# Example — auditing user-supplied documents Three worked audits, each illustrating one of the four classic traps. Read this before auditing any document containing Nuremberg or Tokyo citations. --- ## Example A — IMT/NMT confusion (Trap 1) ### The document A draft article quotes: > "At Nuremberg, the IMT held in the Einsatzgruppen Case that crimes against humanity could be committed in peacetime, recognising the autonomy of the category." ### The audit Three problems: 1. **IMT vs NMT.** The Einsatzgruppen Case is *United States v. Ohlendorf et al.*, an **NMT case** (subsequent US Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No. 10, 1947-48). It is **not** an IMT case. Calling it "the IMT" is incorrect. 2. **Tribunal designation.** The correct citation: *United States v. Ohlendorf et al.* (the **Einsatzgruppen Case**), US Military Tribunal II-A, Nuremberg, Judgment of 8-9 April 1948, in *Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10*, Vol. IV (Washington, DC: US GPO 1950). 3. **"Peacetime" framing.** The Einsatzgruppen acts were wartime acts on the Eastern Front. The doctrinal step on which the user relies is the **legal framework under CCL No. 10**, Art. II(1)(c) — which dropped the IMT Charter's armed-conflict nexus and opened the conceptual space for crimes against humanity to be committed without an armed-conflict link. The framework allows for that conception; the facts in *Ohlendorf* did not test it. **Suggested redraft:** > "Under Control Council Law No. 10, Article II(1)(c), crimes against humanity were no longer bound to a nexus to armed conflict. The Einsatzgruppen Case (*United States v. Ohlendorf et al.*, US Military Tribunal II-A, Nuremberg, 8-9 April 1948) and the Justice Case (*United States v. Altstötter et al.*, US Military Tribunal III, Nuremberg, 3-4 December 1947), both NMT cases, developed crimes against humanity as a doctrinally autonomous category." --- ## Example B — Nuremberg/Tokyo confusion (Trap 2) ### The document A draft pleading reads: > "The IMT Charter Article 5 established the three categories of international crime, and the IMTFE Charter Article 6 reaffirmed them." ### The audit The article numbers are swapped: - **IMT Charter Article 6** establishes the three categories (crimes against peace 6(a), war crimes 6(b), crimes against humanity 6(c)). - **Tokyo Charter Article 5** establishes the three classes (Class A — crimes against peace; Class B — conventional war crimes; Class C — crimes against humanity). - The IMT Charter Article 5 governs the constitution of the Tribunal, not the categories of crime. - The Tokyo Charter Article 6 governs the responsibility of the accused (combining the IMT Charter's Articles 7 and 8 — no immunity, superior orders). **Suggested redraft:** > "The IMT Charter, Article 6, established the three categories of international crime — crimes against peace (6(a)), war crimes (6(b)), and crimes against humanity (6(c)). The Tokyo Charter, Article 5, established parallel categories using the Class A / B / C terminology. The Tokyo Charter Article 6 combined the IMT Charter's no-immunity (Art. 7) and superior-orders (Art. 8) provisions in a single article." --- ## Example C — Pal dissent attributed to "the Tribunal" (Trap 4) ### The document A draft essay states: > "At Tokyo, the Tribunal held that the prosecution of crimes against peace was retroactive law, contrary to *nullum crimen sine lege*. This was a fundamental challenge to the basis of the proceedings." ### The audit This is **wrong as a characterisation of the IMTFE's holding**. The Tribunal **did not hold** that the prosecution was retroactive. The **majority Judgment** of the IMTFE affirmed jurisdiction over crimes against peace and rejected the *ex post facto* objection. The view described is the **Pal dissent** — Justice Radhabinod Pal of India, in his *Dissentient Judgment*, took the position that aggressive war was not a crime under international law in 1928-1945 and that the prosecution was retroactive. But Pal's view was a dissent; the majority took the contrary position. **Suggested redraft:** > "At Tokyo, Justice Radhabinod Pal, dissenting, held that the prosecution of crimes against peace was retroactive law contrary to *nullum crimen sine lege*. The IMTFE majority took the contrary view and affirmed jurisdiction. Pal's *Dissentient Judgment* (IMTFE, 1948, in Pritchard-Zaide Vol. 21) is foundational to the post-colonial critique of the post-WWII tribunals; the *Judgment of the IMTFE* itself (Pritchard-Zaide Vol. 20) rejected the *ex post facto* objection." The reader now sees both — the majority view and the dissent — and is not led to confuse them. --- ## The common thread The audit task in each case is to **identify what document the proposition rests on** and to ensure the proposition matches what that document holds. The traps in the Nuremberg / Tokyo corpus are: - **Trap 1.** IMT vs NMT (Einsatzgruppen, Justice Case, Doctors' Trial are NMT, not IMT). - **Trap 2.** Nuremberg vs Tokyo (different Charters, different defendants, different sources, different article numbers). - **Trap 3.** Charter terminology (Article 6(a)(b)(c) at the IMT; Class A/B/C at the IMTFE; Article II(1)(a)(b)(c) at CCL No. 10). - **Trap 4.** Majority vs separate opinions at Tokyo (Pal, Röling, Bernard, Webb, Jaranilla — none of these are the holding). In a working draft, flag and correct. In a final published text, inventory and spot-check; treat the author's choices with respect; flag possible errors but do not invent them.