## Facts

- In March 1945, Dreierwalde aerodrome in Germany was bombed, and several Allied aircrew bailed out and were captured.
- On or about March 22, 1945, Karl Amberger, a Luftwaffe *Oberfeldwebel*, was placed in charge of escorting five captured Allied airmen, treated as prisoners of war, purportedly to a nearby railway station.
- During the march, members of the escort party, including Amberger, opened fire on the prisoners.
- Four prisoners (two RAF and two RAAF) were killed; a fifth prisoner was wounded but escaped and later testified.
- The prosecution alleged the prisoners were unarmed, fully under guard control, and made no escape attempt when the firing began.
- The defense conceded the shootings occurred but claimed Amberger honestly believed the prisoners were about to escape based on “suspicious” conduct (e.g., talking among themselves and taking bearings).
- Amberger was charged under the laws and usages of war for being “concerned in the killing” of four named prisoners of war.
- The prosecution relied on Hague Regulations (1907) art. 23(c), prohibiting killing or wounding enemies who have surrendered or are otherwise hors de combat.

## Issues

1. Whether the shootings were lawful as a response to an actual escape attempt by prisoners of war.
2. Whether an asserted belief in an imminent escape attempt, without reasonable grounds, could justify the use of lethal force against prisoners of war under the laws and usages of war.
3. Whether Amberger’s involvement as escort leader established individual criminal responsibility for the unlawful killings.

## Decision

- The British Military Court found Amberger guilty of a war crime for being concerned in the killing of four prisoners of war.
- The court found the prisoners were not attempting to escape when they were shot.
- The court found Amberger lacked reasonable grounds to believe an escape attempt was occurring.
- The court sentenced Amberger to death by hanging.

## Legal Principles

- Under Hague Regulations (1907) art. 23(c), it is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who has laid down arms or no longer has means of defense, including captured prisoners of war.
- Deadly force against a prisoner of war is not justified unless the prisoner is actually attempting to escape or the guard has reasonable grounds to believe an escape attempt is being made.
- A claimed subjective belief that prisoners might escape is insufficient absent objective “reasonable grounds” supporting that belief.
- A guard or escort leader may incur individual criminal responsibility for unlawful killings committed while prisoners are under the escort’s control.

## Conclusion

The court treated captured Allied airmen as protected prisoners of war and held that shooting them during an escort constituted a war crime where no escape attempt occurred and the accused had no reasonable grounds to believe one was underway, rejecting suspicion-based justifications for lethal force.


Trial of Karl Amberger (Dreierwalde Case), 1 L. Rep. Trials War Crims. 81 (Brit. Mil. Ct. Wuppertal 1946)