| |
VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE
CASE
A. Applicability of Control Council Law
No. 10 to Offenses Against Germans During the War
a.
Introduction
Under count III of the indictment,
"Crimes against Humanity", the prosecution alleged that the
defendants had engaged in medical experiments "upon German civilians
and nationals of other countries" and that the defendants had
participated in executing "the so-called `euthanasia program' of the
German Reich, in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of
thousands of human beings, including German civilians, as well as
civilians of other nations". [Emphasis added.] Insofar as these offenses
involved German nationals, the defense argued that international law was not
applicable. The defense argued that under the Charter annexed to the London
Agreement, crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter do not
exist unless offenses are committed "in the execution of, or in connection
with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal". Although the
analogous provision of Control Council Law No. 10 does not include the words of
limitation "in the execution of, or in connection with any crime within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal", the defense argued that Control Council
Law No. 10 was only "an implementation law" of the London Agreement
and Charter, and hence could not increase the scope of the offenses defined by
the London Charter. Pointing to the section of the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal entitled "The law relating to war crimes
and crimes against humanity",¹ the defense noted that the IMT stated:
"to constitute crimes against humanity, the acts relied on before the
outbreak of war must have been in execution of, or in connection with, any
crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal",² that is, crimes
against peace or war crimes. Although the indictment in the Medical Case did
not allege that crimes were committed against German nationals before the
outbreak of the war on 1 September 1939, the defense further argued that any
offenses against German nationals
_______________
¹Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 253-255,
Nuremberg, 1947.
² Ibid., p. 254.
909
|