. NMT06-T0154
Volume VI · Page 154
| [wit…] nesses, that this assignment of
responsibilities conformed not only to the articles of incorporation, but also
to factual conditions. Finally, in limiting myself to the utmost, I shall produce evidence concerning the character of my client, Dr. Burkart. I fully realize that he has been indicted here not as an individual but as the incumbent of a certain position. For this very reason I shall demonstrate that the character of this man is anything but that of a criminal. In this way, I should like to remind the Tribunal that a sentence is neither aimed at a system nor at a position, but at an individual. Should there be any doubt as to his personal guilt, — and I think that doubt is the most unfavorable possibility left after the evidence at our disposal — then let his character tip the scales for the decision. |
| E. Opening Statement For Defendant Kaletsch¹ |
| DR. NATH: : Mr. President, gentlemen of the
tribunal. The defense of the defendant Konrad Kaletsch gives me reason to rely on the fundamental perceptions and legal conceptions which, for a long time now, have been counted among the basic demands of human rights in the penal law system of all democratic civilized nations, especially in the United States of America. I mean, in the first place, the principle which requires the personal guilt of the perpetrator, if he is to be held responsible under criminal law. In his excellent opening statement, my highly esteemed co-defense counsel Dr. Dix, has justly called attention to the differences between Angle-Saxon and Continental legal conceptions. However, I believe that in this matter I may also point to legal conceptions which Anglo-Saxon and Continental legal circles have in common. I am in complete agreement with the opinion of the International Military Tribunal in its judgment, if this International Court declares it to be one of the most important principles that criminal guilt is a personal one. (Compare judgment of the International Military Tribunal, The Accused Organizations, Article 9.)² As German defense counsel I therefore welcome it, if in this Court, the American Military Tribunal No. II, in its reasons for the judgment against the former Field Marshal Mitch, refers to the ancient and basic conceptions of Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction, which are anchored in the English common law, and have been vigorously |
¹ Transcript pages 3944-3956, 18 July 1947.
² Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 255
