This 15-volume series summarizes the course of the more important proceedings taken against individuals accused of war crimes during World War II, excluding the major war criminals tried by the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals. These representative trials of war criminals were selected for this series based on the major points of municipal and international law that were raised and settled during the trials as well as the potential for the greatest legal interest. For example, Volume 4 includes the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita (PDF). Each volume begins with a unique introduction by the Right Honorable Lord Wright of Durley, Chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. At the end of World War I, as everybody knows, there were admirable declarations that war crimes would be punished, and lists of criminals were prepared by a fact-finding committee, but nothing practical was effected towards identifying, tracing and apprehending accused individuals or puttingthem on trial, though an excellent report, with lists of war crimes, was prepared by the Commission on Responsibilities already referred to. The whole thing was abandoned after a few unsatisfactory trials, though at least one useful judgment was produced by the Leipzig Court in the Llandovery Castle case, and though the Leipzig cases (as they have been called) showedhow hopeless it was to expect justice in these circumstances from the courts of the Reich. Hence it came about that the victorious Allies after WorldWar II decided to try war criminals themselves, adopting either the system of the military courts or that of the national courts. They refused to think that Allied courts could not be impartial. Their decision has been amply justified by the trials that have been held. The International MilitaryTribunals, held one at Nuremberg and the other at Tokyo, stand as convincing proofs that impartial justice can in this way be administered. Thishas also been shown by the military and the national courts which have held hundreds of trials, a selection from which is contained in these volumes.The presence of neutral judges has been shown to be not essential to maintain a high standard of impartiality and this was in fact fortunate under thecircumstances, because neutral judges were in fact not available. Nor had the accused any legal right to object to being tried by such courts; all the accused were entitled to was a fair trial and that they got. Also, as I have stated, the types of courts employed were those traditionally recognised by International Law as competent for war crime trials.