Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:47:07.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Contribution of the Eichmann Trial to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2013

WILLIAM SCHABAS OC MRIA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The trial of Adolf Eichmann was poorly received by many contemporary observers, who felt that it bent the law beyond recognition in several key areas. With the renaissance of international criminal law in recent decades, the handling of difficult issues by the District Court of Jerusalem and the Supreme Court has been shown to fare rather well. The understanding of the relationship between crimes against humanity and genocide by the Israeli courts, and their response to the charge of retroactive criminality, to the consequences of the kidnapping, and to claims that the tribunal lacked impartiality, have also stood the test of time. Perhaps most important of all, the Eichmann decisions actually moved the law forward on the question of universal jurisdiction, effectively setting aside the narrow jurisdictional frame set by the 1948 Genocide Convention. Critics at the time of the judgments, possibly influenced by the famous but harsh commentary of Hannah Arendt, were much too negative in their assessments.

Keywords

Eichmannuniversal jurisdictionretroactivitycrimes against humanitymale captus bene detentus
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 667 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Arendt, H., ‘A Reporter at Large: Eichmann in Jerusalem - I’, New Yorker, 16 February 1963, 40Google Scholar; Arendt, H., ‘A Reporter at Large: Eichmann in Jerusalem - II’, New Yorker, 23 February 1963, 40Google Scholar; Arendt, H., ‘A Reporter at Large: Eichmann in Jerusalem - III’, New Yorker, 2 March 1963, 40Google Scholar; Arendt, H., ‘A Reporter at Large: Eichmann in Jerusalem - IV’, New Yorker, 9 March 1963, 48Google Scholar.

2 H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). For the counterpoint to Arendt's book: J. Robinson, And the Crooked Shall Be Made Straight: The Eichmann Trial, the Jewish Catastrophe, and Hannah Arendt's Narrative (1965).

3 Washington Post, 27 May 1960, A16, col. 2. For a review of the American press, see D. E. Lipstadt, The Eichmann Trial (2011), 24–31.

4 L. Douglas, The Memory of Judgment (2001), 121.

5 A. T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (1956), 716.

6 Fawcett, J. E. S., ‘The Eichmann Case’, (1962) 27 British Yearbook of International Law 181Google Scholar, at 181.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., 181.

9 Ibid., 215.

10 Lasok, D., ‘The Eichmann Trial’, (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 372–3.

11 Kittrie, N. N., ‘A Post Mortem of the Eichmann Case: The Lessons for International Law’, (1964) 55 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 28.

12 R. K. Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in International Law, Revised Edition with a Postlude on the Eichmann Trial (1962), 271. Also: Woetzel, R. K., ‘The Eichmann Case in International Law’, [1962] Criminal Law Review 671Google Scholar.

13 In addition to interlocutory rulings, there were two major judgments. The three-judge panel of the District Court of Jerusalem (Moshe Landau, President; Benjamin Halevi; and Yitzchak Raveh) issued the trial decision on 12 December 1961: A-G Israel v. Eichmann, (1961) 45 Pesakim Mehoziim 3; reported in English: (1968) 36 ILR 5. The appeal from conviction was dismissed on 29 May 1962 by five judges of the Supreme Court (Yitzchak Olshan, President; Shimon Agranat, Deputy President; Moshe Silberg; Alfred Witkon; Yoel Sussman), sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal: Eichmann v. A-G Israel, [1962] Piske Din 2033; reported in English: (1968) 36 ILR 277. Sentenced to death, Eichmann's appeal for clemency to the President was rejected. He was executed by hanging on 31 May 1962.

14 Lippmann, M., ‘Genocide: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann, and the Quest for Global Justice’ (2002) 8 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 45Google Scholar, at 121. See also Lippmann, M., ‘The Trial of Adolf Eichmann, and the Protection of Universal Human Rights under International Law’, (1982) 5 Houston Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar.

15 Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘The Eichmann Trial: A Judicial Precedent’, (1962) 38 International Affairs 485CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Musmanno, M. A., ‘The Objections in limine to the Eichmann Trial’, (1962) 35 Temple Law Quarterly 1Google Scholar, at 20.

17 Schwarzenberger, G., ‘The Eichmann Judgment: An Essay in Censorial Jurisprudence’, (1962) 15 Current Legal Problems 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 259 (reference omitted).

