What is evidence?

You are not making sense. When the requests were made to extradite the Nazis, why did they not present the Argentinian, Brazilian or Chilean governments with the evidence that would have prevented their extradition? That is how extradition works. The German or other court applies for extradition and presents their evidence of the crime under investigation. The person to be extradited can present their evidence as to why they are innocent or otherwise should not be extradited.

When Nazis were at risk of being kidnapped and taken to trial, there was even more reason why it would be in their interests to ensure exculpatory evidence to prove their innocence and what had happened was available. None of them did that. The obvious and evidenced reason for that, is there was no such evidence. They were guilty.

That is not what I said, I specifically said that extradition hearings gave the Nazis the opportunity to present the evidence to prove what did happen and that there were no mass murders inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas. They may not be able to show the hearing the actual evidence, but they would be able to say where that evidence was located.

For example, when Stangl was extradited in 1967 for his role at TII, why did he not tell the Brazilian authorities that there was evidence TII was a transit camp and that evidence could be found in archives recording arrivals from TII, or the TII camp records were located at, or witnesses to what did happen could be found at?

The same applies to all the other Nazis extradited, why did they do nothing to present evidence of their innocence to the South Americans, who had been sheltering them and so prevent extradition?

The answer is that there was no such evidence and they were guilty.

Show me an extradition procedure that allows people to be sent to another country when they can provide evidence that the crime they are accused of did not happen.

Here is the UKs extradition process;

"The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights."

I cannot show you that information, as I do not read Spanish. I am not claiming to be an expert. I am merely pointing out that extradition hearings, from what I have read, are where an accused person presents reasons why they should not be extradited, such as their life is in danger, or no crime was committed. Do you think that it would be normal for a country to extradite someone who has evidence to prove the crime they are accused of did not happen? I don't.