In this article, the author analyzes the following paradox: to convey an unambiguous historical “truth” to its audience, the trial will have to silence the accused. But in such case, it ends up as a show trial. In order for the trial to be legitimate, the accused must be entitled to speak. But in that case, he will be able to challenge the version of truth represented by the prosecutor and relativise the guilt that is thrust upon him by the powers on whose strength the Tribunal stands. His will be the truth of the revolution and he himself a martyr for the revolutionary cause.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martti Koskenniemi (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: