. NMT05-T1092
Volume VI · Page 1092
| deliberation, and, moreover, to drop the connection which according
to the IMT and the Charter must exist between the crime against humanity and
war of aggression or with a violation of the peace — is to remove all
limits to the application of the term "crime against humanity," to open the
doors to a subjective treatment, and to leave safe ground altogether. It is
this consideration, which as one of the IMT judges, Professor Donnedieu de
Vabres said, compels us to exercise wise moderation when applying the term
"crime against humanity." If the prosecution nevertheless recommends a wide
interpretation, it is abusing the text of the law. Deprived of the restrictions
as to time and facts, the term "crime against humanity" becomes entirely vague
and allows of such different interpretations that a high degree of lack of
legal guarantees would be the consequence. An example is the charge raised by
the prosecution under count three. The prosecution wants to apply the provision
of Article II 1(c), of Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 November 1945,
to the Aryanization of industrial enterprises. In this connection the fact is
disregarded that neither the Charter of the IMT nor the aforesaid law lists the
encroachment on or injuring of property rights as an element of the "crime
against humanity." As crimes against humanity the Charter of the IMT as well as
the Control Council Law list extermination, enslavement, forced deportation,
deprivation of liberty, rape, and other inhuman acts committed against the
civilian population. From the wording "other inhuman acts committed against the
civilian population" in connection with the foregoing examples, it is to be
concluded that the acts declared by law as punishable must be acts aimed
against the individual in his physical existence itself. Violations of the
basic rights must be involved which, as for instance, liberty, honor, and
physical integrity, are connected with the individual as such. The encroachment
on and injury of material rights, however, such as property rights, cannot be
concerned. Property and property rights cannot be regarded as highly personal
basic rights such as these. And a similar opinion seems to have been held by the American Military Tribunal No. II in the case of United States of America against Oswald Pohl and others* in saying that, "Had Germany rested content with the exclusion of Jews from her own territory, with denying them German citizenship, with excluding them from public office, or any like domestic regulation, no other nation could have been heard to complain." Even on legal grounds the defendants must be acquitted on this count of the indictment. The prosecution, however, starts |
* See section VIII, Volume V, this series.
