. NMT04-T0494
Volume IV · Page 494
| [re...] prisal. The assassin who is being
repulsed by his intended victim may not slay him and then, in turn, plead
self-defense. Reprisals, if allowed, may not be disproportionate to the wrong for which they are to retaliate. The British Manual of Warfare, after insisting that reprisals must be taken only in last resorts, states — |
"459 * * * Acts done by way of reprisals must not, however, be excessive and must not exceed the degree of violation committed by the enemy." |
| Similarly, Article 358 of the American Manual states — |
"(b) When and how employed — Reprisals are never adopted merely for revenge, but only as an unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from illegitimate practices. * * *" |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
"(e) Form of reprisal — The acts resorted to by way of reprisal * * * should not be excessive or exceed the degree of violations committed by the enemy." |
| Stowell, in the American Journal of International Law, quotes General Halleck on this subject — |
"Retaliation is limited in extent by the same rule which limits punishment in all civilized governments and among all Christian people — it must never degenerate into savage or barbarous cruelty." (Stowell American Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, p. 671.) |
| The Einsatzgruppen reports have spoken for themselves as to the extent to which they respected the limitations laid down by international law on reprisals in warfare. |
| Criminal Organizations |
| Article 9 of the London Charter provided, inter alia, as follows: |
"At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization, the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization." |
| Article 10 provided that the criminality of
such groups and organizations declared criminal by the International Military
Tribunal was to be considered proved and not to be questioned in any succeeding
proceedings. Control Council Law No. 10 defined membership in any organization
declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal as a crime.
The trial briefs on both sides in this case have devoted a great deal of space to the discussion of count three in the indictment. To the extent that the discussion has to do with the facts, it is welcome and helpful. So far as the law on the subject is concerned, |
