In Pursuit of Justice: Debating the Statute of Limitations for Nazi War Crimes in Britain and West Germany during the 1960s (original) (raw)

Abstract

Up until 1979, the ability of West German courts to prosecute Nazi war criminals was hampered by a Statute of Limitations for acts of manslaughter and murder. Throughout the 1960s, the issue generated considerable public discussion, both within the Federal Republic and among the international community. As prosecutors, politicians, journalists and Holocaust survivors (among many others) debated the need for continued war crimes trials, it was clear that there remained significant limits to western understandings of the Nazi genocide. This article analyses public responses to the Statute in both West Germany and Great Britain and argues that the whole affair has had a crucial impact on the development of international justice and today's pursuit of war criminals. In spring 2013, it was announced that 50 former Auschwitz guards would stand trial in Germany for their role in the Holocaust. 1 In July that same year, the Simon Wiesenthal Institute launched a poster campaign with the slogan, 'late, but not too late', appealing for the public's help in identifying and tracing any remaining Nazi war criminals. 2 In each case the message was the same: that the passage of time has not diminished the guilt of these perpetrators, and that old age should not be a barrier to their prosecution. However, the very fact that such trials can still take place at all is highly significant. Indeed, up until 1979, the ability of (West) German courts to prosecute former Nazi perpetrators remained in considerable doubt, hindered by a Statute of Limitations that imposed a strict time limit for investigating cases of murder and manslaughter. This Statute has received relatively little scholarly attention. Works that have been produced focus predominantly on pertinent legal issues such as post facto legislation, rather than exploring the Statute's broader historical significance. 3 Notable exceptions to this trend include recent studies by Frank Buscher and Marc von Miquel, although here the emphasis has, quite legitimately, rested upon the political discussions at the heart of the controversy. 4 This approach, combined with intricate contemporary accounts published by the likes of Rolf Vogel and Karl Jaspers, means that the parliamentary debates on this issue have now been well-documented; their reception elsewhere in society, considerably less so. 5

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. The Statute of Limitations hindered Nazi war crime prosecutions in West Germany until its amendment in 1979.
  2. Public debates in the 1960s shaped international perspectives on justice for Nazi war crimes.
  3. In 2013, trials resumed for 50 former Auschwitz guards, highlighting ongoing accountability efforts.
  4. West Germany's original 15- and 20-year limitations for murder and manslaughter affected legal actions until 1979.
  5. Responses in Britain demonstrated a moral obligation to influence West Germany's legal framework on war crimes.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (106)

  1. wish to thank Tim Grady, Neil Gregor, James Campbell, Andrew Johnstone and the anonymous reviewers for this journal for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
  2. See, for example, 'Fahndung nach Nazi-Verbrechern: Ermittler sind 50 KZ-Aufsehern auf der Spur', Der Spiegel, (6 April 2013).
  3. Simon Wiesenthal Centre, 'Under the Slogan "Late But Not Too Late," the Wiesenthal Center Launches a Publicity Campaign in Germany for Operation Last Chance II', 21 July 2013, http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=13224167 (accessed 29 May 2014).
  4. Existing works stem largely from legal studies: J.E.S Fawcett, 'A Time Limit for Punishment of War Crimes?', British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 14, no. 2 (1965): 627-632;
  5. Robert A. Monson, 'The West German Statute of Limitations on Murder: A Political, Legal and Historical Exposition', American Journal of Comparative Law, 30, no. 4 (1982): 605-625;
  6. Martin Clausnitzer, 'The Statute of Limitations for Murder in the Federal Republic of Germany', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 29, nos. 2-3 (1980): 473-479.
