dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
August 1939. Invasion of Belgium 1940. (g) Assurance given to Luxembourg on 26th August, 1939. Invasion of Luxembourg, 10th May, 1940. (h) Assurances given to Holland on 26th August and 6th October, 1939. Invasion of Holland, 10th May, 1940. (i) Poland] 7. In breach of Article 1 of Hague Convention No. III of 1907
, in pursuance of the common plan and otherwise in breach of International Law, the defendants launched a war of aggression against and invaded the countries mentioned in paragraph 5 of this indictment on the dates set out in the column headed "Breach". 8. In the course of the wars commenced by the invasions mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs hereof, the defendants committed violations of the laws and usages of war contrary to article and of the Land Warfare Regulations attached to Hague Convention No. IV of 190 , and further carried on such wars in a manner which was necessarily calculated to involve wholesale and atrocious breaches of the said laws and usages of war by performing and doing acts of which the following are typical examples:
(a) The defendants imprisoned nationals of occupied countries in concentration camps and prisons and there used them for forced labour, ill-treated them and annihilated them: and in particular, at the establishments set up at Belsen, [Ravensbruck] Buchenwald, Maidanek, Auschwitz [Wught] [Gin Norway] and Natzweiler.
(b) The defendants used torture and in particular, at the establishments mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, and at Breendonck and at in Paris.
(c) The defendants deported civilian nationals from every occupied country for the purpose of forced labour and for other illegal purposes.
(d) The defendants ill-treated and murdered the civilian populations of occupied countries.
(e) The defendants inflicted general penalties on the nationals of occupied countries, including the destruction of civilian communities, towns and villages: and in particular, Lidice, Oradour-sur-Glane and Kraguevacs.
(d) The defendants ill-treated and murdered the civilian populations of occupied countries. (e) The defendants inflicted general penalties on the nationals of occupied countries, including the destruction of civilian communities, towns and villages: and in particular, Lidice, Oradour-sur-Glane and Kraguevacs.
(f)The defendants adopted a policy of murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war.
(g)The defendants adopted a policy of wholesale plunder of occupied countries.
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 17, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE [presiding.] We were discussing paragraph (b) of number 17-"[to require any defendant to give testimony] . . . ... [XXVI] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. One point is not quite clear. If the defendant does not want to answer, then neither his own counsel nor the prosecution can examine him. It is only the Tribunal, and it does not appear how the Tribunal will enter into the interrogation. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. If he does not give evidence, does not want to answer, then, as I understood 24 (f), the Tribunal may put any question to any defendant-the Tribunal -would simply make the defendant, say Goering, stand up in the dock and ask him any questions. He cannot be forced to answer. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The second point concerns the order of interrogation. It would seem better if the Tribunal should be the first to interrogate and should be followed by the prosecution and the defendant's counsel. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. If you will look at 24 (d), after the prosecution have made their opening statement, 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." And (e) : "The witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence shall be examined and may be cross-examined in each case by the other side." NOW, we envisage that both the prosecution and the defence would first of all explain the purpose of their witness, and at that point the counsel Would know as to all his evidence what it is going to be. Then we thought the other side could test the evidence, after which the Tribunal, having had it placed before them by both sides, would have the right to ask any questions and clear up points for itself. That is the system as we thought of it. It was difficult to do it otherwise with all evidence because the Tribunal would not know what any witness was going to say. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It is assumed that it will be a question of asking for permission to call additional witnesses. The original witnesses will be interrogated beforehand and before the
to do it otherwise with all evidence because the Tribunal would not know what any witness was going to say. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It is assumed that it will be a question of asking for permission to call additional witnesses. The original witnesses will be interrogated beforehand and before the Tribunal will know What they are going to say. But if additional witnesses were called at the request of both sides or either, it would be necessary for the two sides for counsel to interrogate first so as to know what those additional witnesses have to say. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Of course, it would not be necessary to call a witness to put in the result of his interrogation, the statement he made on the interrogation. I think we would have to discuss how it should be done. But in the ordinary way we would call the officer who had interrogated the witness, and he would say, "This is the statement made on the interrogation." PROFESSOR TRAININ. In essence, we are quite in agreement with this proposal. We quite agree that the defendant must be interrogated by the two sides and by the Tribunal. The only difference is that the order, we think, should be on the line of authority, and in this the Tribunal has the highest authority and should be the first to interrogate. JUDGE FALCO. That is also my thought. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. That does not apply to witnesses whose testimony is not before the Tribunal. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. As far as additional witnesses are concerned, they should be first of all interrogated by the side that asked that they be called. If called at the request of counsel, then counsel interrogate first, then the prosecution, and ultimately the Tribunal. If called by the prosecution, then he should be interrogated first by the prosecution, to be followed by counsel and then the Tribunal. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I think it still puzzles us a little because the Tribunal in Britain rather rely on counsel to bring testimony out, but the Tribunal is in command all the time. When counsel is asking questions, the Tribunal can interrupt and ask questions on its own. Now the Tribunal can ask questions all the time. They can stop us at any moment and ask us to clear up any point. That is our system.