18 Ibid., 264.

19 For early references to the Eichmann judgments: Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995, para. 41; Prosecutor v. Tadić, (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, paras. 55, 57; Prosecutor v. Tadić, Separate Opinion of Judge Sidhwa on the Defence Motion of Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, p. 88; Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Sentencing Judgement, Case No. IT-96-22-T, 29 November 1996, para. 62; Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese, Case No. IT-96-22-A, 7 October 1997, para. 33; Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108 bis, 29 October 1997, para. 38; Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para. 156; Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para. 68.

20 Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, Laws of the State of Israel 4, p. 154 (1950), Section I(a). The legislation was published in Yearbook on Human Rights for 1950 (1952), at 163.

21 L. Douglas, The Memory of Judgment (2001), 117.

22 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 26; Eichmann v. A-G Israel (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 10.

23 The Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law, Laws of the State of Israel 4, at 101 (1950).

24 Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/273 (III).

25 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 14.

26 Musmanno, M. A., ‘The Objections in Limine to the Eichmann Trial’, (1962) 35 Temple Law Quarterly 1Google Scholar, at 22.

27 The leading case is Prosecutor v. Krstić, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004.

28 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgement of 26 February 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 43.

29 Jorgić v. Germany (App. No. 74613/01), Judgment, 12 July 2007.

30 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the Secretary-General, Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 (2004) of 18 September 2004, UN Doc. S/2005/60, paras. 489–506.

31 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 23.

32 R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944).

33 King, H. T. Jr ‘Origins of the Genocide Convention’, (2008) 40 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 13Google Scholar, at 13.

34 UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.22. The draft resolution (UN Doc. A/BUR.50), after some amendment, was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly on 11 December 1946 (UN Doc. A/RES/96(I)). For the history of the resolution, see UN Doc. E/621.

35 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277, Art. 2.

36 UN Doc. A/C.6/234. Cited in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), supra note 28, at para. 190.

37 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 79.

38 Ibid., at para. 80.

39 Ibid., at para 72.

40 Ibid., at para 186.

41 Ibid., at para. 186.

42 Ibid., at para. 244(1). Also paras. 244(2) and (3).

43 Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999; Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-10-A, 5 July 2001; Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., Judgement on Defence Motions to Acquit, Case No. IT-95-8-T, 3 September 2001; Prosecutor v. Stakić, Decision on Rule 98 bis Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, Case No. IT-97-24-T, 31 October 2002; Prosecutor v. Stakić, Judgement, Case No. IT-97-24-T, 31 July 2003; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Judgement, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004.

44 Prosecutor v. Krstić, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 2 August 2001; Prosecutor v. Krstić, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004; Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-05-88-T, 10 June 2010.

45 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), supra note 28, at para. 190.

46 Ibid., para. 105 (Separate Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Kreća).

47 Prosecutor v. Karadzić, Transcript of Ruling on Application Pursuant to Rule 98 bis, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, 11 June 2012, 28571–2.

48 Prosecutor v. Krstić, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004; Prosecutor v. Blagojević et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-02-60-T, 17 January 2005.

49 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials (1949), 333.

50 France et al. v. Goering et al., (1948) 22 IMT 411, at 498.

51 Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, 20 December 1945, Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 3, 31 January 1946, at 50–5.

52 Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, Case File 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC, Judgement, 26 July 2010, para. 291.

53 Auto, Diligencias Previas Proc. Abreviado 399/2006 V, Juzgado Central de lo Penal n° 5, Audiencia Nacional, 17 October 2008, at 21.

54 United States of America v. Pohl et al., Opinion and Judgment, (1950) 5 TWC 958, at 991–2; United States of America v. Flick et al., Opinion and Judgment, (1952) 6 TWC 1181, at 1212–13; United States of America v. von Weizsaecker et al. (‘the Ministries case’), Order Dismissing Count Four, (1952) 13 TWC 112, at 117. See the discussion in K. J. Heller, The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (2011), 234–42.

55 United States of America v. Alstötter et al. (‘the Justice case’), Opinion and Judgment, (1951) 3 TWC 954, at 985.

56 United States of America v. Alstötter et al. (‘the Justice case’), Indictment, (1951) 3 TWC 15, at 17.

57 United States of America v. Ohlendorf et al. (‘the Einsatzgruppen case’), Opinion and Judgment, (1951) 4 TWC 411, at 496–500.

58 United States of America v. Ohlendorf et al. (‘the Einsatzgruppen case’), Indictment, (1951) 4 TWC 13.

59 Heller, supra note 54, at 383.

60 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 140.

61 Ibid., para. 78. See also the discussion in the Trial Chamber: Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995, paras. 78–83.