  7. Frank Busher, '"I Know I Also Share the Guilt": A Retrospective of the West German Parliament's 1965 Debate on the Statute of Limitations for Murder', Yad Vashem Studies, 34 (2006): 249-292; Marc von Miquel, Ahnden oder Amnestieren? Westdeutsche Justiz und Vergangenheitspolitik in den sechziger Jahre (Gottingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2004) and 'Explanation, Dissociation, Apologia: The Debate over the Criminal Prosecution of Nazi Crimes in the 1960s', Philipp Gassert and Alan E. Steinweis (eds), Coping with the Past: West German Debates on Nazism and Generational Conflict, 1955-1975 (New York: Berghahn, 2007): 50-63.
  8. Jürgen Baumann, Der Aufstand des schlechten Gewissens: ein Diskussionsbeitrag zur Vejährung der NS- Gewaltverbrechen (Bielefeld: Gieseking, 1965);
  9. Rolf Vogel, Ein Weg aus der Vergangenheit: Eine Dokumentation zur Verjährungsfrage und zu den NS-Prozessen (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1969);
  10. Karl Jaspers, Die Schuldfrage: Für Völkermord gibt es keine Verjährung (Munich: Piper Verlag, 1979). Historical works which afford the Statute fleeting mention include Helmut Dubiel, Niemand ist frei von der Geschichte: Die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft in den Debatten des Deutschen Bundestages (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1999): 103-110;
  11. Bernd Hey, 'Die NS-Prozesse -Versuch einer juristischen Vergangenheitsbewältigung', Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 6 (1981): 338-340, 345; Christa Hoffmann, Stunden Null? Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Deutschland, 1945 und 1989 (Bonn: Bouvier, 1992): 167-169; Harold Marcuse, Legacies of Dachau: The Uses and Abuses of a Concentration Camp, 1933-2001 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 214-216; Rebecca Wittmann, Beyond Justice: The Auschwitz Trial (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005): 48-53. Again, though, the chief focus in all these references is on the Bundestag.
  12. Peter Reichel, Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Deutschland: Die Auseinandersetzung mit der NS Diktatur von 1945 bis heute (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2001): 182-198; Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997): 335-342.
  13. Peter Steinbach, Nationalsozialistische Gewaltverbrechen: Die Diskussion in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit nach 1945 (Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1981): 67.
  14. Buscher, '"I Know I Also Share the Guilt"', 253.
  15. 9 This term was used repeatedly in Justice Jackson's opening statement before the International Military Tribunal, 21 November 1945: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (The Blue Set), 2 (Nuremberg: IMT, 1947): 98-155.
  16. See: Donald Bloxham, 'British War Crimes Trial Policy in Germany, 1945-1957: Implementation and Collapse', The Journal of British Studies, 42, no. 1 (2003): 91-118;
  17. David Cesarani, Justice Delayed: How Britain became a Refuge for Nazi War Criminals (London, 2001).
  18. Raymond Phillips (ed.), Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others: The Belsen Trial (London: W. Hodge, 1949). For similar styles of reporting, see: Alexandra Przyrembel, 'Transfixed by an Image: Ilse Koch, the "Kommandeuse of Buchenwald"', German History, 19, no. 3 (2001): 369-399.
  19. United Nations War Crimes Commission, 'Progress Report of War Crimes Trials from Data Available on March 1 st 1948', The History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (London: HMSO, 1948) p.518.
  20. The National Archives, London (hereafter TNA), CAB/129/26: Ernest Bevin, 'Death Penalty in the British Zone of Germany', 23 April 1948. The opening of the IMT at Nuremberg saw similar, widespread hopes that the process would take a maximum of three months -Caroline Sharples, 'Holocaust on Trial: Mass Observation and British Media Responses to the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1945-6', C. Sharples & O. Jensen (eds), Britain and the Holocaust: Remembering and Representing War and Genocide (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013): 31-50.
  21. Around 40 per cent of those executed by the British in Hameln, for example, had committed crimes against Allied nationals. See: TNA FO1060/239-243: Executions Policy and Peter Krone ed., 'Hingerichtetengräber' auf dem Friedhof Wehl, Hameln: Historische Dokumentation (Hameln: Stadtarchiv, 1987).
