Comparative analysis of aspects of the defense of the defendants of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals

Abstract

The article discusses some aspects of the legal defense of the defendants of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial and Punishment of the Main War Criminals of the European Axis Countries and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. A comparative analysis of the provisions of the Statutes of international Tribunals concerning the rights of the accused to defense is given. The rights of the defendants are considered in detail, including the right to defend themselves personally, the right to choose a lawyer, and the right to provide evidence. The article is carried out within the framework of the study of the history of international criminal justice and the history of the formation of international criminal law. The analysis of some modern problems in the field of ensuring the rights of defendants to defense in the activities of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as their origins found in the activities of the ICTY, is carried out. Using the methods of comparative jurisprudence, the analysis of the norms of law established in the statutes of the Tribunals was carried out. The dogmatic method is applied in the interpretation of the norms of law set forth in the statutes. The dogmatic method is applied in the interpretation of the norms of law set forth in the statutes. The author concludes that some modern problems of international criminal justice originate in post-war tribunals. Thus, violations of the rights of the accused by the ICTY had their historical roots in the form of norms laid down in the Statute of the Tokyo Tribunal. A proposal was made on the need to develop basic rules for granting the right of protection to defendants, based on the experience of international criminal trials. It is also concluded that it is necessary to exclude the possibility of pressure from international courts, judges and prosecutors themselves on defenders. For this purpose, it is proposed to provide for the impossibility for judges to arbitrarily ban unwanted lawyers from participating in the process. It is also proposed to introduce a direct ban on the appointment of a lawyer to the defendant against his will and to provide for the possibility of recusal of a lawyer only in the case of a proven crime against the administration of international justice.