62 Cassese, A., ‘Balancing the Prosecution of Crimes against Humanity and Non-Retroactivity of Criminal Law: The Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia Case before the ECHR’, (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 410CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 413.

63 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13.

64 Heller, supra note 54, at 375–77.

65 Motion adopted by all Defense Counsel, 19 November 1945, (1947) 1 IMT 168.

66 C. Schmitt, ‘Das internationalrechtliche Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges und der Grundsatz “Nullum crimine, nulla poena sine lege”’, published in English as ‘The International Crime of the War of Aggression and the Principle “Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”’, in C. Schmitt, Writings on War (2011), at 123–97.

67 E.g., United States of America v. Alstötter et al. (‘the Justice case’), (1951) 3 TWC 954, at 974 ff.

68 Honigmann v. Attorney-General, [1951] ILR 542, at 543 (District Court of Tel Aviv).

69 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 7.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid., at para. 27.

72 Eichmann v. A-G Israel (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 8.

73 UN Doc. A/RES/217A (III).

74 See, e.g., UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.115 and UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.116

75 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, [1971] ICJ Rep. 16, at 76 (Separate Opinion of Vice-President Ammoun); United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, [1980] ICJ Rep. 3, para. 91.

76 See Green, L. C., ‘The Maxim Nullum Crimen sine Lege and the Eichmann Trial’, (1962) 38 British Yearbook of International Law 457Google Scholar, at 458.

77 Kononov v. Latvia, No. 36376/04 [GC], Judgment, 17 May 2010. See also Korbely v. Hungary, No. 9174/02 [GC], Judgment, 19 September 2008; Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia, No. 23052/04, Decision, 17 January 2006.

78 CR v. United Kingdom, Ser. A, No. 335-B, para. 41; SW v. United Kingdom, Ser. A, No. 335-B, para. 36.

79 Poland v. Greiser, (1948) 13 LRTWC 70 (Supreme National Tribunal of Poland); Poland v. Goeth, (1946) 7 LRTWC 4 (Supreme National Tribunal of Poland); Poland v. Hoess, (1948) 7 LRTWC 11 (Supreme National Tribunal of Poland).

80 UN Doc. A/RES/96 (I).

81 R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944).

82 ‘Parliamentary Question Background Document Relating to a Written Question from Lord Buffen Tabled on 23 January 2001 – Draft response for Baroness Scotland’, cited in Geoffrey Robertson, Was There an Armenian Genocide?, 9 October 2009, para. 65

83 Hansard, 7 June 2006, Col. 136WH.

84 Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, UN Doc. S/RES/138 (1960); UN Doc. S/PV.865–868 (1960).

85 See Rousseau, C., ‘Chronique des faits internationaux: Argentine et Israel: Affaire Eichmann; Arrestation et enlèvement en territoire argentin par des agents du Gouvernement israélien d'un ressortissant allemand recherché pour crimes de guerre’, (1960) 64 Revue générale de droit international public 772Google Scholar; Silving, H., ‘In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality’, (1961) 55 American Journal of International Law 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lippmann, M., ‘The Trial of Adolf Eichmann and the Protection of Universal Human Rights under International Law’, (1982) 5 Houston Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar, at 7–11.

86 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.822, para. 15.

87 Jaspers, K., ‘Who Should Have Tried Eichmann?’, (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 853CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 854.

88 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 40.

89 An English translation of the decision of 17 April 1961 is reproduced in S. Rosenne, ed., 6,000,000 Accusers; The Opening of the Eichmann Trial (1961), 303–5.

90 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 41.

91 Ibid., at para. 44.

92 Ibid., at para. 50.

93 Pro: United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 (1992); contra: R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Bennett, [1994] 1 AC 42.

94 Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Decision on Defence Motion Challenging the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the Tribunal, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, 9 October 2002, para. 84. See Sloan, J., ‘Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic: Decision on Defence Motion for Illegal Capture’, (2003) 16 Leiden Journal of International Law 541CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sridhar, A., ‘Note: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's Response to the Problem of Transnational Abduction’, (2006) 42 Stanford Journal of International Law 343Google Scholar.

95 Ibid., at para. 94.

96 Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest, Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, 5 June 2003, para. 23.

97 Barbie, Cour de cassation, Chambre criminelle, 6 October 1983, 83–93.194; English translation in (1978) 78 ILR 126.

98 Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest, Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, 5 June 2003, referring to A-G Israel v. Eichmann (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 12.