  22. Donald Bloxham, '"The Trial that Never Was": Why There Was No Second International Trial of Major War Criminals at Nuremberg', History, 87 (2002): 41-60.
  23. On the early history of war crimes trials before West German courts, see Devin O. Pendas, 'Retroactive Law and Proactive Justice: Debating Crimes Against Humanity in Germany, 1945-1950', Central European History, 43 (2010): 428-463.
  24. C.F. Rüter and D.W. de Mildt (eds), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen: Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer Tötungsverbrechen 1945-1966. Register zu den Bänden I-XXII (Amsterdam: APA Holland University Press, 1998). The belief in a 'guilty few' had an important domestic utility: enabling people to return to pre-war positions in public life with no questions asked eased the process of West German reconstruction and transition to democracy -see: Hermann Lübbe, 'Der Nationalsozialismus im Deutschen Nachkriegsbewusstsein', Historische Zeitschrift, 236 (1983): 579-599.
  25. On the amnesty issue, see: Norbert Frei, Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, translated J. Golb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).
  26. Article 67 of the Criminal Code stated: 'Prosecution shall be barred by time limitation after twenty years in the case of serious offences (Verbrechen) punishable by confinement in a penitentiary for life; after fifteen years in the case of serious offences for which the maximum penalty is deprivation of liberty for a term of more than ten years; and after ten years in the case of serious offences punishable by the deprivation of liberty for a shorter term' -Robert H. Miller, 'The Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity', American Journal of International Law, 65, no. 3 (1971): 478-479.
  27. On the impact of the Ulm trial, see: Jean-Paul Bier, 'The Holocaust, West Germany and Strategies of Oblivion, 1947-1979' in Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes (eds), Germans and Jews since the Holocaust: The Ongoing Situation in West Germany (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1986), 189; Dick de Mildt, In the Name of the People: Perpetrators of Genocide in the Reflection of their Post-war Prosecution in West Germany. The 'Euthanasia' and 'Aktion Reinhard' Trial Cases (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 27; Ulrich Brochhagen, Nach Nürnberg: Vergangenheitsbewältigung und Westintegration in der Ära Adenauer (Berlin: Ullstein, 1999) 292;
  28. Caroline Sharples, West Germans and the Nazi Legacy (New York: Routledge, 2012), 30-50.
  29. For details on these arrests, see Adalbert Rückerl, The Investigation of Nazi Crimes, 1945-1978: A Documentation, translated by D. Rutter (Karlsruhe: CF Müller, 1979), 48.
  30. 'Zentrale Ermittlungsbehörde?', Trierischer Volksfreund (15 September 1958). See also 'Zentrale Ermittlungsbehörde muβ klarheit uber NS-Verbrechen schaffen', Stuttgarter Zeitung (3 September 1958);
  31. 'Nicht zögern', Freie Presse (12 September 1958); 'Justiz und Konkurmasse', Frankfurter Neue Presse (3 October 1958);
  32. 'Aufräumen' and 'Die Vergangenheit laβtet', Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (6 and 13 October 1958).
  33. Survey of 2000 people reported in Elisabeth Noelle and Erich Peter Neumann (eds), Jahrbuch der offentlichen Meinung, 1958-1964 (Allensbach: Institut für Demoskopie, 1965), 211.
  34. See, for example, 'Stimmen zu den Urteilen im Ulmer Prozeβ', Müncher Merkur (13 September 1958). For more on the reception afforded to the Central Investigating Agency, see: Kurt Schrimm and Joachim Riedel, '50
  35. Jahre Zentrale Stelle in Ludwigsburg', Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 56, no. 4 (2008): 525-555;
  36. Rüdiger Fleiter, 'Die Ludwigsburg Zentrale Stelle und ihr politisches und gesellschaftliches Umfeld', Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 53, no. 1 (2002): 32-50.
