dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
by a great lapse of time. That is not what we propose. The indictment would be submitted to the court on a given day and perhaps on that very day the evidence would be taken by the court under oath, but separately. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. But before the trial begins. GENERAL DONOVAN. We submit the indictment to the court and notify the defendants so that they can prepare for trial. The day for the trial is set and then all evidence on which the indictment is based, the evidence which will prove that charge, is submitted under oath, together with such documents as the court will receive. MR. ROBERTS. That is what we on this side of the table visualize. The court is to try the case at the time set, not to try it before, but try it in court on the evidence which is presented. GENERAL DONOVAN. And the evidence is submitted in the presence of the defendant and his counsel, to the admission of which the objection of the defense might be sustained, so that the court must sit as a referee. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The details of this we could deal with later. The point at present would be for us to see whether there is any difference of opinion on the principles involved. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I agree. Shall we take up the legal principles? Number 12 has given us a great deal of difficulty, and we have redrafted and amended it a good many times. This was caused, I suppose, by the difficulty of stating an entire body of criminal law for international trial purposes in a single paragraph. It is a very important paragraph and deserves careful study, word by word, because every word will come back to plague us before we get through with the trial. What we have attempted to do is to reach the heart of these offenses. We think it would be very unfortunate if we were to go into this trial with an argument as to whether the acts were criminal, and it should not be left to the court to sift out from the various authorities what the law is. Following that thought, we provided that, "Atrocities and offenses against persons or property constituting violations of international law, including the laws, rules and customs of land and naval warfare." We have been doing a great deal of studying on that, and I
the various authorities what the law is. Following that thought, we provided that, "Atrocities and offenses against persons or property constituting violations of international law, including the laws, rules and customs of land and naval warfare." We have been doing a great deal of studying on that, and I fancy everyone at the table will have some suggestions to make as to changes. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I do not think there is any need to go into any discussion on this at the present moment but agree that an article of this nature is essential in the establishment of an international military tribunal in order to decide who will be tried. Obviously it will need thorough investigation, and there is no point in starting on that now. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Numbers 13 and 14 are continuations of somewhat the same subject. [Here the Justice read paragraphs 13 and 14, ante, p. 58-] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet delegates have no doubt whatsoever about including articles substantially of this character in the draft statute of the International Tribunal. It may, of course, be necessary to make amendment in the wording, et cetera, and the conditions under which it will proceed to pass judgment on leaders and organizations which we think ought to be regarded as equally responsible. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. There must also be provisions to assure that these trials will be fair trials, that defendants will have reasonable notice and opportunity to defend, and that those who are physically present before the Tribunal will be furnished with copies of the indictment, and given an opportunity to be heard in their defense, have counsel, etcetera. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. That is all perfectly clear. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Then we come to the question of organizations, by which we intend to reach a great many people, in fact, with a very few people before the court. [Here the Justice read from paragraph 16, ante, p. 58.1 This goes back to the proposition presented at Yalta of reaching the members of these organizations through the organizations. Unless we do that, the number of trials that would be necessary would be prohibitive. We think it can be done with proper safeguards so that it will be an instrument of justice and not injustice.
