dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
complete understanding. We, in the United States, try issues in courts that are somewhat appalling to other peoples in the length of our trials and the scope of our questions, and I have had some experience trying them. But this trial has a scope that is utterly beyond anything that ever has been attempted that I know of, in judicial history, and we must attempt to do it in four languages. I have been having a great deal to do with the preparation of the case for trial. This book, in my hand, of over a hundred pages, for example, is a mere outline, mere index, setting forth the documents in the case against Hermann Goering. It involves a decade of time. It involves operations, almost daily operations, which we could classify as criminal under any definition. Now if that has to be translated into four languages and then be the subject of examination in court, we are undertaking here a tremendous task and our professional reputations are at stake. I just tremble at the thought of not having this procedure clear and simple and somewhat mechanical, if I may say so. The fact is it is and should be mechanical, requiring the prosecution to exhaust its case and then the defense take up its case and exhaust it. That does not disturb me, but, if we get into trial with counsel jumping up at all times and no agreed order of procedure, we are going to have an impossible situation. I would much rather see us agree that the trial is impossible than to demonstrate that the trial is impossible. LORD CHANCELLOR. I think there is great force in that. This is going to be an extraordinarily lengthy business, but still we must do the best we can and by providing now that the witnesses for the prosecution shall be examined and then witnesses for the defense and then rebutting evidence don't we provide there clearly enough what the order is going to be? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think it is, so far as the witnesses are concerned, but I am wondering what our Soviet colleagues contemplate under (d). It puzzles me to understand it because in our practice the prosecution's opening statement is supposed to outline the case and give the court-and jury, of course-the information as
think it is, so far as the witnesses are concerned, but I am wondering what our Soviet colleagues contemplate under (d). It puzzles me to understand it because in our practice the prosecution's opening statement is supposed to outline the case and give the court-and jury, of course-the information as to what we propose to prove. Now when I am confronted with (d) and I think of the court saying to the prosecution, "Now, what evidence do you wish to submit to the Tribunal?" then I am confronted with reciting such a volume of stuff as to each of these defendants-much more than it is possible to have ready in an opening statement. It would take weeks of translations just to comply with (d) if you comply with it as I am afraid our Soviet colleagues think it should be complied with. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We understand that we have reached agreement as to the fact that before the trial a certain amount of evidence would be lodged with the Tribunal together with the indictment. Now, in the opening statement the prosecution would outline the main charges against defendants; then under paragraph (d) the prosecution would state to the Tribunal what new evidence they had, evidence not lodged with the indictment, or any witnesses; and the Tribunal would pass judgment on that, whether that evidence was considered necessary and whether it was relevant to the case. In order to avoid disorder in the court we have a provision saying that the Tribunal may put a stop to attempts to cause delay and also that it may forbid the defendant or his counsel to be present at one or more sessions if he behaves in a disorderly manner. As a matter of fact the chairman would direct the course of the trial and do everything in his power not to cause delay. Furthermore, we have agreed in order to avoid discussion at the trial that witnesses for the prosecution shall be examined before those for the defense and, in addition to that, any evidence may be offered in rebuttal. All that taken together would seem in our opinion to be quite sufficient to avoid delay. With all these provisions the Tribunal would be in a position to expedite the trial and avoid delay and disorder. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I am really fearful that we are getting
any evidence may be offered in rebuttal. All that taken together would seem in our opinion to be quite sufficient to avoid delay. With all these provisions the Tribunal would be in a position to expedite the trial and avoid delay and disorder. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I am really fearful that we are getting the delays of both systems into this trial. It will be impossible, I should say, if an indictment is to be a comprehensive statement of the evidence, to file it within anything like the time in which you, Lord Chancellor, or I would file the indictment in this case, because once the crimes are defined we could file an indictment within a very short time. It is a matter of specifying the charges. If we attempt the indictment with the particularity the Soviet system would require, it is a very considerable job, unless we are going to drop out of it a considerable amount of the case. Then, of course, reasonable time must elapse to give the defendants time to prepare. LORD CHANCELLOR. Still, on this clause you know, Mr. Justice Jackson, that I agree with all you say about the dangers of delay. But can we do better than to put in the new clause after (d), "The witnesses for the prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the defense and thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held admissible shall be called by either the prosecution or the defense"? Now haven't we provided for the order of things the article is attempting to do adequately? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I don't know that we can do better if we are going to try for joint trials and embody parts of all procedure in it. I am satisfied that the Soviet Government could take these prisoners and try them in much less time than we all can; and we could take them also and try them in much less time. But our effort to combine systems, particularly when you take the four-language requirement, results in a proceeding that is so cumbersome as to be almost unworkable and to raise grave questions as to whether we ought to provide for a formal trial-whether we ought to have a joint executive commission, merely bear charges against these people and call them for an explanation and not go into a trial-make this a political decision. I think my
