 |
humanity. As has already been
seen, Austria was occupied pursuant to a common plan of aggression. Its
occupation is, therefore, a ‘crime within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal’ as that term is used in Article 6 (c) of the Charter. As
a result, ‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts’ and ‘persecutions on political, racial, or religious
grounds’ in connection with this occupation, constitute a crime against
humanity under that Article."¹ |
Although Von Schirach's activities in Austria occurred after 1
September 1939, the reasoning of the IMT as to crimes against humanity
committed during the occupation of Austria is equally applicable to the period
of occupation of Austria before as after such date. Accordingly, even under the
interpretation of the Charter by the IMT, crimes against humanity committed in
Austria and Czechoslovakia during the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia
fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
6. Furthermore, as we
have pointed out, Control Council Law No. 10 is substantive legislation enacted
by the Four Occupying Powers in Germany, whose legislative power is not limited
by the London Agreement or the Charter. As we have shown more fully in
paragraphs 36-44 supra: The Charter does not purport to define such
crimes for any other purpose, and certainly does not purport even to suggest
that the jurisdiction of Tribunals other than the IMT is to be limited by such
definitions. The Four Powers were, therefore, within their jurisdiction when
defining, in Control Council Law No. 10, crimes against humanity in such way as
to omit the restriction: " * * * in execution of, or in connection with, any
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal," and the words are not to be
read into Control Council Law No. 10. This construction is borne out by count
three, United States of America vs. Josef Alstoetter, et al., where the
Court held: |
| |
| "The evidence to be later reviewed establishes that certain inhumane
acts charged in count three of the indictment were committed in execution of,
and in connection with, aggressive war and were therefore crimes against
humanity even under the provisions of the IMT Charter, but it must be noted
that C.C. Law 10 differs materially from the Charter. The latter defines crimes
against humanity as inhumane acts, etc., committed ‘in execution of, or in
connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal,’
whereas in C.C. Law 10 the words last quoted are deliberately omitted from
the definition."² [Emphasis supplied.] |
__________
¹ Ibid, pp.
318 and
319.
² Vol. 3. this series,
p. 974.
533 |
. 