99 Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest, Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, 5 June 2003, para. 23.

100 Ibid., at para. 24.

101 Ibid., at para. 26. See also the brief discussion in Prosecutor v. Milosević, Decision on Preliminary Motions, Case No. IT-02-54-PT, 8 November 2001, paras. 48–51.

102 Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, Case No. IT-94-2-A, 4 February 2005.

103 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995, para. 41.

104 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 55.

105 Ibid., at para. 57.

106 For this position, see Sloan, J., ‘Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolić (Decision of the Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest), Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, 5 June 2003’, (2005) 4 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 491CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 495.

107 Mohammed and Dalvie v. The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, CCT 17/01, 2001 (3) SA 893 CC, paras. 68, 74.

108 Ibid., at para. 71, note 59.

109 Address by Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at Chatham House and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 15 February 2006.

110 See, e.g., Klaus Altmann (Barbie) v. France, No. 10689/83, Commission Decision of 4 July 1984, Decisions and Reports 37, at 225; Illich Sanchez Ramirez v. France, No 28780/95, Commission Decision of 24 June 1996, Decisions and Reports 86, at 155; Öcalan v. Turkey, No. 46221/99, Sections 86–92 12 March 2003; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], No. 46221/99, Sections 83–90, ECHR 2005-IV.

111 UN Doc. A/BUR/50.

112 United States: UN Doc. E/623, Art. V; Soviet Union: UN Doc. E/AC.25/7.

113 UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.7, at 3–4.

114 UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.100.

115 Ibid.

116 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 20.

117 Ibid., at para. 22.

118 1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 UNTS 993, Art. 38(1)(b) and (c).

119 N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960), 84; P. N. Drost, Genocide, United Nations Legislation on International Criminal Law (1959), 101–2.

120 Eichmann v. A-G Israel (District Court), supra note 13, paras. 24–25.

121 Ibid., at para. 25.

122 Eichmann v. A-G Israel (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 12(e).

123 Treves, V. E., ‘Judicial Aspects of the Eichmann Case’, (1963) 47 Minnesota Law Review 557Google Scholar, at 584.

124 Green, L. C., ‘The Eichmann Case’, (1960) 23 Modern Law Review 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 512.

125 S.S. ‘Lotus’, Judgment, Series A, No. 10.

126 Fawcett, J. E. S., ‘The Eichmann Case’, (1962) 27 British Yearbook of International Law 181Google Scholar, at 205.

127 UN Doc. A/760, para. 24.

128 Carnegie, A. R., ‘Jurisdiction over Violations of the Laws and Customs of War’, (1963) 39 British Yearbook of International Law 402Google Scholar, at 409.

129 Statute of the International Court of Justice, supra note 118, Art. 38(1).

130 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 21.

131 Eichmann v. A-G Israel (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 10.

132 A-G Israel v. Eichmann (District Court), supra note 13, para. 30.

133 Ibid., at para. 38.

134 Eichmann v. A-G Israel (Supreme Court), supra note 13, para. 12 in fine. The approach of the Israeli courts in Eichmann was followed by the United States courts in Demjanjuk, although the specific issue raised by the exclusion of universal jurisdiction in Art. 6 was apparently not considered. See In the Matter of the Extradition of John Demjanjuk, 612 F.Supp. 544 (D.C. Ohio 1985), at 554–8.

135 Meron, T., ‘Public International Law Problems of the Jurisdiction of the State of Israel’, (1961) 88 Journal du droit international 986Google Scholar, at 1058 (reference omitted).

136 Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), UN Doc. S/1994/674, Annex, at p. 13.

137 Meron, T., ‘International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities’, (1995) 89 American Journal of International Law 554CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 570; Stern, B., ‘La compétence universelle en France: Le cas des crimes commis en ex-Yougoslavie et au Rwanda’, (1997) 40 German Yearbook of International Law 280Google Scholar, at 286–7.

138 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 62. See also Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para. 1w56.

139 Jorgić v. Germany (App. No. 74613/01), Judgment, 12 July 2007, para. 68.

140 Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24, s. 8(b).

141 Transcript, Sess. 95, pp. V-1, W-1; Sess. 11, p. F-1. Cited in Green, L. C., ‘Legal Issues of the Eichmann Trial’, (1962) 37 Tulane Law Review 641Google Scholar, at 658.