as to be almost unworkable and to raise grave questions as to whether we ought to provide for a formal trial-whether we ought to have a joint executive commission, merely bear charges against these people and call them for an explanation and not go into a trial-make this a political decision. I think my worries are not more serious than the worries of the other delegations should be. We are all concerned equally. LORD CHANCELLOR. But still, as far as the clause is concerned, I think that if we put this new clause in after (d) we have got about as much as we can. Judge Falco, how do you feel about this? JUDGE FALCO. I agree with you. I find Judge Jackson is always optimistic. But I find him more pessimistic toward the end. LORD CHANCELLOR. Well, let us put in the new clause after (d). GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We would like to know what Mr. Justice Jackson has in view when he says each party should try the criminals independently. As a matter of fact, we come here authorized to sign an agreement for the establishment of an international military tribunal. We have no powers to sign an agreement saying we do not need an international military tribunal. LORD CHANCELLOR. No, I don't think Mr. Justice Jackson means that. He merely is pointing out what we have to bear in mind. Unless we are careful we may make a procedure which involves such long delays and uncertainties that it really becomes impractical, and we may be driven to separate trials. But we hope very much that that will not arise because it would be a bad thing before the world, after having declared we should have a joint trial, if we should now declare we are not going to have it. I don't think there is anything on article 25. Article 26-1 am in this trouble. I don't know what it means. It means-with the greatest respect, I think it means nothing. It reads, "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall be motivated by the reasons supporting its findings . . . . 11 Now that in the English language has no meaning, and, if my colleagues were to ask me what I meant by signing that, I should be obliged to say I didn't know. I think it means that the judgment of any tribunal as to guilt shall
by the reasons supporting its findings . . . . 11 Now that in the English language has no meaning, and, if my colleagues were to ask me what I meant by signing that, I should be obliged to say I didn't know. I think it means that the judgment of any tribunal as to guilt shall give the reasons upon which it is based and shall be final and not subject to review. If it means that, I would pray that in the English I might have it: "shall give the reason upon which it is based and shall be final and not subject to review". PROFESSOR TRAININ. This is actually what we have in Russian what you propose. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. As it stands, I would have to say I don't know what it means, but I would rely upon the Lord Chancellor's interpretation as a sensible one. LORD CHANCELLOR. Very well. Let that be altered. Now, gentlemen, we have got article 6. Shall we start it or leave off here? It would be very good if we could finish it. I shall have to leave in about 15 minutes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Perhaps in 15 minutes we might get something to think about. LORD CHANCELLOR. All right. Mr. Justice Jackson, you might tell us the difficulties in regard to article 6 which you have set out. MR, JUSTICE JACKSON. I think our difficulties were set forth in memoranda [LV]. Our difficulties with the draft which had been approved by the British and Soviet Delegations are before the delegates, and I have submitted an alternative which meets our criticism [LVI]. Perhaps it would save time, since everyone is probably familiar with those, if we would hear the criticisms of our counterproposal, or the criticisms of our criticisms. LORD CHANCELLOR. May I suggest that we look at your draft and take the first sentence first of all? So this is what the new draft says: "The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof shall have power and jurisdiction to try and determine charges of crime against individuals who and organizations which acted in aid of the European Axis Powers and to impose punishment on those found guilty." GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. As for the body of this article, paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), we have only one or two very minor drafting objections. But as for the first paragraph, we think that
