Is a Liberal System of Justice Viable?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131925.html

"Demjanjuk trial / Why liberal legal systems can't try Nazis"

In this article, Segev discusses the inherent problems in a liberal legal system. He discusses the problem of a court which requires modern legal procedures like testimony, even when there is no one left to testify yet there is ample evidence that a crime was committed. This raises an important question that was brought up in Robert Nozick's theory, which is, how do we determine the necessary rectification for historical injustice? In the situation above, it's not exactly an application of Nozick's theory, for we are simply punishing someone for an injustice that cannot be undone rather than rectifying a historical unjustice (of course, one could argue that by punishing him, one will reduce anti-Semitism in the world, and anti-Semitism would not be as strong if not for people like him). Now, one could hardly doubt that Demjanjuk committed wrong from the point of view of almost any liberal theory of justice. So the problem with liberal ideas is not in the view of justice but in the application of it: how can we really determine who deserves what in a given situation according to those principles, even if we know what those principles are? This particular case suggests a partial answer, which is that testimony, and in general, legal procedure as it stands today in Western countries, does not constitute the whole picture. There needs to be some body which gets to determine based on intuition (but not proof) who committed which crime. But then is this not the same as the dilemma, described by Nozick, of who should distribute the wealth if we have a redistributive theory of justice? One must conclude then that there is really no way to have a liberal system of justice, unless one allows for some bias and hence potential failure of that system to always act effectively.