Wiesenthal Center Report

Worldwide Investigation and Prosecution of Nazi War Criminals

(January 1, 2001 – March 31, 2002)

An Annual Status Report

Dr. Efraim Zuroff

Simon Wiesenthal Center – Jerusalem

April 2002

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

The Period Under Review: January 1, 2001 – March 31, 2002 5

Convictions of Nazi War Criminals Obtained
During the Period Under Review 9

Extradition Requests Filed During the Period Under Review 12

New Cases of Nazi War Criminals Filed
During the Period Under Review 13

New Investigations of Nazi War Criminals
Initiated During the Period Under Review 14

Ongoing Investigations of Nazi War Criminals
As of March 31, 2002 15

Investigation and Prosecution Report Card 16
Introduction

Although we are about to mark the fifty-seventh anniversary of the end of World War II, the efforts to prosecute Nazi war criminals continue and have even considerably increased in recent years. Despite numerous legal and technical problems which stem from, among other factors, the considerable amount of time which has elapsed since the crimes of the Shoa were committed, the attempts to investigate and bring to justice Holocaust perpetrators are still underway in quite a few countries and have yielded highly-significant results.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center views the facilitation of the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals as an important part of its international agenda. Over the past two decades, the Center had carried out extensive research in numerous countries to identify Holocaust perpetrators, trace their postwar escape, and ascertain their current whereabouts in order to assist in bringing them to justice. It has also energetically lobbied various governments which have been reluctant to prosecute Holocaust perpetrators and has sought to convince them of the importance of bringing such criminals to trial.

In this regard, the Center’s experience has been that the existence of political will to bring Nazi war criminals to justice is an absolute prerequisite for the successful prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators, and the results achieved in this field are often just as much a function of the existent political climate, as of the strength of the evidence available against the suspects in question.

Starting last year, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has undertaken to publish an annual report on the current status of the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals worldwide as a public service designed to focus attention on the issue and encourage all the governments involved to maximize their efforts to ensure that as many as possible of the unprosecuted Holocaust perpetrators will be held accountable for their crimes. The date chosen for the publication of the report is Yom Ha-Shoa (Holocaust Remembrance Day) as designated by the State of Israel, which this year is observed on April 9, 2002. In that respect, the Center has always believed that the prosecution of the murderers of the Holocaust is one of the most fitting means of commemorating those annihilated by the Nazis. As Simon Wiesenthal himself has often noted, this generation has an obligation to the victims of the Holocaust to see to it that their murderers will be forced to pay for their crimes. Needless to say, such trials also play an important role in strengthening the rule of law and ensuring a better future for all humanity.

In closing, allow me to point out, that although this report concentrates on facts and figures related to the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals, we must never lose sight of the terrible crimes committed by each and every individual identified as a Holocaust perpetrator in this document. The evidence regarding their crimes will remain as an everlasting testament to the horrors of Nazi anti-Semitism and the depths of man’s inhumanity to his fellow man, and as a constant reminder to all of us of the necessity of bringing such criminals to justice.

The Center welcomes any pertinent information, comments and/or suggestions relating to the contents of the report, which can be mailed or faxed (972-2-563-1276) to our Jerusalem office or sent by email to swcjerus@netision.net.il

Dr. Efraim Zuroff
The Period Under Review: January 1, 2001 – March 31, 2002

The period under review was marked by an unusually high number of convictions obtained in different countries throughout the world. Not surprisingly, with one exception, every court victory achieved in these cases was won in countries which have established special units or agencies dedicated to this specific objective. The United States had by far the greatest success, recording six convictions (four denaturalizations and two deportations), while two Nazi war criminals were convicted for murder in Germany, one in Poland, one (in absentia) in France, one in Lithuania and three Nazi collaborators were either stripped of their Canadian citizenship or convicted of concealing their World War II activities (the requisite step necessary to achieve their denatuaralization). In addition, Australia ruled that former Arajs Kommando officer Konrad Kalejs could be extradited to stand trial in Latvia.

