As for the holocaust, you don't need a citation. It's common knowledge at this point thanks to the Nuremberg trials. You can ask any school teacher about it.
Allow me to rehash some copypasta I keep for moments of ignorance like these:
From the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the so-called Nuremberg Charter:
Article 19
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
rules of evidence. And the second vital part, damning in concert with the first, ‘shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value’.
This throws the entire basis for a fair trial right out of the window.
Without the ‘technical’ rules of evidence dismissed here, confessions extracted under torture are admissible evidence. Hearsay is admissible. Unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible. Potentially forged documents are admissible. Evidence failing to meet the legal burden of proof is admissible. Evidence irrelevant to the matter at hand or initiating risk of substantial prejudice is admissible. Evidence requiring authentication and lacking said authentication is admissible.
All of those constitute non-admissible evidence pretty much worldwide.
If the standards of evidence applied is basically ‘anything goes’, you’re doomed to get all kinds of contradictory stuff. How are you going to decide which are the more relevant, more accurate evidence, which of them are going to be admissible?
The last sentence: “
[The Tribunal] shall admit any evidence it deems to have probative value.”
So, basically, the evidence standards go along the lines of ‘anything goes, and we decide precisely what is evidence and what is not’.
Or, to sum it up, the primary principles of the Tribunal itself gives it complete authority to reject out of hand ironclad evidence, if it wishes to, or accept as admissible the most sketchy, far-fetched, excuse of evidence that could possibly exist, and show no reason other than ‘it was deemed to not have/have probative value’. I’m not saying that is what was done throughout the trials at every opportunity, but the Tribunal was given full authority to do it.
What we have is a court with the direct authority to cherry-pick evidence to produce pretty much any result they want. In other words, a show trial, fit only for elementary school teachers to brainwash their charges before they know any better.