Well, Valdemar, that's not too unexpected and, when looking what was done to people who were even forced slave workers, it was a deed of humanity. So ironical it is, we should not forget the dictatureship of Stalin. Look at the Lienzer Cossacks. And others. No, that was okay, at least in this regard.
Anyway, back to the topic. I think we have here too many juristical problems. My own opinion to Eichmann is, he should have been impaled. Or vivisected. He absolutely deserved hanging. However, that's my personal opinion.
As from the juristical point of view we have to see this:
1. He was abducted. For a state of law it is at least problematical to abduct someone and try him then. So this state used criminal means. If this was justified in this case, well, perhaps. But it isn't kosher.
2. The jurisdiction of the Israeli court was there. Criminals, who commited crimes like genocide, which are so grave, that need to be punished everywhere, can be charged in every country. This rule can't be challenged IMO. Of course, if Chavez wanted to charge Obama for attacking Lybia is a completely other story.
3. However, then another problem arises. If there was no single attourney in Israel willing to defend him, how unbiased were the judges? Indeed a German attourney had to defend him. But even if it was the very best, perhaps even a Jewish one, he would not have had any chances if the judges and persecution officials were biased. And in this situation it was IMO not possible to find unbiased judges in Israel. IMO the attourney could have tried to "shoot down" every judge in Israel that's why. This is the main opposition point. It was simply no fair trial! Even if there was no single violation of procedural basic laws else.
4. What doing with him? Sending him to try for another court, where such a trial was possible.
5. Nuremberg, which is today very high laudated, was also a trial, which wasn't fair. Indeed the reason why was already invalid. It wasn't statred because of the genocide, but because of starting a war. And that was nowhere a crime. And there is the old rule of nulla poena sine lege. No punishment without law. Because of this ALL point ruling on the violation of this basic law of every civilized law system were invalid. The justification, given by Hans Kelsen, that this was no penal but public law, is one, which would lead to the end of a juristical career of every student in the very first semester at university! It is plainly wrong and has shows a not understanding of the basics of any civilized law system. Also starting a war of agression is also a terminus, which is, too, not certain enough. Since then no other trial having this as base did start. And I think it never will be. Then there were also some more problems. There was, too, the violation of the rule not to be forced to accuse himself. Nemo tenetur se ipse accusare. At Nuremberg this was not the case.
Another violation were the rules of procedure. There "common known facts" could not be disproven and thus the defence was limited. And some of the makers of these rules were judges, too.
Also the tu quoque reason was not accepted. Well, if it was, then Stalin, Churchill and Truman had to be tried (and IMO hung), too, for their crimes. Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Königsberg, Berlin, Katyn, Hitler-Stalin-Pact,...
OTOH the crimes against the civilian population was only a minor issue of the trials. So the crimes against the German Jews were excluded. One German Jewish reporter wanted to make a statement, but the Russian judge said simply, he was a German and could not do so!
Also some sentences were too low (Speer) and some others ridculous high (Dönitz, Raeder, Jodl to name 3).
Thus the reference given to these trials is unfortunately very wrong. A missed opportunity. It was victor's justice but no justice at all.
Adler