. NMT05-T0063
Volume V · Page 63
| loyalty, which promises to release him from
grave accusations, there is perhaps concealed another motive which would
deprive him of the judgment of this Court. Realizing the possibilities which could arise from this statement, it has become necessary for the defense of Hildebrandt to discuss the question as to what significance is attached to that statement from the standpoint of criminal law, and what consequences would ensue for the proceedings. The right of a defendant to defense constitutes an integral part of the irrefutable principles of the regular criminal proceedings of every civilized nation. This right is to enable him to refute the charges brought against him and clear himself of these charges. This principle applies to petty as well as to severe criminal cases. It should be given all the more consideration when, on the basis of international laws, charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity are raised before an international tribunal. The knowledge of the charge publicly raised against him constitutes the prerequisite for a proper defense compatible with the self-respect of the person accused. Therefore, Ordinance No. 7, Article III imposes upon the chief prosecutor before the Military Tribunals the obligation to go through with the charge published and to submit to the defendant a copy of the indictment prior to the trial. Thereby, the indictment has become the very basis of every trial before the Military Tribunals. Its submission to the Secretary General's Office signifies that the decision of these Courts has been requested for the judgment and punishment of the defendant for a specific criminal act. According to Article IV of Ordinance No. 7, this criminal act is to be described in the indictment in sufficient detail to inform the defendant of the nature of the criminal act of which he has been accused. According to Article VI of Ordinance No. 7, the scope of the case is to cover these indictment counts. Within the framework of and according to this indictment, the high judgeship of the Military Tribunal is entrusted with the public charge by the prosecution and a decision thereon requested. Once this appeal to the Tribunal has been made it does not seem admissible to allow the development of the case, and in particular the extent, subject, or interpretation of the counts contained in the indictment to rest upon the exclusive discretion of the prosecution to make some restricting or elaborating statements. This is evident from the following considerations: If charge has been brought against a defendant, the defendant has the inviolable right to restore his honor and reputation Which are at stake, or at least imperiled, through the charges |
