dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorised by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country or by any other person who may be specially authorised thereto by the Tribunal. Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (a) The Indictment shall be read in court. (b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty". (c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement. (d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defence what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (e) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any Defendant, at any time. The prosecution and the defence shall interrogate and may cross-examine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (g) The defence shall address the court. (h) The prosecution shall address the court. (i) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (j) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, Russian and French, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of justice and public opinion. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Article 26. The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall be motivated by the reasons supporting its findings and shall be final and not subject to review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant on conviction, death or such other punishment (including imposition of a pecuniary fine) as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to
review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant on conviction, death or such other punishment (including imposition of a pecuniary fine) as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which 7 in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 15 of this Charter, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. EXPENSES Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council. 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
Redraft of Soviet Definition of "Crimes" (Article 6), Submitted by British Delegation, July 23,1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
23rd July 1945
9.45
The following acts or designs or attempts at any of them shall be deemed crimes on conviction of which punishment may be imposed by the Tribunal upon any person who is proved to have in any capacity whatever directed or participated in the preparation or planning for or carrying out of any or all of such acts designs or attempts:
(a) Aggression against or domination over other nations carried out by the European Axis Powers in violation of treaties, agreements and assurances
(b) Atrocities against civilian populations including (inter alia) murder and ill-treatment of civilians and deportation of civilians to slave labour, and persecutions on racial or religious grounds where such persecutions were inflicted in pursuance of the aggression or domination referred to in paragraph (a) above
(c) Violations of the laws rules and customs of war. Such violations shall include (inter alia) murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the atrocities referred to in paragraph (b) above when committed against the civilian populations of conquered or occupied countries, the wanton destruction of towns and villages, and plunder.
Any person who is proved to have in any capacity whatever directed or participated in the preparation for or carrying out of any of the acts designs or attempts referred to in (a) (b) and (c) above shall be personally answerable therefor and for each and every violation of international law, of the laws of humanity and of the dictates of the public conscience committed in the course of carrying out the said acts designs or attempts or any of them by the forces and authorities whether armed civilian or otherwise in the service of any of the European Axis Powers.
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
dictates of the public conscience committed in the course of carrying out the said acts designs or attempts or any of them by the forces and authorities whether armed civilian or otherwise in the service of any of the European Axis Powers. 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 24, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
The Conference was called to order by the Attorney-General and at once took up the redraft submitted by the British of article 6 [XLVII].
PROFESSOR GROS. I have nothing to say on the material. It seems to me everything has been discussed. Now, as to drafting, naturally it is a question of general approach to the problem of drafting for an international conference. I don't know whether, when you put in for example, "murder and ill-treatment of civilians" it helps the difficulty. The fact that you are obliged to say "including (inter alia)" proves that it is only an illustration, and it makes the text a little heavy. But it is only a question of drafting. I do accept it with one or two verbal amendments.
I have one remark on (b), where we appear as wanting to prosecute because of racial or religious treatments only because they were connected with the war. I know it was very clearly explained at the last session by Mr. Justice Jackson that we are in fact prosecuting those crimes only for that reason, but for the last century there have been many interventions for humanitarian reasons. All countries have interfered in affairs of other countries to defend minorities who were being persecuted. Perhaps it is only a question of wording perhaps if we could avoid to appear as making the principle that those interventions are only justified because of the connection with aggressive war, it would not change your intention, Mr. Justice Jackson, and it would not be so exclusive of the other intervention that has taken place in the last century.
perhaps if we could avoid to appear as making the principle that those interventions are only justified because of the connection with aggressive war, it would not change your intention, Mr. Justice Jackson, and it would not be so exclusive of the other intervention that has taken place in the last century.
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation considers that in general this proposal of article 6 is quite acceptable. It takes into consideration views expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson that we should state such and such actions are considered crimes, and that at the same time in the end it gives a certain amount of prominence to individual responsibility and the responsibility not only of the persons who had carried out the crimes but also of the persons who had participated in those crimes. Of course there may be some alterations of drafting, as for instance in the first paragraph, where it is stated that "on conviction of which punishment may be" inflicted upon any person who has been proved, et cetera, while at the end practically the same is repeated, "any person . . . 11. Perhaps it would be better to cross it out in the first paragraph and just leave it as it is in the end. If we come to the question of drafting, then perhaps we could make some suggestions on that score.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I have not had the time that I would like to give to studying a thing that is as technical as this. We are trying to embody a great deal in a very small space, and accuracy is quite essential. Of course it leaves out entirely our (b) as it was reported by the drafting committee [XXV]. And it does seem to me that it leaves it very doubtful, at least arguable, whether we have included the "common plan" or "enterprise" idea. I think probably it was the intention to do so, but I think it makes it more doubtful than it ought to be.
by the drafting committee [XXV]. And it does seem to me that it leaves it very doubtful, at least arguable, whether we have included the "common plan" or "enterprise" idea. I think probably it was the intention to do so, but I think it makes it more doubtful than it ought to be.
