117 before the International Military Tribunal indicated that Control Council Law No. 10 had to be interpreted in such a restrictive way. The Supreme Court stated: [T]he International Military Tribunal and the Supreme Court considered that a crime against humanity as defined in CCL 10 Article II 1 (c) is committed whenever the victim suffers prejudice as a result of the National Socialist rule of violence and tyranny (“Gewalt- oder Willkürherrschaft”) to such an extent that mankind itself was affected thereby. Such prejudice can also arise from an attack committed against an individual victim for personal reasons. However, this is only the case if the victim was not only harmed by the perpetrator – this would not be a matter which concerned mankind as such – but if the character, duration or extent of the prejudice were determined by the National Socialist rule of violence and tyranny or if a link between them existed. If the victim was harmed in his or her human dignity, the incident was no longer an event that did not concern mankind as such. If an individual’s attack against an individual victim for personal reasons is connected to the National Socialist rule of violence and tyranny and if the attack harms the victim in the aforementioned way, it, too, becomes one link in the chain of the measures which under the National Socialist rule were intended to persecute large groups among the population. There is no apparent reason to exonerate the accused only because he acted against an individual victim for personal reasons. 322 261. This view was upheld in a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. H. denounced his father-in-law, V.F., for listening to a foreign broadcasting station, allegedly because V.F., who was of aristocratic origin, incessantly mocked H. for his low birth and tyrannised the family with his relentlessly scornful behaviour. The family members supposedly considered a denunciation to be the only solution to their family problems. Upon the denunciation, V.F. was sentenced by the Nazi authorities to three years in prison. V.F., who suffered from an intestinal illness, died in prison. Despite the fact that H.’s denunciation was motivated by personal reasons, the Court of First Instance sentenced H. for a crime against humanity, stating that “it can be left open as to whether […] H. was motivated by political, personal or other reasons”. Referring to the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court for the British Zone, 323 the Court of First Instance held that “the 322 Decision of the Supreme Court of the British Zone dated 26 October 1948, S. StS 57/48, in Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone, Entscheidungen in Strafsachen, vol. I., pp. 122-126 at p. 124 (unofficial translation). The essence of this statement was reiterated in the Decision of the Supreme Court dated 8 January 1949 against G. (S. StS 109/48, ibid., pp. 246-249). G., a member of the SA (Stormtroopers), had participated in the mistreatment of a political opponent for apparently purely personal motives, namely personal rancour between his family and the family of the victim. Nevertheless, G. was found guilty of a crime against humanity. The Supreme Court dismissed G.’s appeal against his conviction, stating that the motive for an attack was immaterial and that an attack against a single victim for personal reasons can be considered a crime against humanity if there is a nexus between the attack and the National Socialist rule of violence and tyranny (ibid., p. 247). 323 The Court of First Instance referred to the Decision of the Supreme Court of the British Zone dated 17 August 1948, S. StS 43/48, ibid., pp. 60-62 and Decision dated 13 November 1948, S. StS 68/48, ibid., pp. 186-190. See also Decision of the Supreme Court of the British Zone dated 20 April 1949, S. StS 120/49, ibid., pp. 385–391, at p. 388. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999