This trend is a continuation of the developments over the past two decades in which the number of trials conducted in “countries of refuge” (primarily the United States and Canada) have by far surpassed those held in the countries in which Nazi crimes were committed. These results have stemmed primarily from four major factors: the existence of resolute political will to prosecute these cases in the United States, and to a lesser degree in Canada; the large number of Nazi collaborators who emigrated to those countries after World War II; the relatively recent (late 1970’s) realization in these countries of the existence and extensive scope of the problem and the fact that both the United States, and ultimately Canada, have chosen to prosecute Nazi war criminals not for war crimes or genocide but for immigration and naturalization violations which are relatively easier to prove.

At the same time, the increased interest and awareness regarding the Holocaust, the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe have helped to create numerous new opportunities for the prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators in Germany and Austria, as well as in the other countries in which the crimes of the Shoa were committed. (These developments have also facilitated prosecution in the countries which granted a haven to these criminals.) Unfortunately, relatively few countries have made an effort to exploit the full and unfettered access – available for the first time – to Eastern European archives and witnesses and the renewed interest in the crimes of the Shoa to launch a serious effort to maximize the prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators. In fact, significant results have only been achieved in Germany and Poland. Elsewhere, Lithuania did obtain the first conviction ever - in the Post-Communist Baltics – of a local Nazi war criminal (Kazys Gimzauskas), but he was only indicted after it was clear that he was unable, for medical reasons, to stand trial, let alone be punished. Both Lithuania (Gecas) and Latvia (Kalejs) pursued the extradition of a Nazi war criminal living overseas, but in each case the suspect died before he could be sent back to the Baltics for trial.

In Austria, on the other hand, there has been absolutely no progress made and the country remains one of the least likely to prosecute any of its many unprosecuted Holocaust perpetrators. The same applies to Sweden, where local authorities point to a statute of limitations as an impassable legal barrier to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, local or foreign.

Under the current circumstances, the countries presently pursuing Nazi war criminals can be divided into two major categories. The first consists of those countries in which the crimes of the Holocaust took place and/or were carried out by the local population. In these countries the prosecution of Nazi war criminals is on criminal charges for genocide, mass murder and/or crimes against humanity. At the present time, the most serious of these prosecution programs are in Germany (2) and Poland, (1) where three defendants were successfully convicted and imprisoned during the period under review.

Elsewhere, Lithuania is the country which has ostensibly been the most active in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, but the results achieved so far point to a distinct lack of political will to pursue such cases while the suspects are still able to bear punishment as noted above. In Latvia and Estonia, the only activity undertaken was in response to pressure from abroad and in cases initiated by private Jewish organizations, not by local prosecution agencies.

In other countries which might have been expected to renew prosecution efforts in the wake of the developments described above, no results have been achieved. The most disappointing in this regard had been Austria, where the most potential cases exist, but no significant action has been taken, nor has there been any attempt to establish a special unit to handle such prosecutions (as is the case in Germany, for example).

The second category is of those countries which admitted Nazi war criminals shortly after World War II and in which they continue to reside today. They span all six continents and number more than two dozen countries. The countries in this category can be divided into four, based on their policies vis-å-vis the prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators. The first group consists of those countries which seek to prosecute Nazi war criminals on criminal charges for genocide, murder and/or crimes against humanity (and even passed special laws or amendments to enable such prosecutions); the second group is of those that prosecute Nazi war criminals for violations of immigration and/or naturalization laws; the third is made up of those that do not prosecute Nazi war criminals themselves but are willing to extradite them elsewhere where they can be prosecuted; the fourth group consists of those countries which refuse to take any steps against Holocaust perpetrators.

At present, the only two countries of refuge which seek to prosecute Nazi war criminals in their own courts on criminal charges are Great Britain and Australia. The dismal results achieved in these countries during the period under review (zero prosecutions and zero indictments) are a reflection of their longstanding failure to effectively deal with the presence in their countries of numerous Nazi collaborators (only one successful conviction in Britain, none in Australia) and are in stark contrast to the much more successful records of the United States, and to lesser extent Canada, which have chosen to prosecute Nazi war criminals on immigration and naturalization violations. During the period under review the nine decisions won in U.S. (6) and Canadian (3) courts, attest to the far greater effectiveness of this method in dealing with criminals who committed their crimes elsewhere, at a time that they were neither residents nor citizens of their current countries of residence.

