This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (August 2009)

Treaty of Sèvres demanded an Inter-allied^[1] or International Tribunal^[2] (Malta Tribunals) of the World War I which the process defined by Vahakn N. Dadrian "a retributive justice [that] gave way to expedience of political accommodation"^[3]. This article covers the process of prosecuting the Malta exiles, as demanded in the Treaty of Sèvres with the Article 230 ^[4] However, the so-called Malta Tribunals ordered by the treaty refer to a judicial process that no defendants were ever brought to Persecution. Even though the detention and collection of evidence was performed by the Allied powers. After the Armistice of Mudros Malta become the location for a British prison where various Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) officials were held in the hopes that they would not be able to easily escape. Among the 141 men, only 17 were held for crimes against Armenians.^[5] and eventually all but 20 were exchanged for British prisoners of war.^[6]

Peter Balakian — referring to the post-war Ottoman military tribunals, none of which was held in Malta — commented that "The trials represent a milestone in the history of war-crimes tribunals." Although they were truncated in the end by political pressures, and directed by Turkey's domestic laws rather than an international tribunal, the Constantinople trials (Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20) were an antecedent to the Nuremberg Trials following World War II.^[7]

Armenian Genocide Background: Armenians in the Ottoman Empire · Armenian Question · Hamidian Massacres · Zeitun Resistance (1895) · 1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover · Yıldız Attempt · Adana Massacre · Young Turk Revolution The Genocide Congress at Erzurum · Red Sunday · Tehcir Law · Labour battalion Deportation: Centers: All the settlements at Western Armenia Camps:Deir ez-Zor · Foreign aid and relief:ACRNE · NARC Resistance: Zeitun · Van · Musa Dagh · Urfa · Shabin-Karahisar Responsible parties: Young Turks: Committee of Union and Progress (Talat · Enver · Djemal · Behaeddin Shakir) · Teskilati Mahsusa · (Reşit Bey · Cevdet Bey · Topal Osman) Kurdish Irregulars Trials: Courts-Martial  · Malta Tribunals  · Soghomon Tehlirian Armenian Population Population · Casualties See Also Armenian militia · Operation Nemesis · Recognition · Denial · Timeline  v • d • e

[edit] Name

There was no unique name pinpointed as the process was suspended at the prosecution level. However depending on the source the "tribunals", "international trials", the International Tribunals of the Ottoman Empire or "tribunals of Malta Exiles" has been used. However, beyond the name used the process of preparation for the Allied trials is summarized by Vahakn N. Dadrian using the British document FO 371/4173/53351 (folios 192-93), which the summary is presented in the Preparation of Charges ^[8]. Also given the fact the British detained around 141 Malta exiles based on charges.^[9], and later for the detainees "British high commission" gathered through its Greek-Armenian sections a large mass of information ^[10] is a substantial events that support the reality of the process.

[edit] Controversial issues

Those who deny the Armenain genocide often publicized the tribunal attempt and claim that trials did occur and that as no one was convicted due to lack of evidence that they had committed war crimes, exonerating the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. However, as documented by Vahakn Dadrian, no such trials were ever planned or executed-there were no "international" trials of the Malta exiles^[11] - the British were only detaining suspected Turkish war criminals as they were escaping from Ottoman confinement at an alarming rate.

The majority of the Malta exiles were exchanged for British POWs held by the new Turkish republic.

[edit] Background

[edit] Allied Reactions, 1915–17

On 24 May 1915, regarding to the Van Resistance, reported by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. the Triple Entente warned the Ottoman Empire that

"In the view of these ... crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization ... the Allied governments announce publicly ... that they will hold personally responsible ... all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres".^[12]"

[edit] Turkish Courts-Martial, 1919–20

The initial prosecution of criminals of war was established between 1919-1920 the Ottoman Empire performed courts-martials during the aftermath the World War I, which the leadership of the Committee of Union and Progress and selected former officials were court-martialled with/including the charges of subversion of the constitution, wartime profiteering, and the massacres of both Greeks and Armenians^[13]. The most important sessions of Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 had been held from March 4, 1919 to October 17, 1920; accusation process continued till April 23, 1920. From January 1919 to October 1921, British law and Foreign Office not only conducted an investigation of crimes themselves, but also debated, if the testimonies should be tried into the court martial or into an international court^[14].

On August 4, 1920, [before signing of the Treaty of Sèvres] of the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity ^[15]." The Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians^[16]." Ottoman Government resisted handling over the offenders for trial before an international or inter-allied tribunal^[17]. They claimed that Armistice of Mudros did not lift the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire. Treaty of Sèvres was signed on August 10, 1920 which included Article 230. The article specifically included the clause regarding the position of Ottoman Empire and added what was missing at Armistice of Mudros.

