Singapore Cases: No. 235/952
Hachisuka Case
Accused: (1) Capt. HACHISUKA Kunifusa
(2) Lieut YAMAKAWA Yasuji
(3) Lieut NAKAI Kosuke
(4) Sjt ITO Katsusaburo
(5) Sjt ONISHI Shigezo
(6) Sjt KURATA Takeo
(7) Guard SHIRAKAWA Rakushaku
(8) Guard TAKAYAMA Haremitsu
(9) Guard MATSUMOTO Harayoshi
(10) Guard KOBAYASHI Torao
(11) Guard ISHIHARA Tatsuo
(12) Guard RAYAMA Tokuichi
(13) Guard OHARA Seiichiro
(14) Guard KANEYAMA Shoryu
(15) Guard KANESHIRO Kiei
(16) Guard WATAI Jiro
(17) Guard KIMURA Tasei
(18) Guard KUREKAWA Zentaku
(19) Guard YASUDA Yoshi
(20) Guard TOMODA Shakujin
(21) Guard OKANO Sakae
(22) Guard MIYAMA Takamine
(23) Guard KANEMOTO Yoshio
(24) Guard KUWA Ryushoku
of the Imperial Japanese Army
Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 24-27, 29-30 July; 1-3,
6-9, 12-16, 19-22,
26-30 August; 5-6 September 1946
Finding and Sentence:
Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence passed
Final sentence
1 - 1st charge Death by Hanging No change
2 - 1st, 2nd (w/ exception) charge Death by Hanging No change
3 - 1st, 4th charge Death by Hanging 15 years imprisonment
4 3rd 1st, 7th charge Death by Hanging No change
5 5th 1st, 6th charge Death by Hanging No change
6 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge Death by Hanging 15 years imprisonment
7 - 1st, 5th charge 18 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
8 5th 1st charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
9 - 1st charge Life imprisonment 15 years imprisonment
10 - 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th charge Death by Hanging No change
11 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge 20 years imprisonment No change
12 5th 1st charge Life imprisonment No change
13 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge Death by Hanging Life imprisonment
14 - 1st, 5th charge Death by Hanging Life imprisonment
15 1st 6th charge 12 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
16 - 1st, 5th charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
17 - 1st, 5th charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
18 - 1st charge Life imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
19 1st 6th charge 10 years imprisonment No change
20 - 1st charge 3 years imprisonment No change
21 - 1st charge 15 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
22 1st - Acquitted -
23 - 1st charge 15 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
24 1st - Acquitted -
Exception (for 2nd charge): Guilty except the words:
"resulting in the deaths of many."
Charges: 1st charge: (against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they, at Palembang, between the
27th July, 1944 and 25th June, 1945, the accused HACHISUKA
Kunifusa (Accused 1) as Commandant of Prisoner of War Camps
Group, the accused YAMAKAWA Yasuji (Accused 2) as Intendance
Officer Prisoner of War Camps Group, and accused NAKAI Kosuke
(Accused 3), as the Medical Officer Prisoner of War Camps Group,
and the other named accused as members of the staff of SOENGEI
GERON Prisoner of War Camp, all responsible for the well-being
of the Prisoners of War interned therein, were, in violation of
the laws and usages of War, together concerned as parties to the
ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War, resulting in the
deaths of many and in physical and mental sufferings to many
others.
2nd charge: (against Accused 2 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, Sumatra, between
December 1943 and 27th July 1944 when Intendance Officer of the
Prisoner of War Camp, responsible for the well-being of the
persons interned in Chung Wa, Mulo School and Soengei Geron
Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of War, ill-treated
Prisoners of War interned in the Camps aforesaid, resulting in
the deaths of many and in physical suffering to many others.
3rd charge: (against Accused 4 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, between August
1942 and December 1942, when in charge of the Intendance
Department of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for
the well-being of the persons interned in Chungwa and Mulo
School Camps, in violation of the laws and usages of War,
ill-treated the said Prisoners of War, resulting in physical
suffering to many of them.
4th charge: (against Accused 3 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, Sumatra, between
30th September 1942 and 26th July 1944, when in medical charge
of the Prisoner of War Camps Group responsible for the
well-being of Prisoners of War interned in Chungwa, Mulo School
and Soengei Geron Camps, in violation of the laws and usages of
War, grossly ill-treated Prisoners of War in his medical care by
willfully neglecting to provide proper medical attention and
available medicine and drugs to sick Prisoners of War,
permitting sick Prisoners of War to remain in unhygienic
conditions, as a result of which many of the said Prisoners of
War died and many others underwent physical suffering.
5th charge: (against Accused 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
and 16 only)
Committing a War Crime in that they at Palembang, Sumatra,
between 15th March 1943 and 26th July 1944, when members of the
Staff of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for the
well-being of Prisoners of War interned therein, were, in
violation of the laws and usages of War, together concerned as
parties to the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War
contributing to the deaths of some and causing the physical
suffering of others of the said Prisoners of War.