the proposition presented at Yalta of reaching the members of these organizations through the organizations. Unless we do that, the number of trials that would be necessary would be prohibitive. We think it can be done with proper safeguards so that it will be an instrument of justice and not injustice. We recognize it as a method which has to be guarded. If not, it would be a very unjust procedure, and therefore we have tried to provide for getting it done, but getting it done consistently with our ideas of what constitutes a fair trial. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. On that point we have exchanged views. MR. ROBERTS. It was covered at the beginning of this afternoon, was it? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Now, numbers 17 and 18. We think we can improve these in draftsmanship, but the idea may have more significance to British and American lawyers than it does to Continental lawyers. We do not want technical rules of evidence designed for jury trials to be used in this case to cut down what is really and fairly of probative value, and so we propose to lay down as a part of the statute that utmost liberality shall be used. Most of those things are really addressed to the judges, and perhaps the question doesn't trouble you who follow the Continental system as much as it does us. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. That is quite understood. We think it is perhaps very advisable to remind the judges that there may be a possibility of attempts by the Fascists to use the courts as a sounding board for accusing the Allies of imperial designs. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We had thought they may attempt to break up the trial through some of their techniques of behavior and thought that another section should provide very strict control, even to the extent that they should be denied the privilege of defense if their conduct is consistently in violation of orders of the court. The question of propaganda may be a somewhat difficult one. I think the scope of our charges will have to be considered in the light of what we expect to be answered. We certainly do not want to permit this to be turned into a trial of anyone except those accused, and we shall have to look to our accusations and cut our indictment to what we expect
I think the scope of our charges will have to be considered in the light of what we expect to be answered. We certainly do not want to permit this to be turned into a trial of anyone except those accused, and we shall have to look to our accusations and cut our indictment to what we expect to try. We shall have to hear them within the issues. It is one of the important things about defining carefully the acts which constitute crimes. So far as we are concerned, we have never thought there was any basis in this case for trying the remote causes for this war. Our definition of crime does not involve causes; it involves only actual aggressive war-the attack. It is one thing to attack for remote reasons. It is another thing to have a war of self-defense, which I suppose we all concede is permissible and not a crime. We shall have to consider these articles carefully as definitions of crime. We have no thought here, in charging them with launching an illegal war, to have a general trial of German grievances. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Don't you think it reasonable that provisions must be made to stop all attempts to use the trial for propaganda? MR. ROBERTS. Irrelevant propaganda. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think some admonition could be embodied. I think the draftsmanship Deeds to be skillful in order to avoid the implication that the nations conducting this trial are afraid of something. Number 19, on punishment, I think is fairly obvious. The only question was whether the extent to which the Control Council should have authority to control the sentence should be a continuing authority to reduce but no authority to increase. MR. ROBERTS. Before we pass from 19, I think we on our side of the table are not in favor of the Control Council having the power of approval because, I suppose, if they have the power of approval, they have the power of disapproval, which means they could set the decision of the Tribunal aside. We personally would not like that. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It was not intended to permit disapproval of a finding of guilt or innocence, but only modification of the sentence. JUDGE FALCO. Can we really decide on this before knowing what the relations will be between the Allied Council and the International Military
We personally would not like that. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It was not intended to permit disapproval of a finding of guilt or innocence, but only modification of the sentence. JUDGE FALCO. Can we really decide on this before knowing what the relations will be between the Allied Council and the International Military Tribunal? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. After all, we are not taking any decision now. We are merely discussing and clearing up various points in this draft. It will be done later when we shall decide what exact principle should be embodied. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Number 20 leaves sentences to be directed under the Control Council. Number 21 has already been discussed. Number 22, 1 think, is obvious. Numbers 23, 24, and 25 deal with financial matters that are not very important to these defendants. It was agreed that representatives of each nation other than the United States would prepare memoranda of objections and suggestions, and the Conference adjourned to meet Friday, June 29, 1945, at 10 a.m. (1) For complete list of members of delegations, see p. 441. Back 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
Amendments Proposed by the United Kingdom, June 28, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO THE UNITED STATES DRAFT PROTOCOL
1. Article 5: The opening words of this Article should be amended to read as follows:
"There shall be set up by the signatories after consultation with the Control Council for Germany one or more international military tribunals etc."
While the Control Council must, of course, be consulted as to the setting up of the Tribunal within Germany, the responsibility for the appointment of its members must rest with the Allied Governments concerned. It is important to emphasize the independence of the Tribunal and it would be a mistake to place it under the Control Commission.
