Holocaust před soudem – padesát let od skončení trestního procesu s Adolfem Eichmannem v Izraeli

May 21st 2012 marks fifty years from the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief executioners of the so called Final Solution in which up to six million Jewish victims (and victims of other ethnicities) perished. The aim of this article was to present this Case in a complex (yet hardly absolutely exhaustive) manner and to handle most of the issues which are adherent to this Case and which might in one way or another be still relevant until these days. From the legal point of view, the Eichmann judgment is often quoted to be one of extremely high importance; to be a landmark decision. This is mainly true with respect to the concept of universal jurisdiction which was opened in to its extended use by this trial. The concept of universal jurisdiction is indeed a very old one, stemming from the medieval times already. Nevertheless, in its traditional form it was used only with respect to punishment of crimes such as piracy. In the Eichmann trial it was used for the first time by a national court to prosecute a person deemed to be responsible for crimes of genocide (according to the applicable Israeli Law denoted as the “crime against Jewish people”), crimes against peace or war crimes. The concept, as revealed by the courts in Jerusalem during the Eichmann trial, can see its use for these crimes by virtue of the fact that all these crimes are so atrocious that they shake the spirit of all the mankind and therefore every single nation and state in the world has the right to bring such offender, if seized by officials of the state, before its courts. The trial was also remarkable for its use of the doctrines established in the Nuremberg Trials with the Nazi criminals. Not only the substance of the crimes under Israeli law was derived from those coined in the Nuremberg Charter of the International Military Tribunal, it also adopted measures preventing the offenders to conceal their individual responsibility behind the veil of impunity. This holds true for the rejection of the theories of “act of state” and “superior orders defense” which both (from different perspectives) could obstruct proper course of justice and for such reason (under the precedent in Nuremberg judgment) are widely disregarded by the national courts as well as international tribunals with respect to the most serious crimes under international law. In this way everybody may be held liable for acts or omissions committed as a head of state or when executing manifestly illegal orders without trying to avail himself from such duty. Yet another interesting feature of the case of Adolf Eichmann is his abduction in Buenos Aires, Argentina by state agents of Israel before he was surrendered to regular police officials on the Israeli soil. This triggered a diplomatic conflict between Argentina and Israel which had its repercussions even before the Security Council of the United Nations which adopted (though a very mild) resolution related to this matter. To this extent the case showed how the body of the international law is flexible but also to some extent week. On the other hand, this part of the Eichmann story revealed how sensitive and still vibrant the issue of holocaust was in the early 1960s as after a brief diplomatic exchange the whole matter was settled and no state officially questioned the supreme moral legitimacy of Israel to put Adolf Eichmann before its courts. Last but not least, the trial of Eichmann partially triggered the second wave of prosecution of the Nazi criminals in other countries. In this article the situation in Germany and Austria was discussed in a statistical overview. Nevertheless, it also pointed to several problems in this area, most notably the number of Nazi criminals who found refuge in the countries of the Middle East and especially in the states of the Latin America; and subsequent extradition problems. However, the legacy of the Eichmann trial is surely not to be seen only from the purely legalistic perspective. As argued in the present article, the trial had many other implications too. First of all it started a broad and more dimensional discussion about holocaust. Fifteen years from the end of WW II it brought testimonies of the survivors via media coverage on the tables of households not only in Israel and Germany but virtually all around the world. In this way it played an important reconciliation role for the Israeli and German societies and it also helped to bring the Israelis and the Germans closer to one another. Additionally, it also brought about revival of scientific interest in the holocaust which became subject to a new wave of research. From the political point of view the trial was often seen by its commentators as a tool to present Israel´s determination to stand against the odds and to represent and protect the Jewish people and was a symbol of Israel´s national pride and identity. Most of these influences of the trial were mentioned for the first time in Hannah Arendt’s influential book Eichmann in Jerusalem: Report on the Banality of Evil. With a little bit of exaggeration it may be held that this book itself (though primarily intended only as a coverage from the trial and interpretation of its hidden meanings) is also an important outcome of the big trial as it is up-to-now subject to either appraisal or criticism by all narrators of the trial for its intriquate (or according to others tricky) philosophical but mainly psychological and sociological recourse to the nature of the people performing tasks assigned by the others even if these tasks are hideous and criminal. For all the above mentioned reasons I am convinced that the legacy of the Eichmann Case is not purely historical but still bears important lessons for today as well. It played an important role in the development and confirmation of the (international) criminal law but it also opened new fields for deeper reflections on the society not only in extraordinary situations but rather in their everyday conduct and interaction with others.