The Courts Of Nuremberg And Tokyo To Judge War Criminals

The courts of Nuremberg and Tokyo to judge war criminals

The trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo are one of the most interesting designs to find the way out of one of the most difficult challenges that humanity was found, to carry out an international process to settle the guilt or innocence of the high military hierarchs defeated by the other nations, Ambaos Courts has ad hoc nature, unlike the International Criminal Court. In these judgments, we were trying to find the way for the main causes and perpetrators of the most terrible atrocities made by man, which is specifically World War II, we must remember aspects and data that show the responsibility of those who were judged in theseCourts, which was the holocaust with a result of more than 6.000.0000 of victims and the war with more than 40 million. These judgments are of vital importance for the impact they had on the normative development that establishes the demand for legal responsibilities to the people and states that instigate or lead to a war, or crimes against humanity. These referring judgments were also in terms of international courts in which responsibilities for international crimes are submitted to trial.

Nuremberg Court

In 1942, developed in the Palace of Justice of Nuremberg, this election was made for several reasons, for being the place where the laws of racial segregation, for its symbolism and for being one of the few buildings of that class that had remained promulgatedin Germany after the bombings;Thus the governments of the Allied powers published the decision to punish war criminals, on December 17, 1942, the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union recognized the Holocaust and established that the perpetrators of thesame.

With all this the allies decided to form an international military court. Moscow’s statement in 1943, said in part that those responsible for the crimes made during the SGM would be sent to the place where they have committed the illicit, but finding the difficulty that many criminals who could not be framed in a specific placeTo be punished for joint decisions of allied governments, it established a territorial competence in relation to the crimes committed by the Germans in the occupied territory and thus also an international competition on which they could not be located in a given country, but it was insufficientFor crimes against humanity and new ones at that time, that is why the London agreement established the competition on those great war crimes that do not have a defined geographical location, which aroused doubts about the jurisdictionality and partiality of theJudgers

The trials officially began on November 20, 1945, each of the allies had to provide a judge and a team of prosecutors and the regulation of the same was given by the reconciliation of American judicial systems and American Anglo. The charges presented were for war crimes, against peace and crimes against humanity, which attracts attention since no accusation was presented to any ally who had been responsible for the same crimes. On October 1, 1946, the conclusions were presented, in which the charges on the defendants confirmed except for four, as well as guilty to several organizations such as the SS, the Gestapo and Political Leader Corps of the Nationalist Party of the Nationalist Party.

Tokyo court

General Mcarthur ordered on behalf of the Commission for the Far East, to establish a special court to judge the war crimes of the Japanese army on January 19, 1946, as before in Nuremberg, this was criticized the absence of impartialitysince the members of the Court were chosen as by each country and was not carried out as members of an organization for the trial, which triggered politicization, irregularities and judicial abuse.

This was also integrated by the winning powers. The statute of the same defines the crimes in its fifth article that are: war crimes, against peace and humanity. After criticisms of the Nuremberg Court, the members of members formed by the Court thus applying to 11 judges from different countries were extended. During the trial, 25 Japanese military, officials and politicians were tried. The story was repeated so much judges and prosecutors were part of the same team and the possibility of an objective sentence was very unlikely and despite having signed the Agreements of Paris and Hague, the Empire was accused of crimes against humanity.

In this process, the Japanese emperor was not judged, since an agreement had been reached with an American Mcarthur general so as not to be taken to the gallows, as well as the experiments of Squadron 731 and the Nankín massacre. Several defendants committed suicide before being arrested and courts, many of them resorted to SEPPEKU, a known Japanese suicide ritual, since in this way they avoided the dishonor of their people.

The Academy of War in Tokyo was the headquarters chosen to take the trial, since as in Nuremberg, it was one of the few existing buildings after war, and it began on May 3, 1946 and this was chaired by the AustralianWilliam Flood Webb, where 28 political, military leaders were sentenced to death chains, perpetual and others for a defined time, of these twenty -eight were actually twenty -five of court.

After the sentence provided by the date of execution of the defendants, an appeal was filed before the United States Supreme Court, and after the deliberation they declared that this body does not have the authority to review the sentence and this was dismissed, with whichThe penalty of the seven convicted of gallows and the other convictions was confirmed. As expected in this trial, the crimes made by the allies were not taken into account.

An important fact of the development of the trial is that the Yamashita Standard was established, since it had not committed any crime, but that these were made by their lower and during that process in which the same appears the condemnation, it was rejected by being foundthat as responsible for its "hierarchical superiority" in which it had to take measures to avoid the atrocities against the civilian population, a point that at the jurisprudential level marks a type of responsibility of this type of positions.

With all the stated, we conclude that from these courts, basic instruments for international competence, the beginning of international criminal law, as well as the creation of various vital agreements for the regulation and judgment of crimes could be developed; The Second War was necessary to be born the international community, but we must also see both sides of the currency, since on the one hand we have the contributions of great importance, and on the other the judgment discussed and impartial by victors against defeats, They are international competence and without normative bases judged war criminals (clear violation of the principle “Nullum crime, Nulla Poen Of course, nor have organisms to appeal the decisions taken, as well as the understanding that sovereign rights cannot be on the one that corresponds to the international community and that all must be judged under the same optics, whether expired or victors