Table of contents:
Element:
In the Medical Case, it was held that:
"In many cases experiments were performed by unqualified persons; were conducted at random for no adequate scientific reason, and under revolting physical conditions. All of the experiments were conducted with unnecessary suffering and injury and but very little, if any, precautions were taken to safeguard the human subjects from the possibilities of injury, disability, or death. In every one of the experiments the subjects experienced extreme pain or torture, and in most of them they suffered permanent injury, mutilation, or death, either as a direct result of the experiments or because of lack of adequate follow-up care. [...] Obviously all of these experiments involving brutalities, tortures, disabling injury, and death were performed in complete disregard of international conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilised nations, and Control Council Law No. 10. Manifestly human experiments under such conditions are contrary to the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established among civilised peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of the public conscience."[1]
According to the Tribunal in the Milch case:
"[...] it is claimed by the defendant that only legitimate scientific experiments were conducted which did not involve pain or torture and could not ordinarily be expected to result in death. It is remotely possible that so long as the experiments were under the guidance of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg some consideration was given to the possible effect upon the subjects of the experiments. But it is indisputable that the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher involved torture and suffering in the extreme and in many cases resulted in death. Under the specific guidance of Dr. Rascher, the air pressure was reduced to a point which no flier would ever be required to undergo (14,000 meters). The photographs of the subjects undergoing these experiments indicate extreme agony and leave no doubt that any victim who was fortunate enough to survive had undergone a harrowing experience. The Tribunal does not hesitate to find that these experiments, performed under the specious guise of science, were barbarous and inhuman."[2]
In his Concurring Opinion, Judge Musmanno recalled the testifying of one witness:
"Anton Pacheleff often stood by the apparatus during the experiments and looked through the observation window of the chamber. He testified:
"I have personally seen through the observation window of the chamber when a prisoner inside would stand a vacuum until his lungs ruptured. Some experiments gave men such pressure in their heads that they would go mad, and pull out their hair in an effort to relieve the pressure. They would tear their heads and face with their fingers and fingernails in an attempt to maim themselves in their madness. They would beat the walls with their hands and head, and scream in an effort to relieve pressure on their eardrums. These cases of extreme vacuums generally ended in the death of the subject. An extreme experiment was so certain to result in death that in many instances the chamber was used for routine execution purposes rather than an experiment.'"[3]
4.1. The conduct caused death; OR
4.2.3. Evidence of injury to mental health.
4.2.4. Not sufficient: Evidence of treatment of dead persons.
Footnotes:
[1] Trial of K. Brandt and Others ('The Medical Case'), Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council No. 10, October 1946- April 1949, Vol. II, p.183.
[2] Trial of Eberhard Milch, United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 20 December 1946-17 April 1947, p. 774-5.
[3] Trial of Eberhard Milch, United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 20 December 1946-17 April 1947, p. 840.
