86 200. A final case worthy of mention with regard to this first category is the Einsatzgruppen case. 244 With regard to common design, a United States Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg noted that: the elementary principle must be borne in mind that neither under Control Council Law No. 10 nor under any known system of criminal law is guilt for murder confined to the man who pulls the trigger or buries the corpse. In line with recognized principles common to all civilized legal systems, paragraph 2 of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies a number of types of connection with crime which are sufficient to establish guilt. Thus, not only are principals guilty but also accessories, those who take a consenting part in the commission of crime or are connected with plans or enterprises involved in its commission, those who order or abet crime, and those who belong to an organization or group engaged in the commission of crime. These provisions embody no harsh or novel principles of criminal responsibility [ …]. 245 “that when he did take part in it he knew the intended purpose of it. If any accused were to have given an order for this execution, believing that it was a perfectly legal execution, that these four soldiers had been sentenced to death by a properly constituted court and that therefore an order for the execution was no more than an order to carry out the decision of the court, then that accused would not be guilty because he would not have any guilty knowledge. But where […] a person was in fact concerned, and […] he knew the intended purpose of these acts, then that accused is guilty of the offence in the charge” (ibid., p. 8). The requisite knowledge of each participant, even if deducible only by implication, was also stressed in the Stalag Luft III case, Trial of Max Ernst Friedrich Gustav Wielen and Others, Proceedings of the Military Court at Hamburg, (1-3 July 1947) (original transcripts in Public Record Office, Kew, Richmond; on file with the International Tribunal’s Library), which concerned the killing of fifty officers of the allied air force who had escaped from the Stalag Luft III camp in Silesia. The Prosecutor in his opening remarks stressed that: “everybody, particularly every policeman of whatever sort it may be, knew quite well that there had th been a mass escape of prisoners of war on the 25 March 1944 […] [such] that every policeman knew that prisoners of war were at large. I think that is important to remember, and particularly with regard to some of the minor members of the Gestapo who are charged before you that is important to remember because they may say they did not know who these people were. They may say they did not know they were escaped prisoners of war but [in fact] they all knew […]” (ibid., p. 276). Furthermore, in two cases concerning an accused’s participation in the Kristallnacht riots, the Supreme Court for the British zone stressed that it was not required that the accused knew about the rioting in the entire Reich. It was sufficient that he was aware of the local action, that he approved it, and that he wanted it “as his own” (unofficial translation). The fact that the accused participated consciously in the arbitrary measures directed against the Jews was sufficient to hold him responsible for a crime against humanity (Case no. 66, Strafsenat. Urteil vom 8 Februar 1949 gegen S. StS 120/48, p. 284-290, 286, vol. II). See also Case no. 17, vol. I, 94-98, 96, where the Supreme Court held that it was irrelevant that the scale of ill-treatment, deportation and destruction that happened in other parts of the country on that night were not undertaken in this village. It sufficed that the accused participated intentionally in the action and that he was “not unaware of the fact that the local action was a measure designed to instil terror which formed a part of the nation-wide persecution of the Jews” (unofficial translation). 244 The United States of America v. Otto Ohlenforf et al., Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1951, vol. IV, p. 3. 245 The tribunal went on to say: “Even though these men [Radetsky, Ruehl, Schubert and Graf] were not in command, they cannot escape the fact that they were members of Einsatz units whose express mission, well known to all the members, was to carry out a large scale program of murder. Any member who assisted in enabling these units to function, knowing what was afoot, is guilty of the crimes committed by the unit. The cook in the galley of a pirate ship does not escape the yardarm merely because he himself does not Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999