In paragraph (a) it seems to me that the words "carried out by the European Axis Powers" should come out of the definition because, as I said yesterday, if it is a crime for Germany to do this, it would be a crime for the United States to do it. I don't think we can define crimes to be such because of the particular parties who committed the acts, but for the purpose of meeting General Nikitchenko's suggestion that we are only supposed to deal with the Axis powers, we could in the opening paragraph state that this Tribunal has jurisdiction only over those who carried out these crimes on behalf of the Axis powers so that we could keep the idea of a limitation, but not in the definition. Other than that I should like to reserve comment until I have studied it a little further.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. With regard to Professor Gros' point about the prosecution on racial and religious grounds, I thought that this was the general view that we had accepted yesterday, that they were to be limited to those carried out in pursuance of aggression and domination mentioned in point (a). The heads of delegations remember that I took the contrast between a Nazi chastising a Jew before the war and the systematic persecution of the Jews in order to carry out the Nazi plan, and that is the sort of contrast that I tried to get in the draft, but I am very pleased to consider any improvement.
remember that I took the contrast between a Nazi chastising a Jew before the war and the systematic persecution of the Jews in order to carry out the Nazi plan, and that is the sort of contrast that I tried to get in the draft, but I am very pleased to consider any improvement.
PROFESSOR GROS. I think that it puts on us an obligation to prove that those persecutions were inflicted in pursuit of aggression and that is a difficult burden because, even in the Nazi plan against the Jews, there is no apparent aggression against other nations. Paragraph (a) speaks of aggression over other nations; so it would be easy for German counsel to submit to the court that the Nazis' plan against the Jews is a purely internal matter without any relation whatsoever to aggression as the text stands.
against the Jews, there is no apparent aggression against other nations. Paragraph (a) speaks of aggression over other nations; so it would be easy for German counsel to submit to the court that the Nazis' plan against the Jews is a purely internal matter without any relation whatsoever to aggression as the text stands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. From what I have heard I think we shall be able to prove that. Take the anti-Jewish measures as an example. The anti-Jewish measures were a result of the orders of the Nazi leaders and not only the Nazi leaders but the Nazi government. It will not be very difficult for anyone to associate them with the general plan of aggression, but if Professor Gros will consider that point and suggest an improvement in the words I should be pleased to consider it. With regard to what General Nikitchenko said, I would be grateful for his general agreement and would appreciate suggestions. With regard to Mr. Justice Jackson's point, I had hoped that the "common plan" which was in the old 6 (d) was covered by the words "who is proved to have in any capacity whatever directed or participated in the preparation or planning for or carrying out of any . . . acts," and then in the last half of the last paragraph, which is Professor Gros' words-and to be responsible "for each and every violation of international law", et cetera, committed by the Axis powers. That means that, if anyone is shown to have participated in a plan to do (a), (b), or (c), or any of them, he is responsible for all acts in carrying it out. I hoped it had got the "common plan," idea adapted to this form.
of international law", et cetera, committed by the Axis powers. That means that, if anyone is shown to have participated in a plan to do (a), (b), or (c), or any of them, he is responsible for all acts in carrying it out. I hoped it had got the "common plan," idea adapted to this form.
With regard to the second point, I think the answer to Mr. Justice Jackson's anxiety is the Moscow declaration. And so long as we make clear that we are following the heads of state at Moscow, then I think it only a matter of words as to how we put it in. I think we should make it clear that we are carrying that out as given us by the heads of three states and in which the French are good enough to collaborate. Now what is the best step for dealing with this?
state at Moscow, then I think it only a matter of words as to how we put it in. I think we should make it clear that we are carrying that out as given us by the heads of three states and in which the French are good enough to collaborate. Now what is the best step for dealing with this?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I am willing to do most anything. We are still at several points of difference. If we are within drafting distance of each other, perhaps the next step is drafting. I would like to point out, on this common plan or enterprise, what I think is substantial difference between the American draft and your redraft. And with characteristic stubbornness I submit that ours is superior, if I may do so without offense. Under your draft, the last paragraph, any person who is proved to have participated in any capacity whatever in the carrying out of any of these acts shall be personally answerable therefor. Now that literally reaches millions of people whom our definition wasn't intended to reach. That would reach the private soldier who had no choice but to go where he was ordered; it would reach the farmer who may have accepted some slave labor on his farm at the height of the harvest; it would reach a great many people of that kind. If you notice, the emphasis in the American (d) is not that he did something that helped the government but that he entered in a common plan or enterprise aimed at these forbidden acts. Now that to my mind was the crime to reach. I think the difference is quite substantial. We are trying to reach by our "common plan or enterprise" device the planners, the zealots who put this thing across. We are trying not to confuse it with the people who in most countries have very little to do with the policies they are called upon to execute. And it seems to me that the emphasis should be on the planning level rather than on the mere fact that at some point one voluntarily or involuntarily, knowingly or unknowingly, participated in carrying it out.
have very little to do with the policies they are called upon to execute. And it seems to me that the emphasis should be on the planning level rather than on the mere fact that at some point one voluntarily or involuntarily, knowingly or unknowingly, participated in carrying it out.