to bring testimony out, but the Tribunal is in command all the time. When counsel is asking questions, the Tribunal can interrupt and ask questions on its own. Now the Tribunal can ask questions all the time. They can stop us at any moment and ask us to clear up any point. That is our system. PROFESSOR TRAININ. We share your point of view, but our suggestion is that we believe the Tribunal should interrogate and ask questions whenever it likes. It can always interrupt to ask questions. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. It seems to me that that is a point that we could settle as we go along, as we all recognize the Tribunal is complete master of the situation. But I would like, if we could, to get back to the point that we were discussing yesterday. Would the Russian and French Delegations be prepared to do without questions being asked at the trial by the prosecution of a defendant who did not give evidence? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It would not be necessary to write down in the charter anything about the rights of the defendant not giving answer, because, if he refuses to give answer to the prosecution and to the counsel and to the Tribunal, nothing is to be done, and therefore we do not think it would be necessary to point it out in the charter. But as regards the rights of the prosecutor to interrogate, that is very important. If we do write anything about the defendant's right not to answer, then it would look as if we were preparing the ground for him to do so, and, if he knows about it, he will take advantage of it and refuse to answer. Therefore it is not necessary to mention it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I am suggesting we cut out 17 (b). GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It is suggested to put 17 (b) in this form: "to interrogate any defendant". MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I suppose the real question is what happens if he declines to answer. No inference in our courts would be drawn against him for refusal. I assume this means, however, that, if he fails to answer, it would be harmful to his case. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No, it is not so. Actual refusal to answer would not be against him. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. So much the better. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. If he refuses to
in our courts would be drawn against him for refusal. I assume this means, however, that, if he fails to answer, it would be harmful to his case. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No, it is not so. Actual refusal to answer would not be against him. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. So much the better. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. If he refuses to answer, it is not against him. It is estimated the Tribunal might consider that his refusal to answer means he does not want to give an answer, and eventually silence means consent. It may be considered by the Tribunal one way or the other. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. You can draw an inference from his refusal? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It is up to the Tribunal as to whether the Tribunal will consider the refusal. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I am disposed to accept that for the reason that, as Mr. Justice Jackson mentioned yesterday, under the German law it is a recognized procedure, and we adopted it at SHAEF [Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces] with a slight modification when we were getting our occupation courts set up. Speaking for myself entirely, I accept the suggestion proposed by the Soviet Delegation. Now (o), "to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material". That is a power that is given to all municipal courts, and we suggest the Tribunal shall have it. Now (d) "to administer oaths". GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Who has to give the oath, because here there are witnesses mentioned and the defendants, and the defendant does not take an oath. Therefore, it is necessary to make it clear by saying that it refers only to the witnesses. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I agree only to witnesses. (e), "to appoint special officers of the Tribunal to take evidence and to make findings", et cetera. The main purpose is that, if certain evidence had to be obtained from distances during the trial, the Tribunal could send an officer who could take evidence at a distant place and report to the Tribunal. That officer could report on the truthfulness of the witness, etcetera. PROFESSOR TRAININ. It seems to me this paragraph is not very clear. It seems the Tribunal is delegating its supreme powers to somebody else, which is not permissible. at all. Therefore, my position is that this
