87 201. It should be noted that in many post-World War II trials held in other countries, courts took the same approach to instances of crimes in which two or more persons participated with a different degree of involvement. However, they did not rely upon the notion of common purpose or common design, preferring to refer instead to the notion of co-perpetration. This applies in particular to Italian246 and German247 cases. 202. The second distinct category of cases is in many respects similar to that set forth above, and embraces the so-called “concentration camp” cases. The notion of common purpose was applied to instances where the offences charged were alleged to have been committed by members of military or administrative units such as those running concentration camps; i.e., by groups of persons acting pursuant to a concerted plan. Cases illustrative of this category are Dachau Concentration Camp,248 decided by a United States court sitting in Germany and Belsen, 249 decided by a British military court sitting in Germany. In these cases the accused held some position of authority within the hierarchy of brandish a cutlass. The man who stands at the door of a bank and scans the environs may appear to be the most peaceable of citizens, but if his purpose is to warn his robber confederates inside the bank of the approach of the police, his guilt is clear enough. And if we assume, for the purposes of argument, that the defendants such as Schubert and Graf have succeeded in establishing that their role was an auxiliary one, they are still in no better position than the cook or the robbers’ watchman” (ibid., p. 373; emphasis added). In this connection, the tribunal also addressed the contention that certain of the commanders did not participate directly in the crimes committed, noting that: “[w]ith respect to the defendants such as Jost and Naumann, […] it is […] highly probable that these defendants did not, at least very often, participate personally in executions. And it would indeed be strange had they ?who were persons in authorityg done so. […] Far from being a defense or even a circumstance in mitigation, the fact that ?these defendantsg did not personally shoot a great many people, but rather devoted themselves to directing the over-all operations of the Einsatzgruppen, only serves to establish their deeper responsibility for the crimes of the men under their command” (ibid.). 246 See for instance the following decisions of the Italian Court of Cassation relating to crimes committed by militias or forces of the “Repubblica Sociale Italiana” against Italian partisans or armed forces: Annalberti et al., 18 June 1949, in Giustizia penale 1949, Part II, col. 732, no. 440; Rigardo et al. case, 6 July 1949, ibid., cols. 733 and 735, no. 443; P.M. v. Castoldi, 11 July 1949, ibid., no. 444; Imolesi et al., 5 May 1949, ibid., col. 734, no. 445. See also Ballestra, 6 July 1949, ibid., cols. 732-733, no. 442. 247 See for instance the decision of 10 August 1948 of the German Supreme Court for the British Zone in K. and A., in Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone in Strafsachen, vol. I, pp. 53-56; the decision of 22 February 1949 in J. and A., ibid., pp. 310-315; the decision of the District Court (Landgericht) of Cologne of 22 and 23 January 1946 in Hessmer et al., in Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. I, pp. 13-23, at pp. 13, 20; the decision of 21 December 1946 of the District Court (Landgericht) of Frankfurt am Main in M. et al. (ibid., pp. 135-165, 154) and the judgement of the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of 12 August 1947 in the same case (ibid., pp. 166-186, 180); as well as the decision of the District Court of Braunschweig of 7 May 1947 in Affeldt, ibid., p. 383-391, 389. 248 Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and thirty-nine others, General Military Government Court of the United States Zone, Dachau, Germany, 15th November-13th December, 1945, UNWCC, vol. XI, p. 5. 249 Trial of Josef Kramer and 44 others, British Military Court, Luneberg, 17th September-17th November, 1945, UNWCC, vol. II, p. 1. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999