  37. Cited in Kurt R. Grossman ed., Digest on Germany and Austria: Jewish Claims and Related Subjects. Special Issue: The Statute of Limitations, (30 January 1965), London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA) ACC/3121/E4/470: Statute of Limitations.
  38. Cited in TNA FO371/183153: Germany: Letter from A.W. Rhodes, British Embassy, Bonn to R.G. Sheridan, Western Department, Foreign Office, London, 23 January 1965. Bucher and the FDP remained opposed to altering the Statute throughout the debates.
  39. Grossman, Digest on Germany and Austria. Eichmann was specifically mentioned in this presentation, but to no avail. Menzel was a member of the Parliamentary Committee, closely involved in the Basic Law at the founding of the Federal Republic and recognised as one of the 'fathers' of the West German Constitution. Given this background, his campaign to alter the Statute of Limitations gains added significance, and suggests that the peculiarity of National Socialist crimes had not been considered at the Basic Law's inauguration.
  40. 'Das Wort des Rates der EKD zu den NS-Verbrecher-Prozessen', Kirchliches Jahrbuch (1963): 75-79. In 1964, the Protestant Church also passed an agreement to support the West German authorities should it be agreed that an extension to the Statute was necessary -see 'Verjährung von NS-Verbrechern', Landesynode (1964).
  41. 'NS-Verbrechen', Der Spiegel, no. 11 (1965). In December 1964, the matter was also debated on a special television programme questioning whether murderers really were 'still among us' -Grossman, Digest on Germany and Austria.
  42. Marcuse, Legacies of Dachau, 214-215.
  43. TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/3: Effect of the German Statute of Limitations on the Future Prosecution of Nazi Criminals, 4 January 1965.
  44. Eleonore Sterling, 'What Germans Know About Nazi Crimes', Jewish Chronicle (13 November 1964).
  45. Buscher, '"I Know I Also Share the Guilt"', 253.
  46. Elisabeth Noelle and Erich Peter Neumann (eds), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung, 1965-1967 (Allensbach: Institut für Demoskopie, 1967), 165.
  47. Institut für Demoskopie, 'Verjährung von NS-Verbrechen', (Allensbach, 5 May 1965).
  48. DIVO, 'Bekanntheitsgrad des Auschwitz-Prozesses und Einstellung der Bundesbürger zu seiner Durchführung zwanzig Jahre danach', DIVO Pressedienst July I-II (1964).
  49. 54 per cent of those questioned by the IfD explained their hesitancy towards the Statute on these grounds, doubting the ability of the courts to uncover the facts so long after the events concerned -'Verjährung von NS- Verbrechen', (Allensbach, 5 May 1965).
  50. Helge Grabitz, 'Problems of Nazi Trials in the Federal Republic of Germany', Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 3, no. 2 (1988), 209.
  51. Institut für Demoskopie, 'Verjährung von NS-Verbrechen', (Allensbach, 5 May 1965).
  52. See, for example: 'Adenauer is Worried', Jewish Chronicle (17 March 1961);
  53. 'Dr Adenauer's Misgivings over Eichmann Trial', The Times (11 March 1961); 'Amerikaner über Deutsche', Frankfurter Rundschau (5 May 1961).
  54. TNA FO1042/254: A.W. Rhodes to D.N. Beevor, 4 March 1964.
  55. Both the Paris and Los Angeles demonstrations were organised by Jewish groups. The former attracted some 2,000 people; Los Angeles 300. For details, see: LMA Paris Mass Meeting Protests against Statute of Limitations (9 December 1964); TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/14: Statute of Limitations Expiry Protest March on German Consulate General (19 January 1965);
  56. 'German Consulate Pickted over Law', Herald Examiner (15 January 1965).
  57. TNA FO371/183153: Germany RG1661/42: Letter from Wastrich to Ennals (January 1965);
  58. FO371/154294: War Criminals 1960: WG1662/8 Report from Foreign Office to Bonn, (5 May 1965).
  59. Grossman, Digest on Germany and Austria.
  60. Simon Wiesenthal, Verjährung? 200 Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens sagen nein: eine Dokumentation (Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1965).
  61. East-West tensions on the extent of the Federal Republic's 'denazification' were exemplified by several scandals involving public figures such as Hans Globke and Theodor Oberlander. In 1965, the GDR also published the Brown Book, a list of former Nazis now holding prominent positions within the West German administration.
  62. TNA FO371/183154: RG1661/31: Application of Statute of Limitations of War Crimes. Letter from B.G. Cartledge, British Embassy, Moscow to P.C. Holmer, Western Department, Foreign Office, London, 12 December 1965.
  63. TNA FO371/183155 RG1661/69: Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China, 24 March 1965.
  64. LMA ACC/3121/E4/470: Statute of Limitations: Statement by Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, 2 May 1965.
  65. Kurt R. Grossman, 'Trial of War Criminals -Decision Not to Extend Statute is Protested -Reader's Letter', New York Times (20 November 1964).
  66. Ernst Benda cited in 'The Limitations of a Statute', Jerusalem Post (6 September 1978).
  67. For examples, see: Papers of the Institute of Jewish Affairs -University of Southampton Special Collections MS239/T3/45: War Crimes -Statute of Limitations; LMA Letters from the Board of Deputies of British Jews to the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine, Paris and the Rijksinstituut, Amsterdam, 3 September 1964.
  68. TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/1: P.C.H. Holmer to A.W. Rhodes, 1 January 1965.
  69. TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/18: Message of Protest from the Association of War Invalids Against Nazism, Tel Aviv, 20 January 1965.
  70. TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/33: Prague Embassy Handed a Note Protesting against the Statute of Limitations, February 1965.
  71. Ibid. 58 'Prosecution of War Crimes', Guardian (14 December 1964).
  72. TNA FO371/183153 RG1661/24: Letter from National Union Furniture Trade Operatives, London to H. Wilson, 28 January 1965.
  73. Hansard: 'West Germany (Prime Minister's Visit)', HC Deb 19 January 1965 Vol. 705 cc36-7W, 36W; 'Prime Minister and Dr Erhard (Talks)', HC Deb 09 February 1965 Vol. 706, cc194-7, 194.
  74. TNA FO 371/183153 RG1661/1: 'Effect of the German Statute of Limitations on the Future Prosecution of Nazi Criminals', Foreign Office Minute by W.B.J. Ledwidge, 4 January 1965.
  75. David Cesarani & Eric J. Sundquist (eds), After the Holocaust: Challenging the Myth of Silence (New York: Routledge, 2012).
  76. TNA PREM13/337: Germany 1965 -Letter from H. Wilson to B. Janner, 22 March 1965. For Janner's original request, see FO371/183155 RG1661/52: Memorandum to the Prime Minister by Barnett Janner, 5 March 1965.
  77. TNA PREM13/337: PM's Talk with Chancellor Erhard in Bonn, 8 March 1965. This meeting may have convinced Wilson that British intervention was actually unnecessary -Erhard assured him of his own desire to extend the Statute, and his belief that there would be an 'overwhelming parliamentary majority' in favour of further trials.
  78. TNA FO371/183154 RG1661/23: MOD Check on Nazi Crime Documents, Minutes, 15 February 1965.
  79. Ibid., Memorandum from W.B.J. Ledwidge to J.T. Williams, 9 February 1965.
  80. TNA Communiqué by the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, published in Pravda, 17 January 1965.
  81. LMA, ACC/3121/E4/470: Letter from Workers' Circle Friendly Society, London to Barnett Janner, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Board of Deputies of British Jews, 4 January 1965; Letter from Louis Saipe, Secretary Leeds Jewish Representative Council to A.G. Brotman, Board of Deputies of British Jews, 9 February 1965.
