. |
| Opening Speech for the
Prosecution |
| |
| Colonel Backhouse
(cont.) |
occupied by a
belligerent. Everyone knows what the proper treatment of a prisoner of war is
— he cannot be starved, beaten, arbitrarily punished, killed, and none of
these things, in any event, can happen to him without proper trial. So far as
the inhabitants of occupied territories are concerned, who are the majority of
witnesses in this case, Chapter XIV, paragraph 383, of the Manual of Military
Law says, "It is the duty of the occupant to see that the lives of inhabitants
are respected, that their domestic peace and honour are not disturbed, that
their religious convictions are not interfered with, and generally, that
duress, unlawful and criminal attacks or their persons, and felonious actions
as regards their property, are just as punishable as in times of peace. Chapter
XIV, paragraph 59 (f) reads, “Women shall be treated with all
consideration due to their sex,” to quote from the Hague Convention of
1907, to which Germany was a signatory, “Family honour and right,
individual life and private property, as well as religious convictions and
worship must be respected.”
Again, to quote from the Manual of
Military Law, Chapter XIV., Section 441 reads, “The term ‘War
Crime’ is the technical expression for such an act of enemy soldiers and
enemy civilians as may be visited by punishment or capture of the
offenders.” Paragraph 442 reads, “War Crimes may be divided into four
different classes,” the first of such classes being violations of the
recognized rules of warfare. In the following paragraph are set out the most
important violations, two of which are ill-treatment of prisoners of war in
occupied countries, and although the words “inhabitants in occupied
countries” are used, it is quite obvious that that should and can properly
be extended to “all inhabitants of occupied countries who have been
deported from their own country,” the deportation, in fact, being a
further infringement. Perhaps it is put most clearly in an article by Professor
Brierly, the present Professor of International Law at Oxford University,
“Most of the difficulty disappears if we imagine the sort of question
which the Court will have to answer: Can this killing which would normally be
murder, this injury which would normally be unlawful wounding, this taking of
property which would normally be theft, be justified as an act of war? If not
it will be a war crime.”
When the Court have heard as to what
happened both at Belsen and at Auschwitz, the Prosecution will ask you to say
that the treatment of these Allied nationals in each of those camps was such as
to leave you no doubt whatsoever that a war crime had been committed, that
murder had been committed, for which those who you find responsible should be
punished as war criminals within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The
persons who the Prosecution allege suffered these injuries, who were killed,
who were ill-treated, came from ten different nationalities. |
| |
| Page 16 |
|