PROFESSOR GROS. May I say that that was our intention and that was why we put in the French draft the words, "preparation" and "policy"; but I could support Mr. Justice Jackson fully on his observations because I can also see that our word "policy" might be vague. It certainly covers the planning irrespective of acts, designs, or attempts and covers much more than "plan" as it also covers execution.
In paragraphs (b) and (c) :we could cover more than the instigators as it stands here. I suggest "took part in a plan to further", but I don't know whether we could come back to that draft.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is the only observation I had that occurs to me at the moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I wonder whether this would commend itself to the Conference. I find that, if we start conversational suggestions on drafting, we are apt to get wide of the points. If the delegations would put their suggestions in writing, we could deal with this line by line. If we refer it to the drafting committee, they may not realize on how many points we agreed.
PROFESSOR GROS. I think the ideas on which we insisted are included in the draft, and it is essentially a question of wording; so I would certainly be quite happy to accept anything in accordance with Mr. Justice Jackson's or General Nikitchenko's desires.
I present first the French and Soviet draft, and in consequence I accept the British as it would be amended to give satisfaction to the other delegations, but I don't like to work on a draft which is not ours and to put modifications on it, as I don't think that is fair.
desires. I present first the French and Soviet draft, and in consequence I accept the British as it would be amended to give satisfaction to the other delegations, but I don't like to work on a draft which is not ours and to put modifications on it, as I don't think that is fair.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. The difficulty with that is that I would come back close to the draft we suggested because I did a great deal of work on definitions and it was the best we could do; and this redraft leaves out the launching of aggressive war, which is a subject of great interest to us. Secretary Stimson, who was at one time Secretary of State and is now Secretary of War, has persuasively contended that the German war was illegal in its inception and that therefore the United States was justified in departing from the strict rules of neutrality. While I shall submit, as I have no alternative by reason of being outvoted on it, I would not abandon that proposal. I would return to the "common act or enterprise" language, or "policy" in place of "enterprise", which would bring us about back to our definition, except in the opening, about which Professor Gros is quite right; our draft is defective, in failing to put emphasis on individual responsibility. I repeat that we shall be making a mistake if we don't put in some provision which so limits aggression as to prevent a general litigation of the causes of war. Those would be the things I would put in, and they have all been passed on adversely by the Conference. I don't want to be unduly persistent about it.
that we shall be making a mistake if we don't put in some provision which so limits aggression as to prevent a general litigation of the causes of war. Those would be the things I would put in, and they have all been passed on adversely by the Conference. I don't want to be unduly persistent about it.
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We are trying here to work out the common article which would be acceptable to the four delegations present here. It is very probable that, if the Soviet Delegation had to work out an article 6 just for itself, it would look quite a bit different from what it looks now. We accepted the French proposal as a basis because we thought we could come to an agreement on that, and we thought we could work out our own idea on the French text. Then, as that has proved unacceptable as the proposal which we hoped would form a basis for an agreement, it is quite possible that this text as it stands will not satisfy in its entirety all the delegations. But perhaps it is the best compromise that can be reached. If the chairman says we must work on a new text again and on a redraft of this text, I think we shall be back where we started three weeks ago. That is why it seems to me this proposal should be taken by him as a basis. We could make alterations, of course, but it should expedite matters. It would seem better to take this as a basis and just have certain drafting changes. We do not intend to submit a new text. We just have a few drafting corrections or alterations.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I hope we shall be able to work that out, if the delegations will try to let me have any alterations to this text as soon as they can.
The other matter is paragraph 22, which Mr. Justice Jackson suggested last night-the address and administrative headquarters.
or alterations. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I hope we shall be able to work that out, if the delegations will try to let me have any alterations to this text as soon as they can. The other matter is paragraph 22, which Mr. Justice Jackson suggested last night-the address and administrative headquarters.
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Perhaps we could shorten this text a bit and, rather than go back to the one that was proposed by the drafting committee, say as follows: "The administrative headquarters of the Tribunal and its secretariat shall be located in Berlin. The first meeting of the judges and of the Chief Prosecutors shall take place in Berlin. The first trial shall take place in Nurnberg and subsequent trials" et cetera. We could leave out for the time being the word Nurnberg, as we said we are waiting for a reply on that score. As for the fact that records should be lodged there permanently, it seems unnecessary to mention it in the charter. Probably if the secretariat is to be in Berlin, the records will also be kept there.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. We understand that the Soviet Delegation is waiting for instructions on Nurnberg, and we hope that they will come.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. There is only one addition, "is located and that the location in Berlin shall be determined by the Control Council."
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We are quite agreed that the Control Council is supposed to do that,, but perhaps it is a question of finding a building in Berlin, and is it necessary to put details of that sort in the charter?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. You see somebody has to do it right away if space is going to be available, and, if the Control Council is to be asked to do it, they will make the effort. If not, we are going to be so long getting it done. I am just anxious to get this thing done. That is my point about it.
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Perhaps we could then say, "The first meeting of the judges and of the Chief Prosecutors shall also take place in Berlin in a place to be determined by the Control Council."