Lesson of ‘Ivan the Terrible’ Case : Hard to prosecute war crimes when trail is cold

The highly publicized war-crime trials of German and Japanese political and military leaders in the years immediately after World War II, and the subsequent trials of hundreds of lesser known figures, did not close the books on one of the most hideous chapters in modern history.

Dozens of major war criminals and thousands of smaller fry were able to escape retribution. Many were able to lead normal lives in their home countries, some were forced to hide abroad. With each passing year their lives became safer, as the memories of witnesses grew dimmer, as the ranks of surviving observers of their crimes grew thinner, as governments lost interest in identifying and prosecuting them.

In 1981 the U.S. government stripped a postwar Ukrainian immigrant named John Demjanjuk of his citizenship for lying about his wartime activities when he entered the United States. Five years later he was deported to Israel, where in 1988 he was convicted of participating in crimes against humanity--specifically mass murder--at the infamous Treblinka death camp in Poland. It was there, the prosecution argued, that he came to be known as Ivan the Terrible.

However, on appeal to Israel’s supreme court, the evidence against Demjanjuk on the charges on which he was tried and condemned to death was found to be unconvincing. Demjanjuk, as other trial evidence suggested, may in fact have been a guard at another death camp, Sobibor. But that was not the charge on which he had stood trial.

Last week Israel’s attorney general, Yosef Harish, concluded that he could not re-prosecute Demjanjuk, both as a matter of law and because of the evidentiary uncertainties of witnesses’ recollections half a century after the fact. This week, a supreme court panel refused to order a new trial; a final ruling is expected on Friday. If the court rules as expected, Demjanjuk will be free to leave Israel.

The clearly difficult and even anguished decisions by Israel’s attorney general and high court speak well of that country’s legal system, given the emotionally charged atmosphere surrounding the case and the apparently strong possibility that he was indeed involved in war crimes. The great pity in this as in so many similar instances--truly, the great injustice--is that more timely retribution was not exacted for the crimes against humanity committed in World War II.

The lessons of delay, of apathy or political expediency that blocked so many prosecutions for wartime atrocities are applicable today. Monstrous crimes have been committed in the Bosnian war. In many cases the identities of those responsible are known and witnesses to their deeds have come forward. It would be a crime in its own right, an affront to human decency, if these criminals are allowed to go unpunished.