'...it is often argued that trials involving genocide or crimes against humanity serve not so much to judge the person as to establish the truth of the events.''In almost all criminal cases affected With crimes against humanity committed during or after the Second World War, some observers have doubted the ability of criminal law to deal with events precisely in view of their enormous moral, historical or political significance.'Show Trial against the need for justice To be done in public Hausner's intention was not only to prove Eichmann's guilt, but also to present material on the entire Holocaust, thus producing a complete documentation. In addition to wartime documents, the material presented as evidence included tapes and transcripts of Eichmann's interrogation and Sassen's interviews in Venezuela. In the case of the Sassen interviews, only Eichmann's handwritten notes were admitted as evidence. Some of the evidence presented by the prosecution took the form of depositions given by prominent Nazis. The defense requested that the men be brought to Israel so that the defense's right to cross-examination would not be abrogated. But Hausner, in his role as attorney general, declared that he would be obliged to arrest any war criminal who entered Israel. Moshe Landau, the presiding judge, did his best to keep it from becoming a show trial. However, the prosecutor had a passion for entertainment. The Israeli government ensured that the trial received significant media coverage. Many major newspapers from around the world sent reporters and published front-page coverage of the story. Eichmann sat inside a bulletproof glass booth to protect him from assassination attempts. A cage / a half...... half of paper ...... cancels a show trial, the accused must be allowed to speak. But this creates the risk that the trial will turn into a propaganda show." “One of the reasons for establishing a military court instead of an ordinary civil procedure is precisely to avoid such embarrassment.” on civil and political rights prohibits only the “arbitrary” taking of human life and it is not possible to determine whether the death of innocent civilians in some situations is a heinous crime or an inevitable by-product of an action necessary to protest some more fundamental interest. “But as soon as the law attempts to make an assessment about that broader interest and evaluates the relevant contextual data, it will move into an area of ​​indeterminacy and political conflict.”