dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
by the prosecution. That is the whole point, simply to say the Tribunal itself will consider their value on receipt of them just as they will value any evidence introduced or entered in the prosecution. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Could we have that suggestion again? MR. TROYANOVSKY ". ... . . shall be received in evidence by the Tribunal and given such probative value as the Tribunal shall decide." PROFESSOR TRAININ. The chairman pointed out in the beginning that this article is important. Therefore why change it? As it stands, it is quite clear. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I thought it was not clear and we were trying to clarify it. PROFESSOR TRAININ. Of course, what value would the documents have if they have no value I And therefore every document which is presented to the Tribunal has sufficient value to be considered. Then the Tribunal would consider what the value is, to say whether they are of sufficient evidence or not. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. That was what my words were trying to make clear-that they will be received in evidence and then the Tribunal will attach the value. Or they would have the same probative value as the acts of the committee. MR. ALDERMAN. We never decided what probative value those acts would have. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Just as indefinite, but equal with the documents. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. The difficulty with this provision, as I see it, is that after all we must have words here that mean something before us. To me this is like making a promise that is bound to be broken. We cannot say it has the same value as something having no value, without leaving ourselves open to suspicion. We all agree that an indictment has no probative value and to say that the War Crimes Commission's report shall have the same probative value, or the same value as something that has no probative value, is a use of English that I don't know how we could ever explain to our profession. I couldn't. What we need here is a provision that the documents prepared by the War Crimes Commission and the Extraordinary Commission of Russia-and I think we should also include other tribunal records of other trials-should be admissible as evidence in this case and that their weight is to be determined by the Tribunal. MR. TROYANOVSKY. The Russian
the documents prepared by the War Crimes Commission and the Extraordinary Commission of Russia-and I think we should also include other tribunal records of other trials-should be admissible as evidence in this case and that their weight is to be determined by the Tribunal. MR. TROYANOVSKY. The Russian term here is "judicial value". MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Once anything is accepted in evidence the weight then becomes a question for the Tribunal. These things should be admitted in evidence, and we should make provision f or other documents which were included in our other draft. For instance, we have reason to believe that Frank will be tried, and a great deal of evidence will be brought out in that trial that will be of value. I think that record should be admissible before the International Tribunal. Sin DAVID MAXWELL F=. It seems to me there are two points first, to see that they will be received in evidence by the Tribunal, which implies the Tribunal will attach the value; and secondly, we should include, as Mr. Justice Jackson suggests, the records of trials that have already taken place. Is there any objection to the second, regarding the inclusion of records of trials which have taken place? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No objection. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,. And the other documents mentioned in our list we want to make it as broad as possible in getting documents in. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I think we ought to see a redraft and see it tomorrow morning. Should we? PROFESSOR GROS. Could I suggest it could be included in article 21? MR. ALDERMAN. It belongs to "judicial notice" really. Sip, DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Now we come to the question of where the trial is to take place. I understand Mr. Justice Jackson has just made a tour in Germany. Perhaps he could tell us about the results of it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. There is not much to report. There are very few courthouses standing large enough to assemble very many people in. General Clay suggested that the most suitable place for a trial is Nurnberg. We went there and looked at the premises. The courtroom is not as large as it ought to be, perhaps, but it is larger than any other courtroom standing in that part of the country, or any other part that we can find out about, and the
the most suitable place for a trial is Nurnberg. We went there and looked at the premises. The courtroom is not as large as it ought to be, perhaps, but it is larger than any other courtroom standing in that part of the country, or any other part that we can find out about, and the jail facilities are very adequate; in fact, 1,200 people could be jailed there. There is a tunnel from the jail to the courthouse. The whole is enclosed by a 20 foot wall, which means that from a security point of view it would be an excellent setup. There is adequate office space for everybody and that in the building in which the courtroom is located. Adequate communication systems can be set up. Adequate billeting for witnesses, for all of the counsel and their staffs, and all of those things can be provided for. Of course they will be if that is the place chosen. That is by far the most suitable place we could find, and that would be our suggestion. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I think it is hardly possible for us to decide now where the sittings of the Tribunal will take place permanently. The cases may be heard in various places, and I do not think that it enters into our task either. The idea of this article 23 is simply to establish the principle of the places that would be selected for the Tribunal, and it is said here, "such other place as the Signatories may agree." What is important is what will be the center of the Tribunal where all the documents of which we have been speaking, documents of the national commissions and so on, should be directed, and it is our view that that place where the actual center of the Tribunal should exist must be Berlin. As far as the sittings are concerned, it would be quite sufficient to say that the Tribunal should sit at such a place as the signatories may agree. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It seems to me that, if we are going to stick to our hopes that we shall get a trial in September-I think we all agreed that was worth trying to do-we must fix a place for the first trial almost right away. The arrangements will be very considerable. We have to find accommodations not only for the judges, counsel, and defendants, but also for the press. That will mean all the communications, arranging for airplanes, motor cars,
