In his bookNatural Law, the noted European legal philosopher A.P. d'Entreves asserted the following concerning the Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders after World War II:

"No doubt the provisions for the Nuremberg Tribunal were based, or purported to be based, on existing or 'positive' international law.

"But I strongly suspect that the boundaries of legal positivism were overstepped, and had to be overstepped, the moment it was stated that the trials were a 'question of justice.' The principlenullum crimen sine poena (no crime without punishment),on which the sentences were grounded, was a flat contradiction of one of the most generally accepted principles of positive jurisprudence, the principle ofnulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law).

"Thus, after a century of effort to eliminate the dualism between what is and what ought to be from the field of legal and political experience, natural law seems to have taken its revenge upon the very champions of the pernicious doctrine that there is no law but positive law, or that might equals right, since for all practical purposes the two propositions are perfectly equivalent." (pp. 106-107)

Question's I need help with.

1. How, according to d'Entreves, did that trial do so?
2. Who might be the "very champions" of positive law that d'Entreves is addressing here?