[edit] Prosecution

Vahakn N. Dadrian by using Yalman's first 2 volumes of this memoir informs that a welt of information on the Ittihadist chief's who, along with the author, were interned in Malta for Later trials before an international court on charges of war crimes, including Armenian Massaceres^[18].

[edit] Preparation of Charges

Vahakn N. Dadrian using the British document FO 371/4173/53351 (folios 192-93) gave the dip note:

There was similar agitation in the Unitates States where in the fall of 1918 Charles H. Livermore of the World Peace Foundation drew up a list of eleven "outlaws of civilization" meriting "condign punishment." The list included the three leading Young Turk leaders, comprising the Ittihad triumvirate. A similar, but larger list, was prepared in 1917 in France by Tancrede Martel, an international law expert, who argued that the men he indicated deserved to be tried as common criminals by ordinary civil and criminal courts of the Allied countries because of the type and scope of the atrocities they were accused of having perpetrated. In its final report, completed on March 29, 1919, the commission on Responsibilities through Annex 1, table 2, identified thirteen Turkish categories of outrages liable to criminal prosecution"^[19].

The British foreign office estimated it had demanded 141 men for crimes against the British soldiers, and only seventeen for the crimes against Armenians during the World War I.^[9]

[edit] Establishment of the legal base , August 1920

The legal position is formed during the preliminary Paris Peace Conference, 1919 with the establishment of "The Commission on Responsibilities and Sanctions" which was chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Lansing. Following the commission's work, several articles were added to the Treaty of Sèvres, and the acting government of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Mehmed VI and Damat Adil Ferit Pasha, were summoned to trial. The Treaty of Sèvres gave recognition of the Democratic Republic of Armenia and developed a mechanism to bring to trial the criminals of "barbarous and illegitimate methods of warfare... [including] offenses against the laws and customs of war and the principles of humanity"^[12].

Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required the Ottoman Empire:

to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Ottoman Empire on August 1, 1914.

—Treaty of Sèvres

The will of Allies to go to International Trials is also forced on Ottoman Empire, as a signature of the Treaty Ottoman Government "Recognize the Allied Powers' right to try and punish the perpetrators with^[20]:

The allied powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and The Turkish Government undertakes to recognize such "Tribunal". The provisions of the Article 288 apply to the cases dealt with in this Article.

—Treaty of Sèvres

[edit] Collection of Evidence, 1921

According to Armenian Historian Vahakn N. Dadrian the British high commission had gathered through its Greek-Armenian sections a large mass of information concerning the prisoners and some 1,000 others, all alleged to have been directly or indirectly guilty of participation in massacres.^[10] The Allies had "a mountain of documents" related to the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals.^[21]

On March 31, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, to continue with the collection of information what he says "purposes of prosecution":

There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre...There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt...Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution.^[22]

—Lord Curzon

On July 13, 1921 The Embassy returned the following reply regarding the what Sir A. Gedes says 'detained for trial at Malta' :

I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being 'detained for trial at Malta'. The reports seen...made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence...I have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law...Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks..., I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter^[23].

—Sir A. Gedes

[edit] Suspension of Persecution

British ultimately gave up on the idea of prosecution. It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied.^[24] The Admiral de Robeack was similarly concerned. 'It would be hard under these conditions to convict most of the exiles before an Allied court^[25]

Foreign Affairs Minister Lord Curzon, who felt the release of many of the prisoners was "a great mistake" wrote the following:

The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused,"^[26].

[edit] Aftermath

The Ottoman military tribunal resulted in the convictions and death sentences of many of the masterminds of the Armenian Genocide. As many of the principle architects and convicted Turkish criminals had managed to escape prior to sentencing, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation decided at their 9th General Congress, which convened in Yerevan from September 27 to the end of October 1919, to pursue an assassination campaign against those it perceived to be responsible. A task force, led by Shahan Natalie, working with Grigor Merjanov, was established to assassinate Talaat Pasha, Pipit Jivanshir Khan, Said Halim Pasha, Behaeddin Shakir Bey, Jemal Azmi, Cemal Pasha, Enver Pasha, and others, including several Armenians.

Many war criminals of the Armenian genocide proceeded to lead politically influential lives in the nascent Turkish state. Mustafa Abdülhalik Renda, for instance, who had "work[ed] with great energy for the destruction of the Armenians",^[27] later became the Minister of Finance and Speaker of the Assembly and, for one day upon the death of Atatürk, President. General Vehip Pasa, and various German sources, also implicated Abdülhalik in the burning to death of thousands of people in Mus Province.^[28]

[edit] See also

• Malta exiles
• Young Turks
• Committee of Union and Progress
• Armenian Genocide

[edit] References