that was worth trying to do-we must fix a place for the first trial almost right away. The arrangements will be very considerable. We have to find accommodations not only for the judges, counsel, and defendants, but also for the press. That will mean all the communications, arranging for airplanes, motor cars, and the like, and I should have thought we ought to agree for the first trial. How extensive that will be will, of course, depend upon the agreement of those ultimately appointed prosecutors. Certainly as far as accommodations are concerned, Nurnberg seems very suitable, and it could be almost immediately used as a center for collecting the evidence. I should very much like to impress on the delegations the suitability of Nurnberg for the first trial and then leave the wording we have here "such other place as the Signatories may agree." After we agree on a place, I am told by General Bridgeman, who advised me on the matter, it will take six weeks or two months to arrange. If we don't agree, we are really stultified about the trial coming on before October. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Does it mean that, if the first sitting of the Tribunal takes place at Nurnberg, the center of operation of the Tribunal, which will be of vast importance, will remain permanently in Nurnberg? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I should think that for the moment it was necessary to decide only for the first trial. After that, it would be for the prosecutors to arrange it. GENERAL N1KITCHENK0. I think the question should be divided into two parts; namely, one is the question of where the Tribunal shall sit, and the second question is of the place of its permanent seat. And as to the second, the official seat, the Soviet Delegation are in favor of Berlin. Geographically, we think it much more central than Nurnberg. Second, Berlin is much more convenient as that is the seat of the Allied Control Council and the Allied Control Council have all the arrangements and personnel at their disposal and can be very helpful to the Tribunal in many ways in various facilities which win be required by the Tribunal. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I have never thought of this as a permanent tribunal. I have never given thought to a permanent seat for it, and we do
and personnel at their disposal and can be very helpful to the Tribunal in many ways in various facilities which win be required by the Tribunal. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I have never thought of this as a permanent tribunal. I have never given thought to a permanent seat for it, and we do not contemplate it. The whole American plan which was proposed here was designed to reach a very large number of people at a single trial or at most, perhaps, a very few trials. That is the reason we have tried to reach people through organizations. We have not thought of it as a trial of 15 or 30 people, but we have thought of it as a trial the result of which would affect thousands of people at least. I must say that if you contemplate reaching any such number of people by any other method, if you contemplate a court going on circuit, as we would say, and sitting for an indefinite period of time, that has not been the way we have thought of this at all. Therefore, we contemplate cleaning up most of this in a single trial. That is the heart of the American plan. That is the only thing that I know of that commends it, that it does have reach and scope by which to reach many people through few trials and to reject it is to reject the entire heart of the American plan. I do not insist it be adopted, but, if it is not, we must reconstruct our entire plan of handling this matter. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I don't quite understand what is meant by that. Is it meant that the Tribunal will actually be able to condemn thousands and thousands of people, not really to condemn but simply to reach their guilt? I thought that the Tribunal would deal with the cases only of the principal criminals. As far as I understand, there are about 350 principal war criminals in the hands of the United States :11one and then the other countries have large numbers of them as well, and therefore, it seems to be quite impossible to try them all. There may be 500 or more at once. I thought that principal criminals would be divided into groups, say, for instance, a separate case for the leaders 1)f the Nazi Party and a separate case for members of the Gestapo, and so on, and each of those big groups may be subdivided into smaller groups which are linked