It should be noted that for several years the Wiesenthal Center has urged Australia and Great Britain to switch to the method employed by the United States and Canada to deal with such cases. Only recently British Home Secretary David Blunkett indicated that such a step will be proposed to the British Parliament shortly, while Australia has consistently refused to alter its tactics. Both countries, it should be noted, closed down the special units they had established to investigate these cases several years ago.

Those countries which in the past have been willing to extradite Nazi war criminals to stand trial in Europe, such as Argentina, and to a lesser extent Brazil, have not been active during the period under review. The same naturally applies to those countries like Syria, which have consistently rebuffed all efforts to take action against Holocaust perpetrators. During the period under review both Venezuela and Columbia declined to respond to requests from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to investigate cases of suspected Nazi war criminals who emigrated to those countries.

The above situation finds clear reflection in other figures which relate to the ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute of Nazi war criminals and give some indication as to what concrete results, if any, we can anticipate during the next few years. Thus, for example, the number of new cases filed during the period under review, as well as the number of current investigations underway, is highest by far in the United States. That country also has the largest number of cases currently in litigation. In these categories as well, practically the only countries which have taken any action during the period under review are those with ongoing active prosecution programs. Activities registered in other countries are almost invariably the result of outside pressure by the United States, Israel and Jewish organizations, and not the result of local initiatives.

One country in which the high figures of new and ongoing investigations are not an indicator of significant judicial results is Lithuania, in which the overwhelming majority of the cases in both categories were supplied by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

In closing , the United States should be commended for its effective use of its “watch-list” in barring the entry of Nazi war criminals. During the period under review, seven new names were added to the 60,000 already on the American watch-list and six Nazi war criminals who sought to enter the Untied States were barred from doing so and returned to their ports of departure.

Convictions of Nazi War Criminals Obtained During the Period Under Review
January 1, 2001 – March 31, 2002

1. United States of America – 6
2. Canada – 3
3. Germany – 2
4. Poland – 1
5. France – 1
6. Lithuania – 1

Details of Convictions Obtained During the Period Under Review

1. United States of America

a. January 30, 2001 – Bronislaw Hajda – deportation
armed guard at SS training camp at Trawniki and Treblinka labor camp

b. February 15, 2001 – Juozas Naujalis – deportation
squad leader in the 2nd (12th) Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalion

c. July 13, 2001 – Mykola Wasylyk – denaturalization
armed guard at Trawniki and Budzyn SS slave labor camps

d. October 5, 2001 – Wasyl Krysa – denaturalization
armed guard at Mauthausen concentration camp

e. January 7, 2002 – Theodor Szehinskyj – denaturalization
armed guard at Sachsenhausen, Gross-Rosen, and Warsaw concentration camps

f. February 21, 2001 – John (Ivan) Demjanjuk – denaturalization
guard at Sobibor and Majdanek death camps, Sachsenhausen and Flossenburg concentration camps, and SS training camp at Trawniki
2. Canada

a. March 2, 2001 – Wasyl Odynsky – denaturalization
guard at Trawninki and Poniatowa SS forced labor camps

b. July 12, 2001 – Helmut Oberlander – denaturalization
served in mobile killing unit Einsatzgruppe D

c. August 31, 2001 – Michael Baumgartner – denaturalization
guard at Stutthof and Sachsenhausen concentration camps

3. Germany

a. April 3, 2001 – Julius Viel – murder
SS officer at Theresienstadt ghetto/concentration camp
sentenced to 12 years imprisonment

b. May 30, 2001 – Anton Malloth – murder
SS guard at Theresienstadt ghetto/concentration camp
sentenced to life imprisonment

4. Poland

a. June 7, 2001 – Henryk Mania – genocide
served in Chelmno death camp
sentenced to 8 years imprisonment

5. France

a. March 1, 2001 – Alois Brunner – crimes against humanity
ordered deportation of 350 children from France to Auschwitz death camp
sentenced (in absentia) to life imprisonment
6. Lithuania

a. January 14, 2001 – Kazys Gimzauskas – genocide
deputy commander of Lithuanian Security Police (Saugumas) in Vilnius district
no punishment due to medical condition

Extradition Requests Filed During the Period Under Review

Lithuania – 1
Italy – 1

Details of Extradition Requests Filed

a. Lithuania
March 26, 2001 to Scotland for the extradition of Anton Gecas (Antanas Gecevicius)
officer of the 2nd (12th ) Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalion

b. Italy
November 13, 2001 to Canada for the extradition of Michael Seifert
armed guard at Bolzano, Italy concentration camp

(On December 12, 2000 Latvia filed an extradition request to Australia for the extradition of Konrad Kalejs, officer of the Arajs Kommando Latvian Security Police.)