2. Article 8: It is suggested that Article 8, which gives power to the International Tribunal to establish its own rules, should be deleted and an obligation should be placed upon the Chiefs of Counsel representing the four Allied Governments to prepare and submit to the Tribunal rules for their approval. It is thought that the initiative with regard to the rules ought to come from the signatory Governments through their Counsel. If this is accepted, it would seem that the proper place to insert the new provision would be at the end of Article 11 and it is suggested that the following subparagraph be added to the end of that Article:
"(c) Recommending rules of procedure for adoption by the International Military Tribunal. Any rules so adopted by the Tribunal shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement."
3. Article 12: The United Kingdom Delegation submit the following re-draft of this Article.
"12. The Tribunal shall be bound by this declaration of the signatories that the following acts are criminal violations of international laws:
Tribunal shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement." 3. Article 12: The United Kingdom Delegation submit the following re-draft of this Article. "12. The Tribunal shall be bound by this declaration of the signatories that the following acts are criminal violations of international laws:
(a) Violations of the laws, rules and customs of war and such acts shall include, but shall not be limited to, mass murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and civilian populations and the plunder of such populations.
(2) Launching a war of aggression.
(c) Invasion or threat of invasion of, or initiation of war against, other countries in breach of treaties, agreements or assurances between nations or otherwise in violation of international law.
(d) Entering into a common plan or enterprise aimed at aggression against, or domination over, other nations, which plan or enterprise included or intended, or was reasonably calculated to involve or in its execution did involve, the use of unlawful means for its accomplishment, including any or all of the acts set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) above or the use of a combination of such unlawful means with other means.
(e) Atrocities and persecutions and deportations on political, racial or religious grounds, in pursuance of the common plan or enterprise referred to in sub-paragraph (d) hereof whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
International law shall be taken to include treaties, agreements and assurances between nations and the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience."
of the country where perpetrated. International law shall be taken to include treaties, agreements and assurances between nations and the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience."
NOTE: It may be assumed that a common plan to carry out the crimes set out in (a), (b) and (c) is, under most legal systems, in itself a crime, but it is suggested that it is not safe to rely on this assumption. It is doubtful whether this Tribunal will administer any law other than that set out in its constitution and for that reason alone it seems necessary to include a sub-paragraph on the lines of sub-paragraph (d). Unless a charge can be made upon the lines of sub-paragraph (d), there may be some danger that some of the conspirators may escape, as it may not be possible to fix each and every one of them with the actual perpetration of any of the specific crimes set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The chief crime of which it is alleged that the leaders in Germany are guilty is the common plan or conspiracy to dominate Europe and it is therefore most desirable to include this crime specifically in the statutes of the Court. Moreover, the protocol will become a public document of the first importance and for this reason it is essential that the main charge to be made against the major criminals should appear in it. The lay public will not understand its omission.
4. Articles 17 and 18: These Articles should be deleted in their present form and the following Articles substituted therefor:
the first importance and for this reason it is essential that the main charge to be made against the major criminals should appear in it. The lay public will not understand its omission. 4. Articles 17 and 18: These Articles should be deleted in their present form and the following Articles substituted therefor:
"17. An International Military Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest. possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedures and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value. It shall employ with all possible liberality simplifications of proof, such as but not limited to: requiring defendants to make written proffers of proof; making extensive use of judicial notice; receiving affidavits or statements of witnesses, depositions, recorded examinations before or findings of military or other tribunals, copies of official reports, publications and documents or other evidentiary materials and all such other evidence as is customarily received by international or military tribunals.
18. An International Military Tribunal shall (a) confine trials strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause unreasonable delay and rule out any irrelevant issues including attempts to introduce irrelevant political propaganda, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment including exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from some or all further proceedings but without prejudice to the determination of the charges."
19. Article 20: This Article should be deleted and the following Article substituted.
20. The sentences shall be carried out in accordance with orders of the Control Council for Germany and the Control Counsel may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentence but may not increase its severity."