142 Bach, G., ‘Eichmann: Is Evil so Banal?’, (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 645Google Scholar.

143 Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials, supra note 12, at 249. On Servatius, see Burchard, C., ‘Servatius, Robert’, in Cassese, A.et al. (eds.), Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (2009), 512–13Google Scholar.

144 Ambos, K., ‘Some Considerations on the Eichmann Case’, in Ambos, K.et al. (eds.), Eichmann in Jerusalem: 50 Years After (2012), 123Google Scholar, at 125. Along similar lines, see Bass, G. J., ‘The Adolf Eichmann Case: Universal and National Jurisdiction’, in Macedo, S., Universal Jurisdiction, National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law (2004), 77Google Scholar, at 89

145 Green, supra note 141, at 655–7.

146 Birn, R. B., ‘Fifty Years After: A Critical Look at the Eichmann Trial’, (2011) 44 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 443Google Scholar.

147 H. Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann (2004), 237.

148 Organic Law Concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States, Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, Year 46, Special issue of 19 March 2007, Art. 14.

149 Green, supra note 141, at 662.

150 Prosecutor v. Hategekimana, Decision on the Prosecution's Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule 11 bis, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-R11 bis, 4 December 2008, para. 24.

151 Ibid., at para. 28. See also, Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, Decision on the Prosecution's Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule 11 bis, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11 bis, 8 October 2008, para. 42; Prosecutor v. Kanyarukiga, Decision on the Prosecution's Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule 11 bis, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-R11 bis, 30 October 2008, para. 33.

152 Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, Decision on Uwinkindi's Appeal against Referral of his Case to Rwanda and Related Motions, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11 bis, 16 December 2011, paras. 57–68. See also Prosecutor v. Munyagishari, Decision on the Prosecutor's Request for Referral of the Case to the Republic of Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-2005-89-R11 bis, 6 June 2012, 129–135; Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, Decision on Prosecutor's Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11 bis, 28 June 2011, 105–8.

153 Y. Rogat, The Eichmann Trial and the Rule of Law (1961), 37 n. 46.

154 Ibid.

155 Arendt, supra note 2, at 238.

156 A-G Israel v. Malchiel Gruenwald, 22 June 1955.

157 Lippmann, M., ‘The Trial of Adolf Eichmann and the Protection of Universal Human Rights under International Law’, (1982) 5 Houston Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar, at p. 28.

158 Cited in Rosenne, supra note 89, at 179.

159 Interlocutory Decision No. 3, cited in P. Papadatos, The Eichmann Trial (1964), at 41.

160 Green, supra note 141, at 651.

161 Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Decision on Motion for Disqualification, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, 10 June 2003.

162 Faurisson v. France (CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993), Views under Art. 5, para. 4, of the Optional Protocol, 16 December 1996, App. A. Statement by Mr. Thomas Buergenthal.

163 Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials, supra note 12, at 255. See also Woetzel, R. K., ‘The Eichmann Case in International Law’, (1962) Criminal Law Review 671Google Scholar, at 681–67.

164 Brownlie, I., ‘Eichmann: A Further Comment’, (1962) Criminal Law Review 817Google Scholar, at 817.

165 T. Taylor, ‘Large Questions in the Eichmann Case’, New York Times Magazine, 22 January 1961.

166 Arendt, supra note 2, at 247.

167 Papadatos, supra note 159, at 42.

168 See the discussion in M. A. Newton and M. P. Scharf, Enemy of the State: The Trial and Execution of Saddam Hussein (2008), 50–60. See also Alvarez, J. E., ‘Trying Hussein: Between Hubris and Hegemony’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bassiouni, M. C. and Hanna, M. W., ‘Ceding the High Ground: The Iraqi High Criminal Court Statute and the Trial of Saddam Hussein’, (2006–8) 39 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 21Google Scholar; Goldstone, R., ‘The Trial of Saddam Hussein: What Kind of Court Should Prosecute Saddam Hussein and Others for Human Rights Abuses’, (2003–4) 27 Fordham International Law Journal 1490Google Scholar; Peterson, J., ‘Unpacking Show Trials: Situating the Trial of Saddam Hussein’, (2007) 48 Harvard International Law Journal 257Google Scholar.

169 J. Q. Barrett, ‘Creating an Institutional Precedent at Nuremberg’ (available at http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/2846510b7fec46a492d236544cb03b31.pdf?d=20110402).

170 Shapira, A., ‘The Eichmann Trial: Changing Perspectives’, in Cesarani, D. (ed.), After Eichmann: Collective Memory and the Holocaust since 1961 (2005), 18Google Scholar at 19.