New Cases of Nazi War Criminals Filed During the Period Under Review

USA – 4
Germany – 1
Canada – 1

Details of New Cases Filed During the Period Under Review

1. United States of America

a. March 5, 2001 – Michael Negele – deportation
guard and dog-handler at Sachsenhausen concentration camp and Theresienstadt ghetto/concentration camp

b. July 11, 2001 – Algimantas Dailide – deportation
served in Lithuanian Security Police (Saugumas) in Vilnius District

c. November 5, 2001 – Joseph (Juozas) Guzulaitis – denaturalization
armed guard at Majdanek death camp and Hersbruck forced labor camp and on death march from Hersbruck to Dachau concentration camp

d. January 14, 2002 – Peter (Petras) Bernes (Bernotavicius) – denaturalization
deputy to police commander of Kupiskis, Lithuania

2. Germany

March 28, 2002 – Dr. Friedrich Engel – murder
leader of SS-Einsatzkommando in Genoa, Italy

3. Canada

November 14, 2001 – Michael Seifert – denaturalization
guard at Bolzano, Italy concentration camp
New Investigations of Nazi War Criminals Initiated During the Period Under Review

Lithuania – 100
Poland - 48
USA – 46
Austria – 10
Germany – 9
Great Britain – 6
Estonia – 2

Total – 221

Ongoing Investigations of Nazi War Criminals As of March 31, 2002

USA – 175
Lithuania – 110
Canada – 78
Poland - 48
Germany – 27
Great Britain – 6
Croatia – 3
Austria – 3
Latvia – 2 (both deceased)
Estonia – 1
Costa-Rica – 1

Total – 454 (2 deceased)

Investigation and Prosecution Report Card

As part of this year’s annual status report, we have given grades ranging from A (highest) to F which reflect the Wiesenthal Center’s evaluation of the efforts and results achieved by various countries during the period under review. (Countries which failed to respond to the questionnaire and in which there is no indication of any activity to investigate and/or prosecute Nazi war criminals were included in Category X.) The grades granted are categorized as follows:

Category A: Highly Successful Investigation and Prosecution Program

Those countries which have adopted a proactive stance on the issue, have taken all reasonable measures to identify the potential suspected Nazi war criminals in the country in order to maximize investigation and prosecution and have achieved notable results during the period under review.

Category B: Ongoing Investigation and Prosecution Program Which Has Achieved Moderate Success

Those countries which have taken the necessary measures to enable the proper investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals and have registered at least a moderate degree of success during the period under review.

Category C: Minimal Success Which Could Have Been Greater, Additional Steps Urgently Required

Those countries which have obtained at least one conviction or have sought at least one extradition during the period under review, but which could be doing far more to investigate and prosecute Nazi war criminals.

Category D: Insufficient and/or Unsuccessful Efforts

Those countries which have ostensibly made at least a minimal effort to investigate Nazi war criminals but which failed to achieve any practical results during the period under review. In many cases these countries have stopped the effort long before it should have been halted and could achieve important results if they were to change their policy.

Category F: Total Failure

Those countries which refuse in principle to investigate, let alone prosecute, suspected Nazi war criminals despite clear-cut evidence that such individuals were residents within their borders.

A: USA

B: Germany, Canada, Poland

C: Lithuania, France, Italy

D: Great Britain, Croatia, Estonia, Costa Rica, Austria, Australia, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic

F: Syria, Sweden, Venezuela, Columbia

X: Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Paraguay, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yugoslavia

Category A = Highly Successful Proactive Prosecution Program

1. USA – The most successful program dealing with the prosecution of Nazi perpetrators has been conducted by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), created especially for this purpose in 1979 by the U.S. Department of Justice, and currently headed by Eli Rosenbaum, Esq. The OSI’s results speak for themselves. To date, 67 Nazi war criminals and collaborators have been denaturalized and 54 have been permanently removed from the United States (including three extradited to stand trial abroad, one of whom was executed for his crimes). In addition, 16 cases are presently in litigation and 175 persons are currently under active investigation. More than sixty thousand individuals suspected of participation in Nazi crimes have been put on the “watch-list” effectively barring them from entering the United States, of whom 164 have actually been turned away at a port of entry. During the period under review, the OSI won six convictions, filed 4 new cases, opened 46 new investigations, added seven names to its watch-list and blocked six attempts by Nazi war criminals and/or collaborators to enter the country.

