6.b.i. [Mental Element for Element 5] [Consequence of depriving one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees:] The perpetrator meant to cause the deprivation of a fair and regular trial to one or more persons by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949; OR

P.13. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed.

P.13.1. Evidence that the perpetrator took part in discussions concerning unfair trials.

P.14. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

6.b.i. [Mental Element for Element 5] [Consequence of depriving one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees:] The perpetrator meant to cause the deprivation of a fair and regular trial to one or more persons by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949; OR

P.13. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed.

P.13.1. Evidence that the perpetrator took part in discussions concerning unfair trials.

A. Legal source/ authority and evidence:

Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at p. 59:

"[…] The Lagmannsrett also stressed the fact that the accused Latza had taken part in the discussions at Skaugum, where he must have learned that the whole trial was nothing but a camouflaged act of reprisal with only one possible outcome to those to be tried- the death sentence. Furthermore, during the conference with the German Prosecutor Weiner at Victoria Terrasse, he must have clearly understood that the evidence which Weiner proposed to submit to the Standgericht was insufficient. In the opinion of the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza must have been fully aware that the intention of the trial was to take reprisals and clothe them in a cloak of legality. He had thus, unlawfully, wilfully, and intentionally caused Dr. Saethre’s and Advokat Vislie’s death."

B. Evidentiary comment:

It should be noted that on retrial by the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza was acquitted because, inter alia, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that he had had interacted with the German Prosecutor Weiner before the trial. (Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at pp. 67-70) The decision of the Lagmannsrett was upheld by the Supreme Court.(ibid, p. 83)

P.14. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.