Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Adolf Eichmann
Court
Case number
Decision title
Judgment
Decision date
11 December 1961
Parties
Adolf Eichmann
Other names
Eichmann Case
Categories
Keywords
Links
Judgment
Argentina
back to top
Summary
The crimes perpetrated by the Nazis during Hitlers reign
against Jewish citizens were some of the worst recorded in
history. Although accurate figures may never be known, it is
estimated that some 6 million Jewish individuals died men,
women, and children from all over Europe. They were deported
from their homes in large freight trains in appalling conditions,
others starved or froze to death, others still were taken away to
concentration camps where the fit were forced to perform
manual labour whilst the weak were shot to death or later,
gassed to death in their thousands.
The Accused, Adolf Eichmann, was an Austrian by birth who
volunteered to work for the Security Service (SD) in Berlin. He
rose through the ranks and eventually occupied the position of
Head of Section (Referant) for Jewish Affairs charged with all
matters related to the implementation of the Final Solution to
the Jewish Question. In this capacity, he oversaw the transport
and deportation of Jewish persons, set up and personally ran
an operations centre in Hungary in order to implement the
Final Solution there, organised the transfer of money from
evacuated Jews to the State and was responsible for the
administration of the camps at Terezin and Bergen-Belsen.
He was captured by Israeli Security Forces in Argentina and
handed over to the District Court of Jerusalem to stand trial for
war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the
Jewish people. He was convicted of all 15 counts and
sentenced to death. He was unsuccessful in contesting the
jurisdiction of the Court or defending his actions by relying on
superior orders.
back to top
Procedural history
In May 1960, the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, abducted
Eichmann from his hiding place in Argentina and transferred
him to Jerusalem to face an Israeli court.
back to top
Specific legal rules and provisions
back to top
Court's holding and analysis
The Courts jurisdiction is founded upon it by the Nazis and
Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950. This law
does not violate the principles of international law (para. 10).
Israels right to punish is founded on two elements. First, the
universal character of the crimes in question, which are grave
offences against the law of nations itself and, in the absence of
an international court, grant jurisdiction to any domestic court
(para. 12). Second, the specific character of the crimes, which
was the extermination of the Jewish people, provides the
necessary linking point between the Accused and the newlyfounded State of Israel, a State established and recognised as
the State of the Jews (para. 34). The crimes committed by the
Accused concern the vital interests of the State, thus it has a
right to punish the Accused pursuant to the protective principle
(para. 35).
This jurisdiction is not negated by the manner in which the
Accused was brought before the Court. It is an established rule
of law that a person standing trial for an offence against the
laws of a State may not oppose his being tried by reason of the
illegality of his arrest or the means by which he was brought to
the jurisdiction of the court (para. 41). This rule applies equally
in cases where the accused is relying on violations of
international, rather than domestic, law (para. 47). Such a
violation of international law constitutes an international tort,
which may be cured by waiver. In the present instance, the
joint decision of the Governments of Argentina and Israel of 3
August 1960 cured the international tort committed by Israel
when it entered Argentinian territory to abduct the Accused
(para. 50).
Having examined the command structure in place at the SS
and the scope of the Accuseds authority, the Court concluded
that the latter acted in accordance with general directives from
his superiors but he retained wide powers of discretion (para.
180). Under Section 8 of the Punishment Law, the defence of
superior orders (contained in Section 19(b) of the Criminal
Code Ordinance of 1936) is not available in case of offences
enumerated by the afore-mentioned Law but may be taken into
account as a factor at sentencing (para. 218).
The Accused was convicted on all fifteen counts and
sentenced to death (para. 244).
back to top
Further analysis
Instruments cited
Related cases
Additional materials