and organizations which acted in aid of the European Axis Powers and to impose punishment on those found guilty." GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. As for the body of this article, paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), we have only one or two very minor drafting objections. But as for the first paragraph, we think that it could be made more precise. It seems to us that these words, "acted in aid", are rather indefinite and liable to misunderstanding. We might not reach the actual persons who organized and carried out the crimes, and that is why we would propose to follow this formula for the first paragraph: "The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis Powers, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes." Then we could repeat, "The following-" LORD CHANCELLOR. I would be prepared to accept that. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It sounds all right to me. JUDGE FALCO. We agree. LORD CHANCELLOR. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)-what alterations do you want? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. In all three articles we propose to leave out the headings, "The Crime of War" and other titles. The crime of war is, to be more precise, "the crime against peace", and we think the titles complicate things. We could just say "planning, initiating", et cetera, and then also say not of "any" international, but of "war in violation of international treaties". LORD CHANCELLOR. Leave out "any" and-? MR. TROYANOVSKY. And leave the general treaty for the renunciation of war. LORD CHANCELLOR. I thought it rather convenient to have it in, but I don't think it matters a bit. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We don't think that of great importance either. PROFESSOR TRAININ. We think that from a theoretical point of view these titles are welcome, but to put them in a I aw would perhaps make it too vague. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think it is a very convenient designation. I may say it was suggested to me by an eminent scholar of international law. It would be a very convenient classification, and I think it would help
but to put them in a I aw would perhaps make it too vague. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think it is a very convenient designation. I may say it was suggested to me by an eminent scholar of international law. It would be a very convenient classification, and I think it would help the public understanding of what the difference is. LORD CHANCELLOR. I think Professor Trainin's book treats aggression not as the crime of war but as a crime against peace, and I do think that if you do have a nomenclature it would be well to have a nomenclature that comes from his book, and instead of calling it 49crime of war", call it "crime against peace". I myself prefer to keep the nomenclature but to substitute for the "crime of war" the "crime against peace". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We have no objections to that. Take out the word "any" and the reference to the general treaty. LORD CHANCELLOR. That is all right with me. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I don't think that is very serious impairment of the definition. LORD CHANCELLOR. Then let us take (b). GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. In this paragraph the words "but not be limited to" in our translation are very strange. I think they should be dropped and we should add "or deportation". MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. The difficulty is in our rules for interpretation of statutes, and you will have at least one judge on the Tribunal who is accustomed to that interpretation. If you name a general category and then go on to specify, you are limited to your specifications. I would be quite willing to have it in translation in any way it makes sense to you, but I think it is quite important that you do make clear that the specifications are not the only things that you are reaching, because some of these crimes are quite unique and are not covered perhaps by general definition. Now, the deportation to slave labor-The reason I dropped "deportation to slave labor" was that there are other deportations that are just as objectionable as slave labor from my point of view, for example, deportations to compulsory prostitution, deportations just to get people out of the way to take their land, or deportations to concentration camps. It seemed to me that we limited the deportations. I would
that are just as objectionable as slave labor from my point of view, for example, deportations to compulsory prostitution, deportations just to get people out of the way to take their land, or deportations to concentration camps. It seemed to me that we limited the deportations. I would be quite willing to say "deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The words "but not be limited to" are not very important really to us. If you don't mind, we could drop them and I would in our translation say "and other crimes". As for your suggestion, "to slave labor and f or any other purposes", that is all right. LORD CHANCELLOR. I am afraid I must go to rehearse my part in the proceedings of the House of Lords at the opening of Parliament. Would you like to go on? You are so near agreement. If you want me to come again, I could be available this afternoon about 5: 30 or tomorrow at 2: 30; or perhaps, if the Attorney-General could go on representing us, you could get finished here. The Lord Chancellor left and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe took the chair. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We have just two more words here. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. "Deportations to slave labor or for any other purpose"--and that is article (b). Article (c). GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Could we say "in order to accomplish" or something like that instead of "furtherance"? JUDGE FALCO. I suggest "in execution". Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. Is there objection in connection with that? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. All agreed on "execution of"? What about the concluding paragraph? Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. This concluding paragraph would take the place of article 9. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Article 9 is "organizers", and we go further now and say that they are not merely equal and responsible but are responsible for the acts of other persons. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think we shall have to do that in order to reach some of these things. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The only difference between the new draft and the old is that the new draft makes the point which Mr. Justice Jackson raises in the end of the discussion in his paper that we want to get to the leaders as well as to the rank and file. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Could we say here also
things. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The only difference between the new draft and the old is that the new draft makes the point which Mr. Justice Jackson raises in the end of the discussion in his paper that we want to get to the leaders as well as to the rank and file. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Could we say here also "execution" instead of "furtherance"? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. That only leaves article 22. It is the one for which the Soviet Delegation had told us they would recommend Nurnberg, and were awaiting instructions. Is there any word? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We are prepared to agree to the first trial at Nurnberg, but we would like it considered that the administrative headquarters and the first meetings of the Tribunal and the prosecutors shall also take place in Berlin at a place to be designated by the Control Council. The first trial shall be held in Nurnberg and subsequent trials as , we had it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is the language we did agree on. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. "The Tribunal shall be located in Berlin-" MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We don't see just what you mean, as it is interpreted, in saying that "the Tribunal shall be located in Berlin" when it is going to sit elsewhere. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We specify that the first trial would be in Nurnberg and subsequent trials in other places and that only the first meeting would take place in Berlin; so it does not limit us in any way. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I agree, but I don't understand just how we can use the words "located in Berlin" if the judges are sitting in Nurnberg and other places. Perhaps we have a different idea. PROFESSOR TRAININ. Because we do say that only the first meeting would take place there and we do say that the first trial would be in Nurnberg and subsequent trials in other cities, it seems to us that in Russian it would be quite clear that its permanent seat-its address would be Berlin. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. If you use "permanent seat", that would make clear that that is equivalent in our understanding to "headquarters". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Yes, the permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be at Berlin. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We seem to have cleared up all points of difference now, and we need, next, to get the agreement in
"permanent seat", that would make clear that that is equivalent in our understanding to "headquarters". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Yes, the permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be at Berlin. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We seem to have cleared up all points of difference now, and we need, next, to get the agreement in three languages so that we can execute it. SIR THOMAS BARNES. Would it be best to have it run out as altered and checked by each delegation before it is translated? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We have the technical work to do, and also in article 6 we took it upon our own personal responsibility to agree to Mr. Justice Jackson's proposal. We still have to receive instructions on that score. Until we get the instructions, we could get going with the technical work of looking through the text. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. May I ask when you would expect instructions? I have been called to France and would not get back until Sunday night. Would you expect to be in a position to sign before Monday? If so, I shall forego the trip. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We think we could get the text complete today and probably take a day to compare and have instructions tomorrow or the day after, Saturday. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Since I have no Russian translator on my own staff, I would want our Embassy to check the translation. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Then we shall wait until Monday for signature. Sir David then thanked his colleagues for their cooperation and friendship throughout the Conference while be was presiding officer and said that his connection with the work had been a very great pleasure. The Conference was adjourned. 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
Agreement and Charter, August 8, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
AGREEMENT by the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Provisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, the Government of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and the Government of the UNI0N Of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUPLICS for the Prosecution and Punishment of the MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN Axis
WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice;
AND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of the 30th October 1943 on German atrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German Officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in atrocities and crimes 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 and of the free Governments that will be created therein;
AND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies;
Now THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter called "the Signatories") acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this Agreement.
Article 1