Hostages Trial
This case is also known as the "Southeast Case" because all of the defendants had once been German generals leading the troops in Southeastern Europe during the Balkans Campaign, i.e. in Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia; and they were charged with ordering the hostage-taking of civilians and wanton shootings of these hostages, the reprisal killings of civilians, and the killing without trial of captured "partisans", as perpetrated by German troops there in the years in 1941 and later.
The defendant Lothar Rendulic was further charged in respect of the 'scorched earth' total destruction of all towns, settlements and civil infrastructure in the Norwegian county of Finnmark in the winter of 1944.
The judges ruled that captured partisan or guerrilla resistance fighters could never expect to be given the protected status of prisoners of war, and could lawfully be executed without trial.
IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of the convention even though most had worn distinctive military insignia in combat (a Red Star sewn onto a uniform cap) and many had fought in military uniform of one form or another, as most fought as guerrillas and as such could not consistently conform to all the conditions of belligerency laid down in the Hague Regulations for regular forces.
"[4] ... guerrillas may render great service to their country and, in the event of success, become heroes even, still they remain war criminals in the eyes of the enemy and may be treated as such.
In the tribunal's opinion, taking hostages against armed civilian resistance (and killing them should guerrilla attacks continue) could be legitimate, subject to several conditions.
Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals to deter a civilian population threatening continued armed resistance.
[6]) Nevertheless, the tribunal still found most of the accused guilty on count 1 of the indictment because it considered the acts committed by the German troops to be in excess of the rules under which the tribunal considered hostage taking and reprisal killings lawful; in particular that a clear connection between the populations from whom hostages had been taken and the populations within which guerrilla forces were continuing to shelter, had not been established through some form of judicial hearing; and also that, as deliberate policy the numbers of civilians killed in reprisals by troops under the command of the defendants had disproportionately exceeded the numbers of deaths due to guerrilla action in the occupying forces.
Nevertheless, even though the tribunal maintained the potential legality of hostage killing, this did not lead them to dismiss the charges of mass murder against the defendants - with the possible exception of von Leyser.
.. an examination of the judgment shows that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the killing of hostages and reprisal prisoners may in certain circumstances be legal has not been the reason for a finding of not guilty regarding any of the accused in the trial with the possible exception of the defendant von Leyser, of whom the Tribunal said : “ The evidence concerning the killing of hostages and reprisal prisoners within the corps area is so fragmentary that we cannot say that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the measures taken were unlawful.
