How impartial, within the law and legal practices were the Nuremberg Trials?

Well, I'll merely translate THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES of the Trials into a different configuration of people…that is, I'll simply change the names of the accusers and accused, and then you can answer...

...the questions I presented you with at the beginning of this thread.

Let us say you’ve been accused of a crime. You’ve been arrested because your neighbors stood before a judge and alleged that you had executed ten black people in your garden.

Then, upon arriving at the prison, you were designated a team of lawyers – all black. The prosecution team is also comprised of only black people; and the judge is black as well.

The witnesses, all black, will come to court under a special clause – THEY DO NOT NEED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY’VE SAID UNDER OATH (this will be the case in that tribunal and, henceforth, in any tribunal of the country, if that case is taken to other ones;...

...in fact, this group of black people will come to have this same law approved in many other countries, in case other trials of the same type might occur in them).

The prosecutors will have access to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE whenever they wish to or need to; ...

...the defense attorneys will have very limited access to any documentation regarding the case [in fact, the prosecutors [with the full support of the judges] will constantly stop the defense attorneys from having access to the little amount of evidence they are allowed]...

...besides that, any technical evidence that might disprove the data of the prosecutors is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN - and anyone who might try and present evidence of that sort will be ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED.

The Tribunal will be a bogus court (that is, a court that can MAKE UP and apply whatever law it may deem fit to its goals) – it isn't even bound to rules of the Supreme Court of the country in question.

[The Nuremberg Court was not bound to any law IN THE WHOLE WORLD].

Before the trials start, you and the witnesses that could present evidence in your favor are tortured for long periods of time by local law enforcement, and if you refuse to plead guilty, not only you will be tortured even more but family members will receive death threats.

When you finally can’t take it any longer, the prosecutors will hand you ready-to-be-signed sworn affidavits in which it is written that you tortured those 20 black people, killing them with the utmost cruelty.

On top of that, the black individuals of your local community own newspapers and TV channels and they are the ones who will be doing the broadcasting of the whole trial EXCLUSIVELY.

Well…

Do you honestly think that in this situation you would have any chance whatsoever of proving your innocence? Do you really believe that the final verdict would be anything else than guilty?

In a nutshell, that's how the Nuremberg Trials were conducted.

Thus, you must ask yourself why a Tribunal would need to go to such absurd extents of falsification, distortion, lies, manipulation, and so on, to prove someone's "guilt".

Thank you for reading!