About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 365 (1985-1986)
Denaturalization of Suspected Nazi War Criminals: The Problem of Soviet-Source Evidence

handle is hein.journals/cjtl24 and id is 393 raw text is: Denaturalization of Suspected Nazi War Criminals: The Problem of Soviet- Source Evidence I. INTRODUCTION For the past six years, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice has sought out Nazi collaborators among naturalized Americans. The bulk of the cases investigated by OSI involve individuals suspected of committing war crimes in areas of the Soviet Union occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second World War: primarily Byelorussia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Ukraine. As a result, most of the relevant documents and many of the eyewitnesses to the atrocities that impli- cate naturalized East European 6migres are presently located in the Soviet Union. OSI's efforts to investigate and prosecute alleged Nazi war criminals have been aided significantly by the Soviet government's cooperation in accordance with an informal agreement reached in January 1980 (the Moscow Agreement).' In many instances, Soviet assistance has been critical in helping to sustain the U.S. gov- ernment's principal charges.2 It is apparent that without access to 1. Currently, the only formal agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union with respect to international judicial assistance dates from November 22, 1935. See Execution of Letters Rogatory: Exchange of Notes Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, E.A.S. No. 83; 49 Stat. 3840 (1935). In addition, the United States is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 744, 847 U.N.T.S. 231 (codified at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1781 (West Supp. 1985)). The Conven- tion is now in force between the United States and 15 other states, principally in Western Europe. The Soviet Union, however, is not a signatory to the Convention. See Ristau, Over- view of International Judicial Assistance, 18 INT'L LAw. 525 (1984). For an elaboration of the technical aspects of the Moscow Agreement of January 1980, see infra text accompanying notes 26-31. 2. Several theories have been advanced to explain why the Soviet authorities have been so willing to cooperate with OSI. A popular account of Soviet motives emphasizes the enor- mous impact the Second World War had on Soviet society and its continuing significance. See D. SHIPLER, RUSSIA: BROKEN IDOLS, SOLEMN DREAMS 279-80 (1985). See also H. SMITH, THE RUSSIANS (1976). According to this explanation, the prominence of the Great Patriotic War accounts for the fervor with which the Soviets portray those who collaborated with the Nazis as traitors who, at all cost, must be tried and brought to justice. These observations capture an important element of the Soviet government's interest in facilitating prosecution of U.S. 6migr6s, but they do not provide an exclusive account of Soviet calculations. Political expedience also unquestionably underlies Soviet cooperation. Most of the indi-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most