. NMT05-T1091
Volume VI · Page 1091
| [defend…] ants, thinking to establish their guilt by such catch
phrases as "cooperation with Aryanization" or "putting the sellers under
pressure for the purpose of self-enrichment," "extension of the Jewish laws" or
"perversion of governmental authority for private ends." In face of this it
will be useful to examine the legal foundation upon which the prosecution
sought to erect this structure. The defense has already pointed out that in
this respect the prosecution statements lack all legal basis. The IMT
definition of a criminal offense against humanity does not cover actions
committed before 1 September 1939. In contrast to this, the prosecution claimed that the trial court is not bound to base the application of the legal term "crime against humanity" upon the principles pronounced by the IMT, because it has to start from a legal basis different from the one upon which the IMT judgment is constructed. The prosecution also asserts that Control Council Law No. 10, cited here, represents a different legal foundation from the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 on which the IMT judgment is based. The attempt of the prosecution to widen in application the meaning of Control Council Law No. 10 in as far as it refers to crimes against humanity, beyond the interpretation established by the IMT judgment, is a mistake. It has been shown before that Control Council Law No. 10 and the IMT Charter have the same legal foundation, namely, the London Charter. The Charter of the IMT, defining for the first time the term "crimes against humanity," forms part of the London Agreement, and therefore the formulation of the term "crimes against humanity" chosen in the Charter has become part of this agreement too. But Control Council Law No. 10, too, is based on this agreement. The introduction to the Law refers expressly to the Charter of the IMT. The prosecution believes that they can justify their divergence with the different wording of the definition of "crime against humanity;" Control Council Law No. 10 omits the words "committed * * * in execution of or in connection with any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated," which the IMT Charter contains. In this fact the prosecution believed it had found a basic difference with regard to the interpretation of the term "crime against humanity" according to both these legal foundations, and it draws the conclusion that punishable crimes against humanity could have been committed even before the key date fixed by the IMT. This conception of the prosecution, however, strikes a blow against the authority of this Tribunal, and above all, abuses the text of that law. The leading factor, when weighing up the legal position, is the point that to disregard the key date chosen by the IMT after much |
955487 — 52 — 71