Category B = Ongoing Prosecution Program With At Least Moderate Success

1. Germany – Over the years, the Central Office for the Clarification of National-Socialist Crimes, in Ludwigsburg, (Zentrale Stelle) the special agency created to facilitate the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in Germany has assisted in convicting close to seven thousand Holocaust perpetrators. During the period under review, two convictions for murder were obtained, one new case was filed and nine new investigations were initiated. At present there at least 27 ongoing investigations of suspected Nazis war criminals being conducted by the German judicial authorities.

2. Poland – With the recent establishment of the Institute of National Remembrance, the Polish authorities have launched renewed efforts to prosecute Holocaust perpetrators. During the period under review one conviction for genocide was obtained and 48 new investigations have been initiated.

3. Canada – The Canadian government initially passed a special law to enable the criminal prosecution of Nazi war criminals in Canada, but after the government lost or dropped its initial four cases, it decided to pursue a policy of denaturalization and/or deportation. Since that change was made, the Canadian government has initiated seventeen cases. During the period under review, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section of the Canadian Ministry of Justice has won three judicial decisions, filed one new case and is currently handling 78 active investigations.

Category C = Minimal Success Which Could Have been Greater

1. Lithuania – Following the establishment of a Special Investigations Division at the Prosecutor – General’s Office, headed by Rimvydas Valentukevicius, initial progress has been made on the cases of several Holocaust perpetrators. During the period under review, one conviction (in absentia) for genocide was obtained, an extradition request was filed, and one hundred new investigations were initiated. To date, however, not a single Lithuanian Nazi war criminal has ever sat one day in jail, nor has there been a single trial in which the defendant was ever present for more than ten minutes. Whatever modest results have hereto been achieved have only come after heavy pressure from abroad and it remains to be seen whether any judicial successes will be registered in the future.

2. France – During the period under review, Alois Brunner, who bears direct responsibility for the deportation to Nazi death camps of 128,000 Jews from Austria, Greece, France, and Slovakia, was convicted in absentia in Paris. The French government does not, however, have a special agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals and it has proven extremely difficult in the past to take legal action in France against French Nazi collaborators.

3. Italy – During the period under review, the Italian government requested the extradition from Canada of Michael Seifert who actively participated in the murder of the inmates of the Bolzano concentration camp. Italy, however, does not have a special agency for the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals and it has proven extremely difficult in the past to take legal action against Italian Nazi collaborators in Italy.

Category D = Insufficient and/or Unsuccessful Efforts

1. Great Britain – During the period under review, six new investigations were initiated by the British authorities but no convictions were obtained nor were any new cases filed. For the past few years, the Wiesenthal Center had urged the British authorities to prosecute Holocaust perpetrators for immigration and denaturalization violations as has been done with great success by the United States, but until now no such change has been made. Home Secretary Blunkett recently informed the Center that a proposal to that effect will be presented to Parliament during the coming months.

2. Croatia – During the period under review, Croatia has dealt with three investigations but no convictions have been obtained nor have any new cases been filed. The slow pace of the current investigations and the failure to pursue all available potential witnesses do not auger well for these cases.

3. Estonia – During the period under review, the Estonian authorities dealt with two investigations, one of which was closed for lack of evidence. It appears that a special investigations unit, whose establishment was announced by former Prime Minister Mart Laar, has not yet begun to operate, nor have any new investigations been initiated in the wake of findings by the Estonian International Historians Commission which proved the active participation of Estonian Security Police units in genocide and crimes against humanity during the Holocaust.

4. Costa Rica – During the period under review, an expulsion order against Ukrainian policeman Bogdan Kozy was confirmed, but has not yet been implemented. The authorities’ failure to do so and the fact the he has resided in the country illegally for such a long period raises doubts regarding the existence of the necessary political will to deport him elsewhere.

