Law Reports Of Trials Of War Criminals

This 15-volume series summarizes more important proceedings taken against individuals accused of war crimes during World War II, excluding the major war criminals tried by the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals. These representative were selected for this series based on the major points of municipal and international law that were raised and settled during the trials as well as the potential for the greatest legal interest. For example, Volume 4 includes the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita (PDF). Each volume begins with a unique introduction by the Right Honorable Lord Wright of Durley, Chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. I have been asked to contribute a Foreword to the first volume of Law Reports on Trials of War Crimes which are being selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, of which I am Chairman. The Commission in producing and publishing these law reports is fulfilling the duty assigned to it. The Commission is primarily concerned with criminals who fall within the first category under the Moscow Declaration of October 30th, 1943. This category may generally be defined to be that embracing particular individuals who have committed offences against the laws of war and whose offences can be ascribed to a particular location. These are sometimes called "minor war criminals," but that is a misleading term because of the enormity and scope of the crimes committed, which really include all war crimes except those that were charged at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and are described as crimes which have no particular geographical location. The Declaration distinguished these two categories for the purpose of providing how they were to be punished. The latter, the" major war criminals," were to be punished by joint decision of the governments of the Allies and the joint decision has resulted in the Nuremberg trial and the Tokyo trial. The former category were dealt with in the Moscow Declaration by providing that Germans who took part in the various atrocities referred' to were to be brought back to the scene of their crimes and tried on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged. The Commission has not been concerned directly, though it has been concerned indirectly, in the crimes which were charged in the proceedings at Nuremberg and Tokyo, but it has had very close relations with the cases of what have been called the" minor criminals." The trials of that class of offenders constitute the subject of these reports. In the present volume, which was sent to press before the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was promulgated, there are reports of six cases tried by British Military Courts and three cases tried by United States Military Commissions. I shall not attempt to deal with the details of these cases, which included offences against prisoners of war, slaughter of mariners attempting to escape from a torpedoed ship, poison gas used on inmates of concentration camps, killing on a large scale by poison administered by medical personnel in a sanatorium, and similar crimes. It will be observed that in all these cases prosecutions were brought and conducted by the military authorities. The courts were constituted from serving officers of the two armies respectively with the exception of two instances, the Peleus and the Almelo cases, where the military courts were mixed in their composition. In the Peleus case the tribunal included Greek as well as British officers, and in the Almelo case Dutch as well as British officers. Most of these cases are dealing with offences committed against members of the military forces of the respective nation. In later volumes it is hoped to include reports of the trials of Germans accused of crimes in concentration camps. It was not found possible for technical reason to include in the present volume reports of French cases, but that defect will, it is hoped, be remedied in the following volumes.

Chronicles the High Command Trial of the late 1940s, in which German officers were held accountable for their offenses against humanity.

This 15-volume series summarizes the course of the more important proceedings taken against individuals accused of war crimes during World War II, excluding the major war criminals tried by the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals. These representative trials of war criminals were selected for this series based on the major points of municipal and international law that were raised and settled during the trials as well as the potential for the greatest legal interest. For example, Volume 4 includes the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita (PDF). Each volume begins with a unique introduction by the Right Honorable Lord Wright of Durley, Chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. At the end of World War I, as everybody knows, there were admirable declarations that war crimes would be punished, and lists of criminals were prepared by a fact-finding committee, but nothing practical was effected towards identifying, tracing and apprehending accused individuals or puttingthem on trial, though an excellent report, with lists of war crimes, was prepared by the Commission on Responsibilities already referred to. The whole thing was abandoned after a few unsatisfactory trials, though at least one useful judgment was produced by the Leipzig Court in the Llandovery Castle case, and though the Leipzig cases (as they have been called) showedhow hopeless it was to expect justice in these circumstances from the courts of the Reich. Hence it came about that the victorious Allies after WorldWar II decided to try war criminals themselves, adopting either the system of the military courts or that of the national courts. They refused to think that Allied courts could not be impartial. Their decision has been amply justified by the trials that have been held. The International MilitaryTribunals, held one at Nuremberg and the other at Tokyo, stand as convincing proofs that impartial justice can in this way be administered. Thishas also been shown by the military and the national courts which have held hundreds of trials, a selection from which is contained in these volumes.The presence of neutral judges has been shown to be not essential to maintain a high standard of impartiality and this was in fact fortunate under thecircumstances, because neutral judges were in fact not available. Nor had the accused any legal right to object to being tried by such courts; all the accused were entitled to was a fair trial and that they got. Also, as I have stated, the types of courts employed were those traditionally recognised by International Law as competent for war crime trials.

This was intended to be the last Volume actually containing Law Reports, since the time is approaching when the Commission must finally wind up its operations. Under the circumstances, however, a difficulty has arisen in reference to an important trial, the last of the series of Subsequent Proceedings at Nuremberg, known as the Weizsaecker or Foreign Ministry case. It has been decided to deal with that case in Volume XV, which will be the final Volume of the series. It was originally intended that Volume XV should be devoted only to a general survey of all the cases reported in the series, but now room will be found for the Foreign Ministry case, if it can be reported before the end of March. If it is not then delivered the Commission will be compelled most regretfully to leave it out of these Reports.The cases which are reported in this present Volume, as in others, are of a diverse character and cover a very considerable area. The most important of these cases is that of Hans Albin Rauter before the Netherlands courts, which deals with a number of topics, but in particular has a very instructive discussion of the nature of reprisals. Its further consideration will be reserved until after the other cases reported here.

These Reports have in the present production arrived at Volume XII. This volume will contain a Report of only one trial, which has been described as the High Command Trial; because it deals with the responsibility of high-ranking officers of the German army for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The proceedings and evidence are very voluminous, as may be inferred from the fact that the length of the Judgment was 330 pages. The work of digesting the evidence has been performed by Mr. Aars Rynning, the Norwegian member of the Commission's staff. I am satisfied that the work has been admirably done. ·The Notes on the Case, which, together with the arrangement of those parts of the Judgment in which legal matters are discussed, are Mr. Brand's contribution to the present report, examine various questions on which the Judgment is of particular value. As Editor of these Reports he has also supplied the necessary cross-references and comparisons with earlier judgments of the same series, that is the series of the Subsequent Proceedings at Nuremberg, conducted under General Telford Taylor. In the Foreword to Volume VI, I included some general remarks on these proceedings which I do not desire to repeat. The judgment in the present case is of great interest and· importance. Though all these proceedings were held under Control Council Law No. 10 and Military Ordinance No.7, and thus are under a separate jurisdiction from that of the International Military Tribunal, which is conveniently referred to as LM.T., there is a substantial uniformity in the Basic Laws and Procedure, and the judgment in the present case is in substance based on the principles enumerated by the LM.T. But it does illustrate the development which has necessarily arisen by reason of the various complications of fact and of issues which were not present in the LM.T. trial. The Tribunal which decided the present case has been compelled to do much work 'of analysis and differentiation and has performed the task in such a way as to add greatly to the development of this branch of law. The same may indeed be said of all the other judgments in the Subsequent Proceedings. No student ofthis branch of the International Law of war can dispense with a careful study of these Subsequent Proceedings, which have carried the ideas of the LM.T. forward into problems of fact and law which were not present, and indeed could not have been present, to the minds of the earlier Tribunal. Perhaps I may here be permitted to express a humble tribute to the Judges who have left their homes in the United States and sojourned for many months in Nuremberg for the purpose of conducting these trials and performing the arduous task of preparing the judgments. Their efforts will be now and hereafter unanimously applauded.