Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
The law of war imposes on a military officer in a position of command an
affirmative duty to take such steps as are within his power and
appropriate to the circumstances to control those under his command for
the prevention of acts which are violations of the law of war. The
reason for the rule is plain and understandable. As is pointed out in a
decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, entitled
Application of Yamashita, 66 Supreme Court [Reporter] 340-347, 1946—
“It is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops
whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of
their commander would almost certainly result in violations
which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its
purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war
from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an
invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable
measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes
that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the
operations of war by commanders who are to some extent
responsible for their subordinates.”
What has been said in this decision applies peculiarly to the case of
Handloser.
In connection with Handloser’s responsibility for unlawful experiments
upon human beings, the evidence is conclusive that with knowledge of the
frequent use of non-German nationals as human experimental subjects, he
failed to exercise any proper degree of control over those subordinated
to him who were implicated in medical experiments coming within his
official sphere of competence. This was a duty which clearly devolved
upon him by virtue of his official position. Had he exercised his
responsibility, great numbers of non-German nationals would have been
saved from murder. To the extent that the crimes committed by or under
his authority were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.
CONCLUSION
Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Siegfried Handloser
guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.
ROSTOCK
The defendant Rostock is charged under counts two and three of the
indictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,
Malaria, Lost (Mustard) Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve
Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, and
Spotted Fever Experiments.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account