the Tribunal. That officer could report on the truthfulness of the witness, etcetera. PROFESSOR TRAININ. It seems to me this paragraph is not very clear. It seems the Tribunal is delegating its supreme powers to somebody else, which is not permissible. at all. Therefore, my position is that this should be transferred from the charter to the rules of procedure, because there it would be simply a technical matter while, if it is in the charter, it might sound like a question of principle. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The only thing worrying me is the question of whether the Tribunal would consider it has power to send an examiner unless we give the power in the charter. PROFESSOR TRAININ. The rules of procedure do not contain anything that might contradict the contents of the charter, and in the charter there is nothing to mean that the Tribunal has no right to give such instructions. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I do not think a trial would be workable, or easily might not be, if the court did not have power to send a master or special officer to take evidence. Such a situation is entirely conceivable under our type of trial; it could not arise undoubtedly under the Soviet type of trial, where the case is largely made before the trial starts. But in our procedure, unless you can send out a master who could obtain evidence on some issue, it might become unworkable. We are dealing with unprecedented issues here. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I don't think Professor Trainin is objecting to the power. As I understand it, it would be inherent under the rules of procedure. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It is not inherent because this court has no inherent power; all must be conferred upon it. It cannot acquire power by its own rules. PROFESSOR TRAININ. It seems to me that a certain way out of the difficulty could be found. Taking fully into consideration the views expressed by the British and United States Delegations that something should be said in the charter on this point, perhaps it would be possible to combine 17 (e) with 17 (a) and simply say in subparagraph (a) "to some witnesses in the trial", and that in separate cases for technical reasons the Tribunal may instruct special officers to go out to investigate and interrogate, et
in the charter on this point, perhaps it would be possible to combine 17 (e) with 17 (a) and simply say in subparagraph (a) "to some witnesses in the trial", and that in separate cases for technical reasons the Tribunal may instruct special officers to go out to investigate and interrogate, et cetera. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Yes, I think something on these lines would meet the situation. JUDGE FALCO. I think it is only during the trial that they would have the power. Before the trial the investigator makes the investigation. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. You see that points up a fundamental difference between your system of procedure and ours. The evidence, in order to be evidence in our system, would have to be produced before the Tribunal itself or some master representing the Tribunal. The fact that the prosecutors get and examine the evidence would not be sufficient to bring it to the attention of the court. Therefore, under our system, unless the evidence were taken before a master representing the court, it might not be admissible. Now the importance of this, as I see it, in a case as widespread as this is that we might have an incident in France, another one in the Netherlands, another in Belgium, that needed to be proved in order to make a point. The court cannot attend at all those places, but the master could be sent to get that material, and it would be admissible. I should hate to see the power confined to the period of the trial. JUDGE FALCO. Before the indictment is lodged, the Tribunal would not know what it is all about; so how could it, before the trial begins, send its officers to be present at interrogations? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. They do not have to in our system. If we were preparing a civil case in one of our courts and certain evidence needed to be taken in a distant land or where the court had no jurisdiction or witnesses could not be moved because of illness or something, we would simply go to court on notice and make a showing that we had relevant evidence in such a place and needed a master to go before the trial, to go and take the testimony of the man who is ill and as there may be danger of his dying in order to perpetuate that testimony. Masters are used in a variety of situations under
and make a showing that we had relevant evidence in such a place and needed a master to go before the trial, to go and take the testimony of the man who is ill and as there may be danger of his dying in order to perpetuate that testimony. Masters are used in a variety of situations under our system, but it all goes back to the f act that our trial requires the production of all documents and oral testimony before the court. It does not matter if you have bales of evidence in your files, it is not before the court until it is produced in open session. Without that you haven't a trial that Will be recognized in the United States, or, I dare say, in Britain. That is our difference here. We are used to pursuing different systems. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. We all desire to rely on the Tribunal as being the governing body, and I suggest we might meet the point if we put in (e) "to order evidence to be taken by special officers . . . in cases where the Tribunal think fit to adopt the course." Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. Mr. Alderman suggests that perhaps it is not clear that in such a case the examining of the witness is not done by the master himself but the two counsel f or both sides go and the master receives the evidence and reports it. He does not have to conduct the investigation as under your system he would. PROFESSOR TRAININ. This proposal introduces certain complications in the whole construction of the Tribunal. The construction of the Tribunal would be this, that the prosecution prepares the case fully and then the case is heard by the Tribunal. This proposal introduces an intermediary stage, that is to say, that the prosecution prepares e case, and then, before it is heard in the Tribunal, the Tribunal acts as such before actually hearing the case. It seems to me that when we are dealing with war criminals such a complication, such an intermediary, should not be advisable. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Is it contemplated that the procedure set up in this agreement, as it now stands, adopts for the purposes of this trial the practice that the case shall be completely made by the prosecution and not be entirely heard by the court in open court? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The indictment, of
