#law #internationallaw #elearning #holocaust
Adolf Eichmann Case, visualized
In 1960, Israel captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and transferred him to Israel, where he was prosecuted for crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership of the Nazi party.
The Security Council said that such acts could endanger international peace, as it affects states' sovereignty and causes international friction.
It also requested Israel to make appropriate reparation under the UN Charter and international law.
While Israel and Argentina agreed to settle the matter, Eichmann was convicted on all the counts charged, and the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against both conviction and sentence.
The lower court held, and the appellate tribunal confirmed, that it was bound to apply Israeli law and could not consider the contention that Israeli law conflicted with international law; and that there was no rule of international law preventing a State from assuming jurisdiction, over acts done in the territory of another State, and that the crimes which were constituted offenses by the law of Israel, always carried the stamp of international crimes, of which vested in every State authority to try and to punish them.
Thus, the crimes against the Jewish people charged were nothing but the cruelest instances of crimes against humanity; war crimes were a well-known category, and the conviction of Eichmann for membership of a hostile organization had not rested on his membership of Nazi organizations alone, but also for his participation in the extermination of Jews.
The jurisdiction assumed could further be upheld on the protective principle and passive personality principle, by connecting the link between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
The court also held that the fact that the accused had been brought to Israel against his will, was no obstacle to the taking of jurisdiction.
In particular, any objection there might exist on the international plane exclusively, and was cured by the waiver on the part of Argentina, nor could any plea that his acts were acts of State avail the accused.
Even before the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal , which excluded it, it was agreed that such a defense was not open to a person charged with a war crime, nor was the different defence of superior orders admissible, in the absence of any duress upon the accused, compelling him to act as he had acted.
