dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
a common task of the United Nations, and, therefore, the Soviet Delegation did not contemplate the possibility of the criminals being tried independently by different people. In conclusion, the representatives of the Soviet Delegation state that the Soviet Delegation is just as anxious as all the others to insure that the trials should take place as quickly as possible. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I shall just sum it up in two points: The first is that we are most anxious to have all the help that we can from our Soviet colleagues and our French allies all the time. Personally-I speak for myself-I should be very glad to have the continued assistance of General Nikitchenko and Judge Falco and their colleagues, but the main first point is that we would like to have the continued assistance in the agreement. The second is that we are animated by the same purpose, that is, to secure as speedy a trial as we can, and we might see on that basis whether we cannot reach an agreement on the draft that was left to the drafting committee. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I should like to join in those sentiments. I hope that the representatives here will also be the prosecutors. In fact, I would view any change with a great deal of anxiety. It would mean a long period of getting adjusted to each other, and we think we have accomplished that at this table. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We shall immediately inform our Government at the conclusion of the agreement of the opinions which have been expressed around this table, but the delegations will recognize that the actual appointment of individuals is not a subject that the Delegation may speak about and will have to be decided by the Government. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Could we now take the agreement [XXV] as far as the reservations signified by square brackets are concerned 2 There does not seem to be anything but the complete formality of the use of a seal, which does not matter at all. On the last page where it says, ". . . and have affixed thereto their seals". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I refer to article 1 where it states, "There shall be established after consultation with the Control Council of Germany an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offences
matter at all. On the last page where it says, ". . . and have affixed thereto their seals". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I refer to article 1 where it states, "There shall be established after consultation with the Control Council of Germany an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or as representative members of organisations or groups or in both capacities." According to the Russian translation which we have, the text is somewhat altered from the form in which it was originally, and we consider that the present wording does not correspond with what we had in view. MR. TROYANOVSKY. "Representative" translated in Russian is "typical". SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It is not quite the same really. "Representative" connotes someone who is of sufficient standing to represent the organization rather than a "typical" member. It is not the same idea in our minds. Take a concrete example. Kaltenbrunner is a leading member and, therefore, can be selected as being the sort of person that you would take as a representative if you wanted to put the Gestapo on trial. If you wanted to deal with members of the Gestapo, you would take him as being of sufficient position, weight, and responsibility to be representative in that sense. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The point made by the Soviet Delegation really amounts to this-the definition of how an organization is to be found guilty, and so on, is provided for in the rules, and therefore from the Soviet point of view there is no need to repeat any of the agreement itself. But the main point is that they consider that, if you omit this word "representative", the methods of finding and trying the organization are already laid out-if you omit this word 6grepresentative" and simply take it that they can be tried individually or in groups. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. So long as we agree to paragraph 10, that is the main point for me. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is not meant to exclude trial of organizations as such as set out in paragraph 10. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Representatives refer to article 10 and confirm that they are in entire
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. So long as we agree to paragraph 10, that is the main point for me. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is not meant to exclude trial of organizations as such as set out in paragraph 10. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Representatives refer to article 10 and confirm that they are in entire agreement with you. Coming back to remarks on the definition in the agreement-it is simply a question of -wording which in the Russian comes out rather awkwardly. It means that, if the word "representative" is omitted, it will be quite satisfactory. MIR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I have difficulties with article 10. No American judge would consider that article 10 is quite adequate, as it stands, to put on trial the organization in a manner that would bind individual members of that organization because there is no provision here f or making the organization a party in the sense of giving it a chance to defend organizationally. We would need some consideration of article 10 with reference to its sufficiency to embrace the proposal for trial of organizations. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation states that it will have to consider article 10 when we come to it in the consideration of rules, but, dealing simply with article I in the Agreement, is there any objection to accepting the suggestion of omitting "representative"? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think we must have the word "organization" in there if we are going to try organizations. If I were sitting as an American judge, it would not give me authority to try organizations as such. This is a jurisdictional provision. I should suspect that, if we indicted an organization, the indictment would be dismissed on the grounds of no jurisdiction. I have no objection to the change of the word "representative" to some synonym which would translate into the Russian with less misunderstanding. But I would not find the provision satisfactory without including the word "organizations" so as to authorize trial of organizational groups or so that we may accuse organizations. This is a jurisdictional provision and organizations as such would have to be mentioned so we might indict the Gestapo, the S.S., etcetera, as associations. Otherwise, I