JACKSON. Is it contemplated that the procedure set up in this agreement, as it now stands, adopts for the purposes of this trial the practice that the case shall be completely made by the prosecution and not be entirely heard by the court in open court? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The indictment, of course, would be heard by the Tribunal and all the evidence checked in the Tribunal session, but it is the Tribunal that would check the evidence and not persons empowered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal would have the right to interrogate the witnesses once more. It would be left with the Tribunal either to believe the evidence given before the prosecution or not to believe it and to interrogate the same witness once more in order to check his first evidence, then to call additional witnesses, to consider all the documents and so on, generally to go into all the details of all the material which is before the Tribunal in order to decide whether the accused has committed a crime or not. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Is it contemplated that all the prosecution's evidence must be submitted with the indictment? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I think we have all come to the conclusion that the indictment, all the evidence, all the documents, everything concerning this case, should be passed on to the Tribunal. It is in subparagraph (d) of article 15. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I was afraid that was the interpretation that was arrived at by the different delegations on the instrument, and I must say we could not accept that system as carrying out our idea of a trial. I think that, when the indictment is submitted, with it can be and should be submitted as much important documentary material as possible, but the calling of witnesses in open court is absolutely essential to the rules of a trial. Our people in the United States would not understand anything less than that as a trial. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. There is no question about witnesses being interrogated. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well then, how does it work if all the evidence must be submitted with the indictment, what do you call them for? I do not understand. What I had supposed we had agreed by this language was that we would put such documents as it is convenient
being interrogated. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well then, how does it work if all the evidence must be submitted with the indictment, what do you call them for? I do not understand. What I had supposed we had agreed by this language was that we would put such documents as it is convenient to put in with the indictment, but that we would in open court prove our case. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. if you will allow me, I shall have to take about five minutes of your time to explain to you how we visualize the two stages the preliminary work of the prosecution and the actual hearing of the case in the Tribunal. If there are any questions after that, then we might discuss it. First, the prosecution interrogates the accused and the witnesses and collects all the documents which testify that such and such acts have been committed. When the prosecution has carefully examined and checked those documents and when the prosecution considers that the whole of evidence and of the documents is of sufficient importance to prepare an indictment, that indictment is made and presented to the Tribunal. The accused are informed of all documents with which they are to be served so that they can consider the documents and prepare their defense. After the indictment has been properly prepared and confirmed by the Chiefs of Counsel, that indictment is passed on to the Tribunal together with all the material confirming it, the material on which it is based that is to say, all the documents referring to the case, all the protocols, all examination of witnesses referring to the indictment. All that is handed over to the Tribunal. After that the case is heard in open court in the presence of the accused, if he is present, or in his absence if the court decides the court can decide in his absence. In the presence of all the witnesses and then during the hearing, the accused and the witnesses are examined again. Perhaps additional witnesses would be called and be examined as well, and all the documents are announced and made known and considered from the point of their reliability. Then the Tribunal in open court hears what the witnesses and accused can say in favor of and against the accused. Only after everything has been heard, examined, and made known