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
and the following Article substituted. 20. The sentences shall be carried out in accordance with orders of the Control Council for Germany and the Control Counsel may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentence but may not increase its severity." 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
Observations of French Delegation on American Draft, June 28, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
OBSERVATIONS OF THE FRENCH DELEGATION ON THE DRAFT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN DELEGATION
[Translation]
Without prejudice to the position adopted by the French Representative during the San Francisco conversations, the French Delegation agree to take the proposal of the American Delegation as a basis for discussion.
In order to facilitate the work of the Conference, they reserve their right to call for modifications during the course of the discussions and in the present Aide-Mémoire deal only with the problem of the prosecution of the accused before the International Military Tribunal.
After the preliminary exchange of viewpoints on the various national systems, the French Delegation maintain their conviction that the establishment of an International Prosecuting Commission should not merely be drawn from the legal systems of the four countries, but should take primarily into account the object in view.
The four Powers intend to prosecute the major criminals in order to satisfy the call for justice of public opinion, and in the name of all the United Nations. Our aim is therefore to draw up an international procedure for the punishment of the major criminals which would satisfy the expectations of all nations, the lack of precedents giving the greater flexibility to the procedure to be followed. If one takes as basic principle the view that the Prosecuting Body should present their cases against the major war criminals (including organizations) before the International Military Tribunal in order to ensure a speedy and impartial punishment, the following considerations must necessarily be taken into account:
1. First Stage of the Proceedings
The case of the accused must be prepared in such a way that the evidence collected be sufficient to ensure the conviction of the accused.
in order to ensure a speedy and impartial punishment, the following considerations must necessarily be taken into account: 1. First Stage of the Proceedings The case of the accused must be prepared in such a way that the evidence collected be sufficient to ensure the conviction of the accused.
The four Prosecuting Officers would therefore be entrusted, as is proposed in the American Agreement, with the entire and sole responsibility of conducting the preliminary investigation, of preparing the bill of accusation and of preferring the charge before the International Military Tribunal. In actual fact, evidence is now in process of being collected by a large number of organizations, and in the detailed rules of procedure which are to be laid down for the preparation of the cases, it must be borne in mind that the object in view is to collect reliable information, and not to adhere strictly to certain rules of procedure followed in national Codes of law. If therefore the rules laid down by national legal systems for the collection of evidence are not always strictly complied with, the four Prosecuting Officers should nevertheless be able to make use of such evidence after having ascertained its reliability. The lack of formality should not be a cause for its dismissal.
This example is put forward in order to show how difficult it would be to lay down in definite and all-inclusive rules of procedure the detailed system by which cases should be prepared. The French Delegation are of opinion that only very broad and general rules of procedure should be drawn up for the Prosecuting Officers in the matter of the preparation of the charges.
be to lay down in definite and all-inclusive rules of procedure the detailed system by which cases should be prepared. The French Delegation are of opinion that only very broad and general rules of procedure should be drawn up for the Prosecuting Officers in the matter of the preparation of the charges.
Complete authenticity and veracity of the collected evidence would in our view be guaranteed by the fact that the Prosecuting Commission would be made up of four Officials who, since they would meet to pass judgment on the value of the evidence, would thereby exercise a mutual control over each other, in so far as would be necessary to ensure that the case rests upon a solid foundation of facts.
All the guarantees which might be borrowed from the internal systems of the four countries would in effect only embarrass the work of the Prosecuting Officers and would be irrelevant, since the object in view is to establish a new system of judicial inquiry with no limitations other than those imposed by its ultimate purpose, an impartial judgment.
Once the case has been prepared and accepted by the four Prosecuting Officers, it passes into the second stage of the proceedings.
2. At This Stage, Various Possibilities Can Be Considered:
a) The preparation of the case should be concluded by the framing of a bill of accusation, which, in the opinion of the French Delegation, should provide for the terms of the charge the evidence on which the indictment is based -an indication of the relevant provisions of law.
All the evidence which the Prosecuting Officers have seen fit to prepare is sent to the Tribunal at the same time as the bill of accusation. Once this has been done, one of the judges is appointed as rapporteur and entrusted with the study of the case and the subsequent presentation of a report before the Court.