the word "organizations" so as to authorize trial of organizational groups or so that we may accuse organizations. This is a jurisdictional provision and organizations as such would have to be mentioned so we might indict the Gestapo, the S.S., etcetera, as associations. Otherwise, I consider it inadequate to accomplish the proposal which we submitted. PROFESSOR GROS. The one word "representative'--if you read it "those accused individually or as members of organizations or both" Well, if you read it as "members of organizations or groups", it implies that the only reason for accusation would be membership in the organization. So the organization would be tried. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. That is exactly what the Soviet Delegation has in mind, what the French Delegation has said. You are going to try the organization as a representative body, but you are going to try it really in the person of its members. If a member is found whose guilt consists in being a member, then you have declared that the organization itself is criminal. The actual method by which you are going to secure the trial of organizations is laid down in the charter. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, you see we have a fundamentally different concept and that is what I am afraid of. You will understand it as embodying your concept, and a different group of prosecutors who may succeed us will have misunderstanding. I think the only purpose of an agreement is to clear up misunderstandings, not to cover them up. Now, -we could not convict an individual for membership in an organization merely because others had been convicted individually without some notice to that individual that his organization is under trial and some chance, in some way, for him to defend it. It would be against our conception of the rights of an individual. You in the Soviet system get at it in a different way and perhaps the better way, but it is different and I want to be sure which we are driving at here. We would have to say in the indictment that the Gestapo and the S.S. Is charged with being a criminal organization so that they have notice. I have seen over 4,000 documents in our office in Paris with fingerprints, names, descriptions, et cetera, of members of
to be sure which we are driving at here. We would have to say in the indictment that the Gestapo and the S.S. Is charged with being a criminal organization so that they have notice. I have seen over 4,000 documents in our office in Paris with fingerprints, names, descriptions, et cetera, of members of the S.S. It is an easy matter to go out and get them then, and, if they are in Soviet territory, turn them over to the Soviet Government; if they are in French territory, turn them over to the French Government. But in my concept of procedure, before you go out and pick these people up and subject them to a sentence because they have been members, they have to have notice that they are on trial. I do not know just how our other delegations view that. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. May I suggest that I could not agree more fully with Mr. Justice Jackson. The worst service anyone can do is to cover up a difference if there really is one. I don't think there is really a difference in our minds. First, I start with the assistance given by Professor Gros and in this article I omit the words "as representative" and put in "whether they be accused individually or in the capacity of members of organizations", which I think underlines Professor Gros' point and makes it clear that, because they are members of criminal organizations, they are being tried in the capacity of organizations. Now I turn to Mr. Justice Jackson's point on jurisdiction which is that, unless notice is given that the organizations may be held criminal by the trial, there would not be jurisdiction to try. I thought that in article 10 in the charter we might put in after "the Tribunal" in the second line the words "after notice that this will be done", so that it would read, "At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization, the Tribunal, after notice that this will be done, may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization." Then the Tribunal can fix what notice is necessary. I think it would meet the point that is worrying Mr. Justice Jackson that the members of the organization must have notice, and it would also meet the Soviet
the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization." Then the Tribunal can fix what notice is necessary. I think it would meet the point that is worrying Mr. Justice Jackson that the members of the organization must have notice, and it would also meet the Soviet point as to any ambiguity on the word "representative". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet representatives accept your suggestion with regard to the words "in the capacity" in place of the word "representative". MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Whether it would be acceptable to us will depend a great deal on what is put in the charter, and I may say, while we are on the subject, there is a way we have thought of which is embodied in this language: "At a trial wherein representative individual members of any group or organization are defendants, and notice deemed reasonable by the Tribunal is given to all members of such group or organization of an opportunity to be heard if they submit themselves as defendants in the proceedings, the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which any such representative individuals may be convicted) that the group or organization of which such individual was a member was a criminal organization." But notice and opportunity to defend are indispensable to our reaching a result of conviction. PROFESSOR TRAININ. The duty of this Conference is to get completely clear ideas about what we intend to include in any particular paragraph, to have no doubts at all as to what a paragraph actually means, and the Soviet Delegation quotes article 10 as being an excellent example of good results from the collective work which has been put in and as an example of an article which sets forth clearly the views of all the delegations taking part. It is a model of what an article should be. The central point about article 10 is that the Soviet Delegation is in complete agreement with the fact that an organization may be declared criminal. We are fully in agreement on that point. And the second point in our view is that the organization shall be declared to be criminal following a. trial of individual members of that organization. Both these central facts are quite clearly expressed
fact that an organization may be declared criminal. We are fully in agreement on that point. And the second point in our view is that the organization shall be declared to be criminal following a. trial of individual members of that organization. Both these central facts are quite clearly expressed in article 10 as it is now. On the question of due notice of trial, that is a point which is to be discussed and suitable wording introduced when we come to the question of article 10. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYPE. Then on that basis, I think we can proceed. Has General Nikitchenko or anyone else any point on article 2? Article 3? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. In article 4, the Soviet Delegation points out that this question of the return of persons charged is essentially a matter between two countries, the country handing over the man and the country receiving him, and therefore suggest that after the words "shall establish" we include the words "by agreement with the country concerned" or "in agreement with the country concerned". SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I have no objection. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I have no objection except that I find this turnover of accused persons is a complicated question and think it would be a good thing to consider this further. I found at Salzburg that half a million people have come into that territory occupied by the American forces. They are being loaded on trucks, taken back to the Hungarian frontier, and turned over without any identification. A number of those people are wanted as common criminals. I am advised that they just load them first and let someone know they are coming. It is just impossible to screen all of them by agreement. On the other hand, you have the situation where there is a demand for Frank by the Czechoslovakian Government, and I think they ought to try him and perhaps we ought to, too. Now I think it is going to be utterly impracticable for my Government to deal with these thousands of cases from Washington through diplomatic channels. I think it must be done by delegation, within the framework of a certain policy to the Control Council to set up their procedures. You have the question of extradition from one control zone to the other; you
for my Government to deal with these thousands of cases from Washington through diplomatic channels. I think it must be done by delegation, within the framework of a certain policy to the Control Council to set up their procedures. You have the question of extradition from one control zone to the other; you have the question of extradition of prisoners of war or persons who are in custody; and you have the question of persons who are not in custody and would have to be apprehended by some process or other. You have cases where we have been asked to return people against whom, so far as we can see, no charge of crime is made whatsoever. They are questions to be faced, but a Foreign Office 3,000 miles away is in a very difficult position to pass upon them, and I don't know that we at this Conference want to undertake to set up formal agreements about them. I am willing to accept and pass for the moment the provision but with the explanation that that is something that ought to be, in my judgment, a governmental matter in the sense that the Government at Washington should set up the policy, but it ought to be in the bands of the Control Council to execute. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation points out that this article does not treat with the ordinary displaced persons, people taken away for labor, et cetera. It treats exclusively with the war criminals whose guilt is well known, and it is simply a question of arranging the procedure under which they shall be handled by trial in the place where their crimes were committed. It does not touch the ordinary run of criminals at all, and, when we are dealing with these war criminals who are well known to everybody and wanted by several individual countries, we consider it should be a matter of arrangement or agreement between the two governments, the one who holds him and the one receiving him, and it remains to be arranged between them. JUDGE FALCO. [not translated.] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Union once more points out that this has nothing to do with repatriation and only refers to war criminals. In this article we are not laying down any procedure; we are not deciding whether the procedure shall be established through diplomatic channels or the
