According to Germany’s Demjanjuk
decision, even serving as an accessory to murder is a punishable
crime.
In 1986, John “Ivan” Demjanjuk was deported from
the US to Israel to stand trial for committing murder and
acts of extraordinary violence against humanity during the
years 1942 and 1943. Dozens of Israeli Holocaust survivors
identified Demjanjuk as “Ivan the Terrible,” a
notorious prison guard at the Treblinka extermination camp.
Between November 1986 and April 1988 a special tribunal
made up of Supreme Court justice Dov Levin and Jerusalem
District Court judges Zvi Tal and Dalia Dorner heard the
case, which was open to TV crews and took place in Jerusalem’s
International Convention Center.
Clearly, an effort was made to publicize the proceedings,
which, like the 1962 Adolf Eichmann trial, was used as a
means of confronting the horrors – and the moral lessons – of
the Holocaust.
Like Eichmann, Demjanjuk was found guilty under the Nazis
and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law of 1950 and sentenced
to death by hanging – the second case of capital punishment
in Israel’s history.
But Demjanjuk appealed and in 1993 the Supreme Court, sitting
as an expanded five-man panel of judges, overturned the lower
court’s decision. Justices Aharon Barak, Menachem Elon,
Meir Shamgar, Eliezer Goldberg and Avraham Halima – basing
themselves in part on new evidence that became available
after the disintegration of the Soviet Union – ruled
that a reasonable doubt remained as to whether or not Demjanjuk
was in fact Ivan the Terrible.
Holocaust survivors and others brought at least 10 petitions
demanding that Demjanjuk be tried for lesser war crimes while
serving as a guard in other concentration camps including
Sobibor and Majdanek.
But the attorney-general and the Supreme Court decided to
let Demjanjuk go based on legal technicalities.
Holding another trial would, they argued, violate the principle
of double jeopardy that prevents someone from being tried
again after being acquitted for similar offenses.
Also, since it was unclear whether Demjanjuk would be convicted
based on the evidence available, and another acquittal would
deal a major blow to the public sentiment, it was preferable
to avoid another trial altogether.
While the Jewish state passed on the opportunity to convict
Demjanjuk, it was Germany of all places that decided to pursue
the matter, eventually convicting the Ukrainian in May 2011
for helping to murder 28,000 Jews as a guard at the Sobibor
extermination camp.
However, Demjanjuk received a meager five-year sentence
that Yoram Sheftel, Demjanjuk’s defense attorney during
his trial in Israel, noted at the time was equivalent to
the punishment one received for burglary.
Demjanjuk died outside prison walls in a German retirement
home while waiting for his appeal to be heard. Understandably,
many – particularly Holocaust survivors – were
disappointed by Demjanjuk’s ability to avoid justice.
Indeed, the Demjanjuk case underlines the limits of justice.
As the Supreme Court justices noted in their 1993 decision: “Judges,
who are only human, cannot reach perfection, and it is only
right that they judge on the basis of what is placed before
them, and on that basis alone.”
But even within the framework of justice all is not lost.
The German court’s conviction of Demjanjuk sets an
important precedent, notes Efraim Zuroff, a veteran Nazi-hunter
who heads the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel. In the past
it was necessary to prove responsibility for a specific death
to convict a Nazi war criminal.
According to Germany’s Demjanjuk decision, even serving
as an accessory to murder is a punishable crime.
Zuroff, who spoke to The Jerusalem Post from Prague, estimates
that about 4,000 Nazis and their helpers served in one of
the four “death factories” – Treblinka,
Chelmno, Sobibor and Belzec – or in the Einsatzgruppen
death squads. Around 2 percent, or 80, remain alive, about
half of whom still fit enough physically to stand trial.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is offering a 25,000 euro award
for information leading to their capture. The hunt goes on,
while adhering to the limitations of justice.
jpost.com
|