سمت چپ جدول تا انتهای متنSuch a showing could of course be made at Nuremberg. In two respects. existing penal machinery turned out to be inadequate. The courts that normally would have jurisdiction were not functioning and could not be trusted if they were recreated and allowed to function. The persons injured were in many cases stateless
207
persons or citizens and residents of Germany, and their injuries would not be within the range of jurisdiction of any other national court. Clearly under such cases, an international court may be properly constituted.
The Court at Nuremberg established a procedure which, except for the absence of a jury, closely follows what in many countries is regarded as the basic pattern of a just procedure. The accused face their accusers. They are allowed counsel. They call witnesses and cross-examine hostile witnesses. They are heard publicly. That certainly provides sufficient security. But difficulties arose in relation to prosecution.
As mentioned before, prosecution has been carried on in various ways. There is first of all the victim-prosecutor. Then we find the witness-prosecutor. Next is the public-spirited citizen-prosecutor. And finally we have the official prosecutor, a procurator of the Crown in ancient France, of the Republic in modern France, a district attorney in the United States, A Staatsanwalt in Germany, or the police in England.
It would, of course, be possible to establish an official prosecutor under the United Nations. There might even be a tribunal of prosecution, just as there is in France. In that country as in other Continental countries, besides the prosecutor, there is a "juge d'instruction" and in addition a "chambre des mises en accusation. This type of court - and it is one - is unknown in common law countries and is generally misunderstood there. It is the function of this branch of the judicial system to examine accusations, to determine whether a real basis for the charge exists, and then to prepare the prosecution which the official prosecutor, the "procureur", conducts.
Suppose there were under the United Nations a formal "Commission of Accusation. This would mean that any accusation made by either an individual or a group within a nation might make a charge which it would be the duty of the "commission of criminal prosecution", or something like it, to sift before it is presented as a proper case for an international court to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction. It would be better obviously to have a quasi-judicial body to do this than a single official even with an elaborately organized staff.
If something of this sort is put together, there is no reason why we may not deal with international crime in the way in which crime is dealt with in modern states. Any body can make an accusation, but it is only where an official person or an official body certifies the accusation as sufficiently supported that it becomes a matter for a court to try. And if it is so certified, the burden of the prosecution is placed not on the victim or the witness but on the public officer, and the expense is borne by the public.