6th charge: (against Accused 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19
only)
Committing a War Crime in that they at Palembang, Sumatra,
between the 26th June, 1945 and the 18th August, 1945, when
members of the staff of Palembang Prisoner of War Camps Group,
Soengei Geron, responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners
of War interned therein, were, in violation of the laws and
usages of War, together concerned as parties to the
ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War contributing to the
deaths of some of them and causing physical suffering to others.
7th charge: (against Accused 4 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, between 1st July
and 18th August 1945, when in charge of the Intendance
Department of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for
the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in
violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the
ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War, resulting in the
deaths of some Prisoners of War and causing physical suffering
to many others.
8th charge: (against Accused 10 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Pankalan Balai, Sumatra,
between November 1943 and April 1944, when a member of the staff
of Pankalan Balai Prisoner of War Camp responsible for the
well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in
violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the
ill-treatment of Prisoners of War, resulting in injury and
suffering to them.
9th charge: (against Accused 10 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he in Pakan Baroe, Sumatra,
between September 1944 and August 1945, when a member of the
staff of Pakan Baroe Prisoner of War Camp responsible for the
well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in
violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the
ill-treatment of Prisoners of War, resulting in injury and
physical suffering to them.
Facts relating to the several charges: Facts relating to the
case were summarized in these excerpts from the Abstract of
Evidence:
1. The first seven charges in the Charge Sheet refer to the
Prisoner of War Camps in Chungwa, Mulo School and Sungei Geron;
all in the Palembang area, in which camps all the accused were
members of the staff during the periods mentioned.
2. In March 1942, Allied Prisoners of War were sent to two
camps, Chungwa and Mulo School. In the School were the majority
of the British Officer prisoners and Dutch Officers and men,
while in Chungwa, Australian and British troops together with a
few Malay troops lived with 18 British and Dominion Officers to
look after them. During March and April 1944 the Prisoners of
War from these two camps, were transferred to Soengei Geron
Camp, some 6 kilometres from Palembang, and they remained in
this camp until the Japanese surrender.
3. A Japanese Commandant was responsible for the camps in the
Palembang area and on 7 July 1944, Accused 2 became the
Commandant, in which command he remained until 2 June 1945.
Between 27 July 1944 and 25 June 1945 the accused named in the
first charge, all members of the staff of the Camps were
responsible for the ill-treatment of the Prisoners in their
care. The ill-treatment took the various forms of mass beatings
up by Korean guards, individual beatings up using fists, feet,
sticks, rifle butt and any weapon at hand, exposure of Prisoners
during the working hours owing to non issue of available
essential clothing and exposure of Prisoners in mass parades
held at night for long periods without adequate clothing. There
were other forms of willful ill-treatment as follows:
(a) A basic ration scale was laid down. This was reduced
twice and in May 1945, the time of the second reduction, the
basic daily rice issue per man was 300 grammes. Allowing for
deficiency in weight in the rice sacks, which on average was
about 10%, the average daily basic issue was 280 grammes.
The basic rate, however, was not issued to each Prisoner, but
was made according to the type of work done by the man.
Officially heavy duty men were to receive 400 g., light duty men
250 g., and sick men 150 g. The Prisoner of War doctors insisted
that the sick must receive 200 g. each so that the heavy workers
received less than 400 g.
Such a ration issue was considerably less than that received by
Japanese garrison troops and clearly was insufficient to
maintain health. A disturbing factor to be remarked is that for
a sick Prisoner already undernourished, to cease working and
enter hospital meant that he lost his heavy duty rations and
received a daily maximum of 200 g. rice. This was tantamount to
a death sentence and particularly during the latter part of 1945
many instances occurred of men working until the very day they
died.
The Japanese Officers, N.C.O's and Korean guards who staffed the
camp knew this situation. Letters sent by the British Camp
Commandants and Doctors, begging for additional food, were
either never answered or rejected. Verbal complaints received no
consideration.
(b) Food was available in plenty in Palembang. There was
sufficient money in the camp to have assured a steady flow of
food which would have prevented the death rate which rose
enormously between May-August 1945. The purchase of this food
was forbidden.
Whenever a kindly guard smuggled a little food into the camp,
discovery meant severe punishment. Prisoners were forced to
steal food whenever they could. This also entailed punishment.
In Sept 1944, accused 2 closed the canteen for a month, because
of verbal complaint made by a Prisoner to the accused 2.
Prisoner's rations, particularly fresh vegetables, were allowed
to rot deliberately in the store and then issued when inedible.
Prisoner's rations were sold, given away, stolen and fed to
animals.
(c) Small private plots of ground were cultivated by the
Prisoners of War, and the little quantity of vegetables grown
was for the Prisoner's own use. In May 1945 Accused 1
confiscated the plots. This was a severe blow, not because of
the food itself, but from a psychological standpoint.
Nearly 300 Prisoners died between Jan 1 and Sept 20, 1945. The
evidence of the Prisoners of War Doctors show that these deaths
resulted from malnutrition and from disease with malnutrition as
the basic cause. Accused 1, 2 and 4 must therefore bear
responsibility. A contributory named case was that of the
beatings of the guards named in the first charge, who must also
accept responsibility for their share in the deaths.
