. NMT05-T1215
Volume VI · Page 1215
[in…] dividuals, or groups of individuals, because of their race, nationality, religion, or opinions, constitutes a crime against humanity and must be punished as murder "' * * " |
|
| But from the report of the conference proceedings this seems to have
been the extent of agreement. In the opening statement of the prosecution are listed numerous instances of foreign intervention or diplomatic representations objecting to mistreatment of a population by its own rulers. It may be that incidental to these persecutions the oppressed peoples lost their homes, household goods, and investments in industrial property but so far as we are aware the outcry by the other nations was against the personal atrocities, not the loss of possessions. We believe that the proof does not establish a crime against humanity recognized as such by the law of nations when defendants were engaged in the property transactions here under scrutiny. The prosecution in its concluding argument contends that the contrary has been decided in the IMT judgment. We find nothing therein in conflict with our conclusion. That Tribunal mentioned economic discrimination against the Jews as one of numerous evidentiary facts from which it reached the conclusion that the Leadership Corps was a criminal organization. Similarly when dealing with the question of Flick's guilt of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it mentioned anti-Semitic laws drafted, signed and administered by Flick. These led up to his final decree placing Jews "outside the law" and handing them over to the Gestapo which was the equivalent to an order for their extermination. Likewise in the cases of Funk and Seyss-Inquart, anti-Semitic economic discrimination is cited as one of several facts from which it is concluded that he was a war criminal. But it nowhere appears in the judgment that IMT considered, much less decided, that a person becomes guilty of a crime against humanity merely by exerting anti-Semitic pressure to procure by purchase or through state expropriation industrial property owned by Jews. Not even under a proper construction of the section of Law No. 10 relating to crimes against humanity, do the facts warrant conviction. The "atrocities and offenses" listed therein "murder, extermination," etc., are all offenses against the person. Property is not mentioned. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis the catch-all words "other persecutions" must be deemed to include only such as affect the life and liberty of the oppressed peoples. Compulsory taking of industrial property, however reprehensible, is not in that category. It may be added that the presence in this section of the words "against any civilian population," re- […cently] |