FALCO. [not translated.] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Union once more points out that this has nothing to do with repatriation and only refers to war criminals. In this article we are not laying down any procedure; we are not deciding whether the procedure shall be established through diplomatic channels or the Control Council or by any other method; and it is quite open to any government which is concerned with war criminals whether the procedure should be done by simply informing their representative on the Control Council to carry it out or whether it should be done diplomatically or otherwise. One important thing is that the man has to be returned to the scene of his crime, and the government to receive him should decide upon the method. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. My difficulty is highlighted by what Judge Falco said. If these people are minor criminals to be returned to them, I have nothing to do with them. If they are major people, we are not returning them. We are trying them. Therefore, the article seems to me to be outside of our proper sphere, but I have no doubt that my Government will agree to establish procedures and has established them, and, as I have pointed out, they are in many cases functioning now. But I would like it clear what it is intended to represent. If it is intended to represent minor criminals to be returned to the scene, then I must reiterate it is not within my authority. I am a lawyer, not a diplomat, which is surely apparent to you by this time, if, indeed, I can claim to be the former. Only major criminals who are being tried are my concern. Therefore it seems that negotiations about others here are more likely to produce confusion than to lead to good results. PROFESSOR TRAININ. This matter is subject to considerable discussion. It has been discussed in preliminary meetings and in the committee. The Soviet Delegation is not going to repeat all the arguments that have been brought forward before, but as a result of those discussions this formula was agreed by the committee representing the general view, and as far as legal ground is concerned that legal ground is provided by the terms of the Moscow declaration. The Soviet Delegation considers that this article does
arguments that have been brought forward before, but as a result of those discussions this formula was agreed by the committee representing the general view, and as far as legal ground is concerned that legal ground is provided by the terms of the Moscow declaration. The Soviet Delegation considers that this article does represent the agreed views of the delegations as stated in the committee. It is for that reason that the Soviet Delegation points out that this article quite clearly represents the decision of the delegations. The American draft changes that. The proposal is only a matter of making it slightly more definite than it was. The Soviet Delegation is fully in accord with what Judge Jackson has said about this, and it is not suggested that this shall be a matter of diplomatic procedure and diplomatic exchange. We consider that in 99 percent of the cases the matter will be dealt with by the Control Council, but it is obvious that in handing over these people some sort of arrangement will have to be fixed-at what point, who is to receive them, and all that sort of detail work-and it is therefore necessary that the two parties, the one handing over and the one receiving, should mutually agree on those points. PROFESSOR GROS. In the first place article 4, as it stands, is as it has been set down by the subcommittee, and, in the second place, it just repeats a principle which is agreed and it must be read in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Moscow declaration. If you read article 4 and paragraph 2, you see there is no digression. If you take the agreement as it stands, I do not see any argument presented here. If we put in the sentence that is now suggested, we go a step further because we give more precise indication than given in paragraph 2 of the Moscow declaration, and I am afraid we are not actually entitled to do that as it is a matter of governments deciding the exact procedure. We would prefer to leave the question open. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Let me say this to make perfectly clear our position. The work of the drafting committee is purely tentative so far as we are concerned. We expressly made that provision when it was appointed, and we considered that any changes
We would prefer to leave the question open. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Let me say this to make perfectly clear our position. The work of the drafting committee is purely tentative so far as we are concerned. We expressly made that provision when it was appointed, and we considered that any changes any party wants to suggest to this are open to consideration. We are now considering a change in it, proposed by General Nikitchenko, which is that we add that these procedures are to be established by agreement of the governments involved. If that leads to what I would expect, representatives in Washington will immediately go to the State Department and say, "We want to make an agreement with you about the return of certain prisoners." I have advised that the State Department ought to lay down only general principles and refer specific instances to the Control Council. It has not been decided what will be done, but the Control Council is in frequent sessions, and they are in touch with this problem, and their procedure is likely to be very informal. You want a prisoner and General Kharkov will ask General Clay for the man. General Clay, I expect, will ask us whether we want him for the International Tribunal. If we say, "No, we have no Deed for him", I expect he will say that he will be in such a train at such a time and you may take him over at such a point. I do not want to obligate my Government to enter into a series of agreements in Washington on that thing. It does not seem necessary. The good faith of the United States is pledged in the Moscow declaration. I am willing to say that the agreement we made once we reiterate, but I don't want to obligate the Government to make a series of treaties, and it is not within my commission to do so. That is my point. PROFESSOR TRAININ. I fully agree with the statement made by the American Delegation that the work of the committee is of preliminary character, and there is no possible objection to altering it in any way at the meetings of the Conference. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. May I suggest for the consideration of the Soviet Delegation Professor Gros' point that it has already been emphasized that this must be subject to