  82. Ibid, Motion by Marcus Shloimovitz to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, 20 December 1964.
  83. Ibid. See also: Letter from Hyman Wagner, Secretary for the Council of Manchester and Salford Jews to A.G. Brotman, 12 December 1965 and correspondence between Lily Douglas, Secretary of the Memorial Committee and the Board of Deputies in the same collection.
  84. Rüter and de Mildt, Justiz und NS-Verbrechen Register zu den Bänden I-XXII and Vorläufiges Verfahrensregister zu den Banden XXIIIff (Amsterdam: APA Holland University Press, 1998).
  85. Institute of Jewish Affairs, 'Tracking down the Nazi Criminals', Survey of the German Press, no. 34 (1 September 1967).
  86. For further details, see Institute of Jewish Affairs, Statute of Limitations and the Prosecution of Nazi Crimes in the Federal German Republic. Background Paper No. 14 (London: Institute of Jewish Affairs, July 1969);
  87. Devin O. Pendas, The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, 1963-1965: Genocide, History and the Limits of the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 556-571.
  88. Wittmann, Beyond Justice.
  89. Monson, 'The West German Statute of Limitations', 605.
  90. See: EMNID, 'Verjährung für NS-Verbrechen', EMNID-Informationen, no. 11 (1978);
  91. Sample, 'Sollen NS- Verbrechen verjähren?', Umfrage (November, 1978);
  92. EMNID, 'Verjährung für NS-Verbrechen', EMNID- Informationen, no. 2 (1979);
  93. Sample, 'Verjährung von NS-Verbrechen: Nach Holocaust ist jeder zweite dagegen', Umfrage (February 1979).
  94. De Mildt, In The Name of the People, 30. The headline in the Swiss newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger, 'Verjährung seit Holocaust weniger popular' (30 March 1979) summed up the change in public mood. For further analysis on the impact of Holocaust, see: Jeffrey Herf, 'The "Holocaust" Reception in West Germany: Right, Center and Left', New German Critique, 19, no. 1 (1980): 30-52; Andreas Huyssen, 'The Politics of Identification: "Holocaust" and West German Drama', New German Critique, 19, no. 1 (1980): 117-136; Wolf Kansteiner, 'Nazis, Viewers and Statistics: Television History, Television Audience Research and Collective Memory in West Germany', Journal of Contemporary History, 30, no. 4 (2004): 575-598.
  95. See TNA FCO 33/4015-19: War Criminals of the FRG.
  96. Quoted, along with viewing statistics and examples of audience responses to Holocaust, in Federal German Embassy, The Impact of 'Holocaust', (London, 1 February 1979).
  97. TNA FCO 33/4015-19: War Criminals of the FRG.
  98. TNA FCO 33/4015: Official Report of the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe 30th Ordinary Session (Third Part), 2 February 1979.
  99. TNA FCO 33/4015: Speech by Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in Cologne, 9 November 1978.
  100. TNA FCO 33/4015: Board of Deputies of British Jews to David Owen, 26 January 1979.
  101. C.C. Bright, British Embassy Bonn to C.J. Rawlinson, Western Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 16 March 1979 and 15 February 1979.
  102. TNA FCO 33/4017: Bright to Rawlinson, 16 March 1979; FCO 33/4018: Summary of Bundestag Speeches, 29 March 1979.
  103. TNA FCO 33/4016: Lord Goronwy-Roberts to G. Brooks, Thanet East Constituency Labour Party, 28 February 1979.
  104. United Nations, 'Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity' (Opened 26 November 1968; entered into force 11 November 1970), http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg\_no=IV-6&chapter=4&lang=en (Accessed 22 April 2013);
  105. Council of Europe, 'European Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to crimes against humanity and war crimes', CETS No. 082 (Opened 25 January 1974; entered into force 27 June 2003) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=082&CM=1&CL=ENG Accessed 22 April 2013). On the history of the UN Convention, see: Miller, 'The Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations', passim.
  106. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 29 (Adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002), http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm (Accessed 22 April 2013).