1988: A LOOK BACK: The hunt for Nazis (12/25/88)

1988: A LOOK BACK

The hunt for Nazis

During 1988 there were some developments in the continuing hunt for Nazi war criminals around the world.

In Canada, the government announced that a Memorandum of Understanding had been signed with the USSR regarding evidence on Nazi war crimes. Though actually signed on December 30, 1987, in Moscow, the memorandum was tabled in the House of Commons on February 10. The agreement was to enable the Canadian Department of Justice to gather evidence in the Soviet Union for use in legal proceedings against individuals charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Memorandum of Understanding provided for conformity to both Canadian rules of evidence and procedure, and the foreign government's sovereignty and legal requirements for taking evidence, as well as for the six conditions enumerated by the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry for the taking of evidence abroad: protection of reputations through confidentiality, use of independent interpreters, access to original documents where relevant; access to witnesses' previous statements; freedom of examination of witnesses in agreement with Canadian rules of evidence; and the videotaping of such examinations.

In Australia, The New York Times reported in February, more then 200 immigrants were under "active investigation" by the recently created Nazi-hunting agency, called the Special Investigation Unit.

Then, in April, it was reported that the Australian Senate's Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had recommended caution in dealing with potential evidence in war crimes cases that emanate from the Soviet Union. Questions had arisen about the reliability of evidence from the USSR that might be introduced in the course of investigations and trials, and the Standing Committee held two days of hearings on this issue.

The committee concluded that witnesses should appear in person in Australian courts and be cross-examined in the presence of a jury, as well as that both prosecution and defense should have equal access to witnesses and archives.

Meanwhile, the Australian Parliament had been considering an amendment to the country's War Crimes Act of 1945 to provide for the prosecution of alleged war criminals residing in Australia.

Then on December 20, the Australian Senate passed war crimes legislation after four days of what was described by The Australian (a newspaper) as "emotional and sometimes bitter debate." The War Crimes Amendment Bill was passed by the Senate by a vote of 38 to 33. It now goes to the House of Representatives which is expected to pass the bill. It could then become law within several weeks, and trials could start in Australia within the next six months.

Under current provisions for prosecuting war criminals, there would be no deportations to another country and all trials would take place in Australia. However, cautioned a Ukrainian community representative speaking at the recent World Congress of Free Ukrainians, all these provisions should be codified as law and should not be left up to the discretion of the courts.

In Great Britain, according to a report delivered at the WCFU, a Parliamentary committee has been established to examine whether to amend existing laws to provide for the prosecution of war criminals, or whether to even take up the matter. The committee's recommendations are expected in the spring of 1989. Meanwhile, the USSR submitted a list of 34 alleged war criminals, most of them Ukrainians, residing in Great Britain, while the Simon Wiesenthal Center had a list of 17, mostly Balts.

In the United States, the Office of Special Investigations continued its work. In March the OSI filed a motion in a Boston court to bar the taking of Soviet depositions at American consulates in the USSR without the presence of Soviet procurators. The OSI argued that a previous court order that any Soviet depositions be taken in American consular offices was an "impediment to taking the trial depositions in the Soviet Union previously authorized by the court." The OSI pointed out that officials of the Procuracy of the USSR had stated that "due to reasons of sovereignty, depositions conducted in the Soviet Union of its citizens must occur in Soviet offices and be presided over by a Soviet procurator."

In May, the Supreme Court reversed the denaturalization order in the case of Juozas Kungys. In a 6-2 opinion, the court also remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which will now have do decide on the materiality of misrepresentations made by Mr. Kungys when he applied for entry into the U.S. and later for citizenship. The Supreme Court's ruling established a new legal standard for determining whether an individual can be stripped of his citizenship. According to an observer of the case, where there is material misrepresentation, the applicant is now presumed disqualified; and the burden of proof is now on the defendant to prove his qualification for entry into the U.S. or citizenship, whereas, before it was up to government to prove his ineligibility. Stay tuned.

Critics of the OSI and its methodology, meanwhile, continue their efforts to have criminal trials of accused war criminals take place in the United States under American legal standards.

| Home Page |