WAR CRIMES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 February 1943, Page 4

WAR CRIMES

PUNISHMENT OF GUILTY INDIVIDUALS LEGAL & OTHER PROBLEMS INVOLVED. NEED OF FACT-FINDING COMMISSION. Even though all three great powers the United States, Russia, and Britain, have now come forward with concrete proposals for action against war criminals it still remains to be decided what war crimes are and how and by whom they will be tried and punished, Mr E. Berg Holt wrote recently in the “Christian Science Monitor.” This presumably will be the first task which will 'confront a fact-finding commission, the composition of which is expected to be announced very soon. " A British Foreign Office commentator said steps to set up the commission would proceed on the basis of consultations among the United Nations. It is believed the question what are crimes will be considered primarily in light of the Geneva and Hague conventions which specifically forbid a num-' her of acts perpetrated by the Germans in the course of this war. CRIMES UNDER ORDINARY LAW. There is also in existence a list drafted after the last war of acts expressly forbidden or unsanctioned by custom, such as abuse of flags of truce and improper employment or treatment of prisoners of war. In addition to these two classes there are numerous categories which arc crimes against ordinary law, for example, murder, rape, abduction, arson, and theft. Most of these being extraditable offences will presumably not be regarded as war crimes, thus obviating difficulties which might arise if wanted criminals take refuge in neutral territory when the war ends. EX-KAISER’S ESCAPE. It is recalled in this connection that the Kaiser after he had escaped to Holland was accused in the Versailles Treaty of a “supreme offense against international morality and sanctity of treaties.” It would have been a breach of Dutch municipal law if he had been surrendered to the Allies on such charge, whereas if he had simply been charged with murder, the Netherlands Government would have had no alternative but to hand him over for trial. The other question, how and by whom war criminals shall be tried and punished raises even more intricate problems. Many experts here hold that there should be a United Nations court. Others point to (and agree with) President Roosevelt’s statement last summer that criminals be tried in the

countries where tße crimes have beencommitted. This indicates that it is intended to deal with them in national courts. UNIFORM PUNISHMENT. The latter procedure would not perhaps give rise to many difficulties if a treason trial is by military courts, but if the courts are ordinary civil ones, wide divergencies of sentences prescribed by national legislation might make uniform punishment impossible. It already has been mentioned, for example, that the Dutch have abolished capital punishment. After the last war the question of war crimes was not taken up until five days before the Armistice when a technical commission was appointed to investigate the matter. Ultimately four sections were included in the Versailles Treaty (227 to 230) as a result of which a list of about 900 names was prepared. When however the Allies demanded their surrender, the German Government pleaded to be allowed to try them before the Supreme Court at Leipzig. The request was granted, but only 45 persons were ever brought to trial and of these less than a dozen were convicted. Some cases were not heard until three or four years after the Armistice was 1 signed. This time the question of war crimes certainly has been approached earlier and than five days before an armistice and decision to include provision for surrender of war criminals in armistice terms is generally welcomed as calculated to prevent delays in bringing them to justice. OFFENDERS & TRIBUNALS. But it still remains to agree on machinery both for the trial of those accused and the punishment of those found guilty. Clearly it will be impossible to impose a uniform, death sentence on all those who, in the words of the St. James’s Palace resolution of January, “ordered, perpetrated or participated” in the crimes in ques-' tion. Another’ angle which from a legal standpoint is perhaps better described as a tangle and still definitely unravelled, isi what is to be done about those who are accused of crimes in more than one country, or of ordering acts, say in Germany, which are committed, say in Poland, or Yugoslavia. For this reason there are sonje who advocate trials before international as well as national courts. The international court, they suggest, should try cases of especial gravity, or where there is any uncertainty about jurisdiction, and should also be given competence to hear cases referred to it by national courts. • Whatever course is adopted it seems generally agreed their either legislation or some new international treaty will need be negotiated in order to establish valid tribunals, trials, and sentences.