Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. The American version in paragraph 21 corresponds very much to the Soviet point of view as expressed here, but it is confined to mitigating sentences. The findings of guilt or innocence are not made reviewable by our draft.

GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I do not think the Control Council could decide a question of guilt. They are only discussing punishment. But if the Council finds the evidence insufficient to arrive at a decision, it should be able to pass it back to the Tribunal for retrial.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We have two steps here one, the finding of guilt, a conviction. That merely says you are guilty but does not decide what shall be done with you. That is one step. Then the next step is the decision on the sentence, which is the amount of punishment the convicted should bear for the guilt. Now the sentence in our procedure is subject to revision, or pardon, or commutation without touching the finding of guilt necessarily. That is what we have referred to in that paragraph so that the Control Council might revise the sentence downward but not touch the finding of guilt, which a new trial in our procedure would do.

PROFESSOR GROS. The French Delegation thinks also there should be a possibility of modification of the sentence by the Control Council in the same lines which have been put before the Conference by the American Delegation. Now, if I understand the function of the commission, it is the discovery of new evidence on the trial, but, if that discovery is made by authorities under the Control Council, we might perhaps think of a situation in which the Control Council would go to the prosecutors and tell them, "On this trial we have new evidence", but it would be on the authority of the prosecuting commission and not on the decision of the Control Council. In this way the two authorities would be joined in the result, and it would be exactly the result the Soviet Delegation wants.

GENERAL DONOVAN. Under our system it would be the duty of the prosecutor to do that very thing.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. The suggestion was made, I have forgotten whether by General Nikitchenko or by the chairman, at a preceding meeting that we name a drafting committee consisting of one from each delegation to take up the details and see how far we can get with the drafting. As far as our Delegation is concerned, we are prepared to accept that suggestion and proceed in that way. I do not know whether further discussion is desired. I shall ask to be excused in a minute because the fourth day of July is a day on which we annually revive our historic hostility toward the British, but just for a noon hour, and I would like to join the American colony in London at their luncheon. You see, General Nikitchenko, we too are revolutionists.

GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. At this time I trust the hostility will be in a more or less friendly form.

SIR THOMAS BARNES. Would both the American and the Soviet drafts be used in conference or could they be incorporated in one instrument?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We would leave that to the subcommittee, and Mr. Alderman will represent us. He will meet with the other representatives whenever it is convenient and will bring in such help at any time as he feels he needs.

SIR THOMAS BARNES. It would be helpful if we could have two separate columns showing the American draft in one column and the Soviet plan in the other with its corresponding clauses.

GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I should like to know if the structure, the general form, of the Soviet draft is acceptable.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I do not think we have any serious objections to most of the structure. We are not inclined to stick to any particular form.

PROFESSOR GROS. Is it agreed that the subcommittee will discuss also the drafting of the agreement?

[It was so agreed.]

Mr. TROYANOVSKY. The Soviet Delegation would prefer that there be four members of the subcommittee with alternates.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Do you want the alternates present?
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No.

Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is acceptable, and Mr. Alderman will name his alternate at any time he will not be able to be present. At whose call should the subcommittee meet? I'd suggest that you settle on the time so that at least your first meeting will not be delayed.

SIR THOMAS BARNES. I suppose there would not be any objection to Mr. Dean's being present at the subcommittee meetings as he represents the Foreign Office, who would really have to be consulted in the last resort on this matter. That is why he is present here at the Conference.

[No objection.]

The first meeting of the subcommittee was fixed for Thursday, July 5, 1945, at 10:30 a. m. at Church House.

Note: On Saturday, July 7, 1945, Mr. Justice Jackson, with a number of his staff, flew to Wiesbaden, where certain former German officials of anti-Nazi sympathy, who had fled to Switzerland and had been brought to Wiesbaden by Allen Dulles of the Office of Strategic Services, were

interviewed and their statements taken. Also, a collection of captured documents of importance to the case was examined.

Proceeding to Frankfort, the group conferred with Gen. Lucius D. Clay, who advised that Nürnberg would be the most suitable place for trials. Going on to Nürnberg, Mr. Justice Jackson and members of the staff inspected the Palace of Justice and the jail, obtained dimensions and floor plans, and examined billeting facilities. After proceeding to Salzburg and stopping at Munich, he visited the Paris offices set up on the Rue Presburg for preparation of the case. A large collection of documents was under examination there.

XXIII. Draft Showing Soviet and American

Proposals in Parallel Columns

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

LAST SOVIET Draft

LAST AMERICAN DRAFT

1. In accordance with the Moscow Declaration of October 30, 1943, concerning the responsibility of the Nazis and Hitlerites for atrocities and crimes in violation of International Law, and in

In accordance with the Moscow Declaration of October 30, 1945, concerning the responsibility of the Hitlerites for their atrocities and in accordance with other statements of the United Nations regarding the punishment of war accordance with other statements criminals, the Governments of the of the United Nations regarding Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- the punishment of those who have lics, the United States of America, committed, been responsible for, the United Kingdom of Great or taken a consenting part in, such Britain and Northern Ireland and atrocities and crimes, the Governthe Provisional Government of the French Republic, acting in the interest of all the United Nations, have concluded the following Agreement:

1 Oct. 30, 1943, is correct.

ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, acting by their duly authorized representatives, [have] concluded the following agreement to which the adherence of all members of the United Nations is provided for, in order to provide the necessary practical measures for the prompt prosecution and trial of the major war criminals of the European Axis Powers, including the groups and organizations responsible for or taking a consenting part in the commission of such crimes and in the execution of criminal plans.

1. To establish for the trial of major war criminals, whose crimes are not restricted to a definite locality, an International Military Tribunal the jurisdiction and activity of which shall be determined by its Statute.

2. To approve the Statute of the International Military Tribunal which forms an integral part of this Agreement.

3. To turn over to the International Military Tribunal upon its demand all the major war criminals who are under the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal.

4. Each of the Signatories shall separately take the necessary measures to provide for the surrender to the International Military Tribunal of the war criminals who are to be found on the territory of countries who are not parties to this Agreement.

5. To surrender, upon the demand of the Governments of any of the countries which have signed

4. The parties to this agreement agree to bring to trial before an International Military Tribunal, in the name of their respective peoples, major criminals, including groups and organizations referred to in Article 1. To this end the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and France have each designated a representative to act as its Chief of Counsel. The Chiefs of Counsel shall be responsible for determining, preparing the charges against, and bringing to trial the persons and organizations so to be tried.

5. The Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France shall also promptly designate representatives to sit upon an International Military Tribunal which shall be charged with trying such persons, groups, and organizations.

3. The Signatories agree that the Control Council for Germany shall establish policies and procedures governing (a) the return to the scene of their crimes of persons in Germany charged with criminal offenses, in accordance with the Moscow Declaration, and (b) the surrender of persons within Germany in the custody of any of the Signatories who are demanded for prosecution by any party to this Agreement.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »