When Nazi Germany surrendered in 1945, the U.S., Soviet and British governments had decided to hold war trials rather than summarily execute the highest-ranking members of the German government. In June 1945 representatives of these governments, along with the newly liberated French government, met in London at the International Conference of Military Trials. In August they signed a convention called the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Power.

This convention, which is usually labeled the London Agreement or Nuremberg Charter, set out the procedures for prosecuting Nazi officials and established the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This tribunal was composed of eight judges, evenly divided among the four powers. However, only four judges were charged with deciding the cases. The other four judges served as alternates.

The London Agreement sought to provide fairness and due process to the defendants. To this end each defendant was represented by a lawyer and the standard U.S. criminal rules applied, including the presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidentiary rules also generally followed the Anglo-American system, allowing cross-examination and the right to introduce evidence that excused the alleged criminal acts. However, the rules on admissibility of documents were relaxed in light of the difficulty of authenticating papers taken by the victors. The IMT decided on the admissibility of evidence and all other matters by a majority vote.

The U.S. judge was former attorney general Frances Biddle. Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Great Britain served as chief judge, with a Soviet and French judge filling out the panel. U.S. Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson was the lead prosecutor, heading a large group of American civilian and military lawyers. Jackson played a large part in the drafting of the London Agreement and had argued that it was not unfair to charge Nazi leaders with war crimes that had not been previously recognized as crimes. He contended that many of their crimes such as the extermination of six million Jews, had been illegal since the dawn of civilization.

The trial of the Nazi leadership centered on four broad counts of criminal conduct. The counts included:



conspiracy

crimes against peace

war crimes and

crimes against humanity.

The charge labeled crimes against peace was a new concept, making it a crime to plan and start wars in violation of international treaties or agreements. The count of war crimes was the most traditional charge, as it was based on the laws and customs of war that were commonly accepted at the time. in violation of the laws and customs of war as accepted and practiced around the world. The count of crimes against humanity was the most novel concept, as it addressed the Nazis’ murderous conduct toward civilian populations both inside and outside of Germany. This has remained the most contentious part of the trials, as it permited the international community to police genocide and other conditions that occur within a sovereign nation.

Of the 24 Nazi officials tried at Nuremberg, 19 were convicted and three were acquitted. Of the two remaining individuals, one committed suicide before the proceedings and one was deemed incompetent to stand trial. The IMT convicted:

Nuremberg trials. (2002). In S. Phelps (Ed.), World of Criminal Justice, Gale. Farmington, MI: Gale. Retrieved from https://lynn-lang.student.lynn.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/worldcrims/nuremberg_trials/0