## Facts

- After World War II, the Allied powers agreed to create the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and defined three main categories of offenses: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
- The Allied Control Council, exercising governing authority in occupied Germany, enacted Control Council Law No. 10 (CCL 10) to provide a legal basis for each occupying power to prosecute individuals for specified international crimes.
- The United States, acting in its occupation zone, created Nuremberg Military Tribunals under CCL 10 and U.S. Military Government Ordinance No. 7 to conduct subsequent proceedings beyond the IMT.
- In the “Justice Case” (Case No. 3), the United States charged senior officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, judges of the People’s Court and Special Courts, and prosecutors (including Josef Altstötter) with participating in atrocities carried out through the German judicial apparatus.
- The prosecution’s theory was that the defendants used courts, prosecutions, and penal administration to carry out and support persecution, terror, and abuses, including severe punishments and death sentences imposed in politically driven proceedings and against protected persons.
- Evidence addressed policies and practices affecting civilians in occupied territories, including secret or coercive procedures and the “Nacht und Nebel” (Night and Fog) measures associated with secret transfer, incommunicado detention, and intimidation.
- The indictment included counts charging participation in a common plan or conspiracy, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and (for some defendants) membership in criminal organizations.
- The defendants attacked the legality of the proceedings, invoking *nullum crimen sine lege* and ex post facto principles, arguing that war crimes and crimes against humanity (as framed in the postwar instruments) were not established international-law crimes at the time of the conduct and that CCL 10 could not retroactively create liability.
- The tribunal ultimately convicted some defendants on some counts, acquitted others, and imposed prison sentences ranging from a term of years to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Control Council Law No. 10 validly authorized a U.S. military tribunal in occupied Germany to try German nationals for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
2. Whether war crimes and crimes against humanity were recognized and punishable under international law at the time of the defendants’ conduct, such that postwar prosecution did not violate *nullum crimen sine lege* or ex post facto principles.
3. Whether judges, prosecutors, and justice-ministry officials can incur individual criminal responsibility when they knowingly use judicial offices and legal processes as instruments of persecution, terror, unlawful detention, deportation, or killing.
4. Whether the tribunal could treat conspiracy as an independent offense under the law governing the proceeding, and how coordinated conduct could be considered in proving the substantive crimes.

## Decision

- The tribunal held that its jurisdiction derived from the Allied Control Council’s authority in occupied Germany and that CCL 10 was a valid enactment authorizing prosecution of international crimes.
- The tribunal rejected the argument that international criminal liability was limited to traditional battlefield violations, recognizing crimes against humanity (as applied in the case) as punishable under international law.
- The tribunal rejected *nullum crimen sine lege* and ex post facto defenses, reasoning that CCL 10 provided a forum and enforcement mechanism for conduct already condemned by international law and the laws of humanity, rather than inventing wholly new criminality.
- The tribunal concluded that judges and justice officials could be personally liable when they knowingly participated in using the legal system to carry out persecution and related abuses, even where acts were clothed in formal legal process.
- The tribunal declined to treat conspiracy as a stand-alone crime within its governing framework, while allowing proof of coordinated action to support liability for the charged substantive offenses.
- The tribunal entered convictions for some defendants and acquittals for others, with sentences ranging from years of imprisonment to life.

## Legal Principles

- An occupying authority exercising governmental power may establish tribunals and apply enactments such as CCL 10 to prosecute violations of international law committed under the prior regime.
- International law can impose individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and is not limited to treaty text or domestic statutes.
- The legality principle does not bar prosecution where the charged acts were already prohibited by customary international law and generally recognized norms at the time of commission; a later enactment may supply jurisdiction and procedures for punishment.
- Judicial office does not create immunity from responsibility for international crimes; judges, prosecutors, and ministry officials may be liable when they knowingly use legal institutions to implement persecution and unlawful violence.
- A tribunal may reject conspiracy as an independent count yet consider collective action and common participation as evidence supporting the elements of substantive international crimes.

## Conclusion

*United States v. Josef Altstoetter* (the Nuremberg “Justice Case”) upheld the authority of U.S. Military Tribunal III to proceed under Control Council Law No. 10, rejected legality-based defenses to war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity charges, and confirmed that jurists and justice officials may be held individually responsible when they knowingly turn courts and legal administration into tools for persecution and terror.


United States v. Josef Altstoetter, Control Council Law No. 10, at 954 (1948)