may be 500 or more at once. I thought that principal criminals would be divided into groups, say, for instance, a separate case for the leaders 1)f the Nazi Party and a separate case for members of the Gestapo, and so on, and each of those big groups may be subdivided into smaller groups which are linked with each other. It seems to me that in this we are faced with a number of separate cases and not with one or two. The agreement is supposed to be concluded for a year. It may be that the actual trying of all those trials will take less than a year, but anyway it will take considerable time-enough time to necessitate having a seat for the Tribunal, but the actual hearings of the cases may take place in other places as well. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. What would be at the central seat? A court in my conception of it has no organization except a clerk to keep its records and a little staff of officers. These prisoners are in the hands of our military authorities, who would be responsible for their custody and protection. The court would have no permanent organization that I would know of beyond its records, which should be lodged with each of the governments involved. I don't know just what is contemplated by "seat of the court" as distinguished from the place where it would conduct the trial. SIR DAVII) MAXWELL FYFE. We have been sitting for three hours and have got to a very knotty point. It seems it might be worth our adjourning and considering this before our next meeting. The Conference adjourned until Wednesday, July 18, 1945, at 10: 30 a.m. Source: International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 International organization and conference series; II European and British Commonwealth 1 Department of State Publication 3080 Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Minutes of Conference Session of July 18, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document Sir David Maxwell Fyfe called the meeting to order. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Before we get into a discussion of abstract things, I should like to suggest something very concrete. The matter of a place for trial, as I have said before, is very important to settle, at least as to the first trial, because a great deal has to be done by way of providing facilities wherever it occurs. Whoever is to be responsible for it wants to begin preparation. I have examined the facilities at Nurnberg, and, while I do not think they are perfect, I think they do meet our needs better than, anything that is available in Germany from a survey that our officers have made. It is very important that we get these prisoners in one place, and that we get them where they will be accessible to our people for interrogation. They are not now in any one place, and it is very important that we get selected the ones we want to interrogate. It takes some provision of facilities to do that. If we use Nurnberg, the courthouse heating plant must be put in shape as it was knocked out by bombing. Communications must be arranged. Proper billeting and proper mess must be arranged. We all want to be adequately fed. Creature comforts are something I do not despise. So I make this suggestion about it. We have available a plane assigned to our work. I should be very glad to invite the Representatives of the three collaborating countries to go with us to Nurnberg. It is not a long trip. I should like you to inspect the jail facilities, the courtroom, and the billeting places, and generally help contribute ideas as to what should be done if that is to be used. And if we find that it does not meet the requirements, then we will know it. But I think it is very important that we get some place selected. I would suggest, if it is agreeable, that we can be prepared to leave early on Saturday morning. We can get back here on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Suitable accommodations can be provided meanwhile. There is no difficulty about arranging the physical facilities for the trip, and I should be glad to extend the
agreeable, that we can be prepared to leave early on Saturday morning. We can get back here on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Suitable accommodations can be provided meanwhile. There is no difficulty about arranging the physical facilities for the trip, and I should be glad to extend the invitation in the interest of getting this thing expedited as much as possible. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I am very grateful to you f or the invitation. I shall be very pleased to accept and have a look at the physical conditions in Nurnberg to see whether they are satisfactory. There are really two points that Mr. Justice Jackson's proposal deals with, the physical requirements of the trial and the ability of Nurnberg to seat them. That point should obviously be satisfied, and I should be very pleased to go and help to decide that point. The second aspect, of course, is whether the delegations can accept in principle the subject of the physical capabilities of Nurnberg, the question of a first trial there of the outstanding and well-known war criminals. Yesterday the Soviet Delegation said that the condition of that, which they were anxious to see, was that there would be what was called a secretariat of the Tribunal in Berlin. I think we might clarify that to this extent: that there would be a secretariat and administrative office of the Tribunal in Berlin, that the indictment would be delivered there, and that at that time there would be a conference for Chiefs of Counsel in Berlin. Then if that were put on the other side of the ledger, so to speak, it might be that the Soviet Delegation would accept, subject to the physical capabilities, the idea of the first trial of the outstanding war criminals at Nurnberg. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The arguments advanced by Mr. Justice Jackson yesterday regarding the seat of the first trial to be held in Nurnberg seem to be convincing, and there would be no objection from the Soviet Delegation to that first trial being in Nurnberg. They will be prepared to recommend to their Government to take part in the near future in the preparation of that first trial. The permanent headquarters thereof-where the court and the secretariat and administrative offices should be settled-is
