http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/nuremberg/judgment/cap5.html
I read through the Nuremburg document you cited, and frankly, if I’m a German soldier before the London Agreement is written up (1945), then I have no way to predict, other than my conscience, that I should disobey certain of my superior officer’s orders. The Nuremburg Opinion and Judgment you cite says as much, repeatedly. It is also evident from this there were no German statutes in force and applicable to those soldiers which might have prohibited any imaginable act of obedience to a superior officer, else appeal would have been made to them and the whole matter dispatched with ease.
Therefore the Nuremburg court had no choice but to build an inference of individual criminality for specific acts from a weakly cobbled together set of international traditions. The truth is, without that appeal to conscience upon which the international law was based, there would have been no sustainable assignment of criminality, and the parties who conducted the Nuremburg trial would not have been able to push past what was evidently a strong Ex Post Facto inhibition.
And if conscience can rise to the force of law, as the document you cite appears to argue, then one can never say that pure obedience to a superior officer’s orders is always the right course of action. One is obligated, under the international law to which you appealed, and under the dictates of conscience, to consider more than whether any given military order is facially legal, especially when one is an officer, and has thereby taken on an even greater responsibility for the exercise of individual judgment.