Determine qué tipo de inferencia (deductiva, inductiva, intuitiva, inválida) se aplica en los siguientes casos:

The offences committed by Germany and her allies during the First World War, as well as the reaction of the Great Powers to them, are the second set of incidents which had a significant impact upon the development of the conceptualisation of crimes against humanity.

Serious war crimes were committed by German armed forces against French, Belgian, British, American and other citizens of states taking part in the War.139 As a result, the Great Powers resolved to hold Germany and her allies responsible for instigating and controlling the War, as well as for committing brutal offences. As illustrated above, the Commission of Fifteen compiled two classes of offences committed by Germany and her allies, the second being “violations of the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity”.140 _{On 28 June 1919, three months after the Commission}

recommended the establishment of a tribunal to prosecute these crimes, the Treaty of Versailles was signed.141 _{The Treaty seemed encouraging at first glance, as the}

majority of its provisions were aimed at punishing Germany for being the main instigator of the First World War.142 _{Extensive provision was also made for the}

establishment of a special tribunal to hold Kaiser Wilhelm II, the former German Emperor, responsible for “a supreme offence against international morality”,143 _as

well as the establishment of a military tribunal to prosecute “persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war”.144 _The

Netherlands and Germany were respectively requested to surrender the Kaiser145 _and

any other person accused of war crimes to the Allied Powers,146 _{and to cooperate with}

139 _{Ntoubandi op cit (n 62) at 44.}

140 _{Chapter IV of the Report of the Commission of Fifteen at 118 – 124.} 141 _{Treaty of Versailles 28 June 1919.}

142 _{The Treaty of Versailles provided as follows: Part II dealt with the boundaries of Germany; Part III}

dealt with Germany’s relations with other European States; Part IV dealt with German rights and interests outside of Germany; Part V dealt with strict military, naval and air clauses with which Germany had to comply; Part VI dealt with prisoners of war; Part VII dealt with penalties against Germany; Part VIII dealt with reparation and the responsibility of Germany for the War; Parts X to XV dealt with commercial relations; aerial navigation; ports, waterways and railways; labour; Western Europe; and other miscellaneous issues.

143 _{Ibid Article 227.}

144 _{Ibid Articles 228 and 229.} 145 _{Ibid Article 227.}

the allies to “furnish documents and information of every kind”, which would have assisted the Allies in successfully prosecuting the war crimes.147

However, it soon became evident that neither the recommendation of the Commission of Fifteen to establish a war crimes tribunal nor the strongly worded Treaty intention to establish one was anything more than mere paper threats. The German government made it clear from the beginning that it was not planning to comply with its obligations, especially with regard to the Versailles Treaty.148 At this time, it seemed more attractive for the German government to establish a national tribunal for war crimes149 than to surrender alleged German war criminals to the Great Powers for prosecution. In July 1919, Matthias Erzberger, a German statesman, suggested to the country’s Constituent Assembly that a national tribunal be established, which was subsequently done.150 _{Hearings were held in the autumn of 1919, but they “came to}

an inconclusive and inglorious end”.151

Despite this, the Allies still hoped to prosecute war criminals and started making official demands in January 1920 on the Netherlands to surrender Kaiser Wilhelm II for prosecution.152 _{By March 1920 the Allies had accepted the Netherlands’ refusal to}

surrender the Kaiser, and instead started compiling their own lists of suspected war criminals.153 _{At this time, another of Erzberger’s suggestions was accepted by the}

German government: this time to prosecute suspected war criminals before the Leipzig Supreme Court.154 _{The German Government also requested the Allies not to}

implement the Treaty provisions dealing with surrender of war criminals, as they would be tried by a national court.155 _{By February 1920, the Allies had accepted the}

German request that the war criminals be tried nationally at the Leipzig Court, but

147 _{Ibid Article 230.}

148 _{GG Battle “The Trials before the Leipzig Supreme Court of Germans Accused of War Crimes” in 8} VLR (1921 – 1922) 1 at 3.

149 _{Chapter IV of the Report of the Commission of Fifteen at 121.} 150 _{Battle op cit (n 148) at 3.}

151 _{Ibid at 4.}

152 _{Ibid. This was done in terms of Article 227 of the Treaty of Versailles.}

153 _{Battle op cit (n 148) at 5 – 6. The lists of suspected war criminals compiled by the Great Powers,}

especially with regard to the criminals themselves, was yet another compromise made between the Allies and the German government regarding prosecution. From the original list in which the Allies demanded the extradition of 890 suspected war criminals, only 11 were prosecuted. The fact that the Allies meekly accepted the Netherlands’ refusal to surrender Kaiser Wilhelm for prosecution also had a negative influence on the credibility of the entire Leipzig trials.

154 _{Ibid at 4.} 155 _{Ibid at 5.}

“reserved the right to pass upon the decision of that court and the right to withdraw their approval, if not satisfied with the action of the Court”, yet another threat that never came to realisation.156

The first trial at Leipzig was heard only on 23 May 1921.157 _{The judgments at}

Leipzig were an atrocious miscarriage of justice: most of the accused were found not guilty and subsequently acquitted, and the rare few who were found guilty had extremely lenient sentences imposed upon them.158 The Chief Justice of the Leipzig Court, Dr Schmidt, made a statement at the beginning of the Trials which he also used to serve as a caution to each witness before he was sworn in. This statement aptly portrayed the general atmosphere prevalent during the proceedings: “[T]he only duty of the Court [is] to arrive at a decision as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, uninfluenced by political considerations or national feelings”.159