5. Austria – Given the extensive participation of numerous Austrians, including at the highest levels, in the implementation of the Final Solution and other Nazi crimes, Austria should have been a leader in the prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators over the course of the past four decades, as has been the case in Germany. Unfortunately, relatively little has been achieved by the Austrian authorities in the regard. During the period under review ten new investigations were conducted but no convictions were obtained nor were any new cases filed. Austria continues to be the country with the most potential suspects but the least likelihood of their prosecution.
6. Australia – The only country in the Western world to which large numbers of Nazi collaborators and criminals (at least several hundreds if not several thousands) emigrated after World War II which has hereto failed to take successful legal action against a single one. Australia closed down its Special Investigations Unit on June 30, 1992 at a time when highly important documentation was first becoming available in the former Soviet republics, where most of the crimes carried out by the Nazis living in Australia had been committed.

The Australian government which passed legislation enabling criminal prosecution in Australia but which failed to achieve a single conviction, has refused to switch to denaturalization and/or deportation, methods being used with outstanding success, primarily in the United States, but also in Canada. During the period under review, an Australian court ruled that Latvian Arajs Kommando death squad officer Konrad Kalejs who was residing in Melbourne could be extradited to stand trial in his native Latvia, but he died before the extradition could take place. No new investigations have been initiated during the past five years despite the submission to the Australian authorities of lists of suspects by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

7. Latvia – Latvia was unwilling to take any steps against Nazi war criminals until relatively recently, even though Latvian prosecutors have been actively pursuing the cases of Communist criminals for quite a few years. (As in Lithuania, the Latvian authorities granted rehabilitations - including financial benefits - to Latvians convicted by Soviet courts of murdering Jews and other civilians during the Holocaust.) During the period under review, Latvia pursued its request for the extradition from Australia of Konrad Kalejs (see above), the first positive step taken by Latvia in this regard, but Kalejs died before he could be sent to Riga for trial. Given the extremely large number of Latvian Holocaust perpetrators still alive all over the world, the government should appoint a special prosecutor for these cases, but has yet to do so, nor does it appear likely that such an appointment will be made.

8. Scotland – Scotland’s delay in handling the request by Lithuania for the extradition of Anton Gecas (Antanas Gecevicius) was a contributing factor in the fact that he ultimately died in Edinburgh before he could be sent to Vilnius to stand trial for his crimes. Otherwise, there was no activity of any sort by the Scottish judicial authorities during the period under review.

9. Norway – During the period under review no activity of any sort by the Norwegian authorities.

10. Finland - During the period under review no activity of any sort by the Finnish authorities.

11. Czech Republic - During the period under review no activity of any sort by the Czech
authorities.

12. Denmark – During the period under review, no activity of any sort by the Danish authorities.

Category F = Total Failure

1. Syria – Despite abundant convincing evidence to the contrary, Syria has consistently denied that Alois Brunner, who bears direct responsibility for the deportation to Nazi death camps of 128,500 Jews from Austria, Greece, France, and Slovakia is living in Damascus. Brunner was recently sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment (for the third time) in France. Germany, Austria, Slovakia, France and Poland currently seek his extradition, but the Syrians have been totally uncooperative in response to all these requests.

2. Sweden – Due to a statute of limitations on murder, the Swedish government in principle refuses to investigate, let alone prosecute, Swedish Nazi war criminals and/or Nazi war criminals (mostly from the Baltics) who found refuge in Sweden after World War II, despite extensive evidence regarding their crimes during the Holocaust and their residence in the country. Thus despite an active involvement in Holocaust education worldwide, Sweden is among the few countries which in principle refuse to take legal action against Holocaust perpetrators.

3. Venezuela – During the period under review, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted a list of eighteen suspected Nazi war criminals from the Baltics who had emigrated to Venezuela after World War II. The Venezuelan authorities have never responded to the Center’s request for assistance in clarifying the whereabouts of these individuals, at least one of whom is currently residing in Caracas.
4. Columbia – During the period under review, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted a list of eleven suspected Nazi war criminals from the Baltics who had emigrated to Columbia after World War II.. The Columbian authorities have never responded to the Center’s request in clarifying the current whereabouts of these individuals.

W1636