from the Soviet Delegation to that first trial being in Nurnberg. They will be prepared to recommend to their Government to take part in the near future in the preparation of that first trial. The permanent headquarters thereof-where the court and the secretariat and administrative offices should be settled-is another matter, and they still consider it would be better to have the permanent seat of the court at Berlin. That would be the place where the signatories to the agreement would be convened, and preparation for later trials would be organized and staged. Summing up the views, Berlin would be a more suitable place for the permanent headquarters, but we would be agreeable to staging the first trial in Nurnberg, later trials to be at the permanent seat or to be decided later. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Do any of the delegations care to take a look at the Nurnberg site over the week-end? GENERAL NIIKITCHENKO. We would be glad to take advantage of the kind invitation extended by Mr. Justice Jackson. JUDGE FALCO. We accept and will go. Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. That will enable us to see what is needed to be done in order to make it adequate so that work can be started because the heating plant and things like that must be fixed and the plants are out of commission now. It would take some time in order to get them equipped. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The cold weather will hardly set in before the time for the first trial comes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I hope General Nikitchenko is right, but I think we may like a little heat in the mornings. I shall let you know about the details of time and place, but subject to weather we can set it up for Saturday morning early so that we can reach Nurnberg at a convenient time for lunch. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Perhaps the best thing would be to leave number 23 for a redraft to carry out what we agree and proceed to the rest of the agreement. I-lave the Soviet Delegation had a chance to consider Mr. Alderman's redraft of 21 and 22, or shall we leave that for later in the day? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No, we have just received it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Then we shall leave that until later when you have had a chance to consider it. Now, number 24. 1 think, Mr. Troyanovsky, that General
to consider Mr. Alderman's redraft of 21 and 22, or shall we leave that for later in the day? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No, we have just received it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Then we shall leave that until later when you have had a chance to consider it. Now, number 24. 1 think, Mr. Troyanovsky, that General Nikitchenko said that he accepted 24 subject to a point. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The basic principle of 24 is acceptable to the Soviet Delegation, but we propose for subparagraph (e) "The court, the prosecution, and the defense shall interrogate the accused and the witnesses. The Tribunal may at any time put any question to the defendants and the witnesses." MR. ALDERMAN. That is in (f) now as it stands. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Just add in (f) "at any time". SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It seems to me that the difference between us is on the production of the witness. The court is in supreme control as to what will happen when a witness is called, but our conception is that, when the witness is called, the party calling him will ask him questions to bring out the purpose for which he is called, which will be explained to the Tribunal. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We agree that any witnesses who are summoned or called up for questioning by a particular side shall on the first case be questioned by that party. MR. ALDERMAN. May I suggest that that formula leaves out entirely the idea of cross-examination? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. That is, to leave the second part of subparagraph (e) intact. The amendment really affects the first part. Leave (e) as it stands, but add the introductory phrase. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. As I understood from yesterday, the Soviet Delegation do not mean to insist that the defendant must answer the question. If he does not want to answer, the position is as we discussed it yesterday. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I think that on that basis it does not conflict with our ideas that the defendant may be interrogated. PROFESSOR GROS. I am not quite clear on the point of when the defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty" as nothing appears in the agreement. Did we decide on the rules, or should it be discussed here? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It is a question
with our ideas that the defendant may be interrogated. PROFESSOR GROS. I am not quite clear on the point of when the defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty" as nothing appears in the agreement. Did we decide on the rules, or should it be discussed here? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It is a question of the rules, Professor Gros, because it varies from case to case. Sometimes, in sitting as a judge, one is quite content with the statement from the prosecutor when the defendant has pleaded "not guilty". I should think it is a matter for the Tribunal. MR. ALDERMAN. I might say that with this there is only one possible consequence of a plea of "guilty" and that is that a man is convicted on his own plea regardless of evidence. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Hasn't the judge the right to ask the prosecution to call any witnesses in order to explain on the question of punishment? Mr. ALDERMAN. On the question of punishment, yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Then number 25, the question of languages. Has anyone any point on that? Number 26? PROFESSOR TRAININ. In regard to rights of the defense and the prosecution-no article says they take any part. Therefore, I propose to submit two articles, one regarding the prosecution and one regarding the defense. Nothing has been said so far regarding the prosecution, defining the functions of prosecution. The first sentence in this proposed article reads, "One or several prosecutors shall take part in each trial. This function may be fulfilled by the Chief Prosecutors or by other persons authorized by them." Now for the defense: "The defense may act at the request of the defendant. Function of counsel for the defense may be discharged at the request of the defendants by persons who are members of the bar, or by other persons authorized thereto by the Tribunal." Those two articles are regarded as necessary to make the statute complete. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I have no objection to the contents. Perhaps we could just have a look at the drafting and bring it up with the other reserved matters, but I see no objection. MR. ALDERMAN. It seems to me the first one is covered already by article 15 (2) (d) and (e). PROFESSOR TRAININ. That rather stipulates or defines the