4. For the most part Accused 1 took little interest in the
workings of his camp. Regular complaints were made to him but
conditions nevertheless deteriorated.
Accused 1 stole Red Cross supplies in concert with Accused 2,
4 and others; certain working parties were forced to work from
8:30 a.m. all through the day until 1 a.m. the following
morning, several days each month. Accused 1, on his arrival in
July 1944 enforced a previous Formation order previously
neglected. This order insisted that all British officers should
give orders to their men in the Japanese language and Accused 2
required this order enforced. Protests were made to no avail.
Many misunderstandings resulted from this and provided the
Korean guards and Japanese N.C.O's with additional grounds for
beatings.
Accused 3 paid little attention to the sick who were housed
under disgraceful conditions. There was an inadequate staff,
little equipment, were no mattresses, blankets or mosquito nets.
Sanitation was primitive and conditions particularly in the
dysentery ward were horrible. Korean guards on at least 4
occasions, beat up ill patients in the hospital and complaints
to Accused 3 met with no results.
In May - June 1944 men suffering badly from dysentery were to
be brought into Sungei Geron Camp. Protests were made by the
Surgeon Lieut. and the Camp Interpreter, explaining that the
epidemic was certain unless isolation wards were built
immediately to house these men. Accused 3 refused and in fact a
dysentery epidemic did result and a number of Prisoners died.
Until this date cases of dysentery had been infrequent but
thereafter dysentery became endemic in the camp.
Accused 3 knew the Prisoners were dying of disease arising from
their low resistance caused by malnutrition and in response to
frequent complaints to him, said the provision of food was
Accused 2's responsibility. He was entreated to press the matter
to the Japanese authorities, but he said he was unable to do so.
The Japanese Intendance Sergeant, Accused 4, stole and sold
the Prisoners' rations, withheld rations and vegetables until
inedible, refused to issue clothing and bedding which were
available in his stores and stole Red Cross parcels. He was seen
handing in Prisoners' rations to comfort house girls in
Palembang.
In June 1945 he ordered a parade of the whole camp late at
night. Sick men were forced to attend and the parade continued
for some 4 hours. In the opinion of witnesses this parade
accelerated the deaths of some of the men.
Accused 4 had mistresses in Palembang and had drunken parties
nearly every night. It was common gossip in the camp that he was
able to do this owing to the proceeds from his sale of rations,
clothing and his other transactions.
Accused 5 and 6 were consistently concerned in the beating up
of the Prisoners of War. The Korean guards named as accused were
all concerned in a consistent policy of humiliating, degrading,
beating and torturing Prisoners. Days rarely passed without a
beating by some guard or another.
5. The 5th and 6th charges relate to offences committed
against Prisoners before and after accused 1 took over the camp,
by the accused guards and N.C.O's mentioned in these charges.
Beatings were particularly frequent after May 1945 when men were
desperate for food and a consistent policy of ill-treatment had
long been established by the guards and sanctioned by the
Japanese officers and Sergeants.
The 8th charge against Accused 10 relates to offences
committed by this guard when a member of the staff of Pakaln
Balai Prisoners of War Camp, some forty miles from Palembang,
between November 1943 and April 1944. This guard was known for
his evil temper and the violent beatings he administered.
The 9th charge involved the ill-treatment of Prisoners of Pakan
Baroe between Sept.1944 and August 1945 by Accused 10.
Accused handling of the charges: The accused mostly denied
the charges against them. In some cases, they admitted to part
of the charges against them but always with a defence, such as
their efforts in improving the conditions of the POWs, and
actions according to superior's orders.
Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:
Due to the length and complexity of the closing addresses, I
will deal with the defence and prosecution's issues and
arguments separately.
Defence:
1) General Administrative "Set-Up"
The defence argued that Regulations concerning supplies for the
POWs were in accordance with the regulations fixed by the
Central Authority in Japan. They gave instructions to every Army
Unit under its command that proper feeding, within the bounds of
responsibility, be carried out on the basis of these
Regulations. Concerning the welfare of the POWs in all camps,
the Area Army and the Army Corps had arranged the details of
regulations on the basis of Regulations issued by the
Expeditionary Forces in the Southern Regions and ordained that
all camps carry these out to meet the respective local
situations. Therefore, it was power from above that governed the
conditions in the camps.
The defence also argued that the harsh conditions prevented the
POWs from obtaining supplies. Even the Japanese Army units were
obliged to take inferior supplies owing to the blockade of their
supply lines and the decrease of production in Japan. They
argued that as the production and transport of food, clothing
and medical supplies became difficult; decreasing allocations to
the POWs became inevitable. In conclusion to this point, they
argued that this was the grave responsibility for the Japanese
Government and the Southern Regions Expeditionary Forces, which
the junior officers of the POW Camp could do nothing about.
2) Rations in the POW Camps
The rations in the POW Camps decreased over time. The amount of
rations received depended upon the amount of work done by the
workers. All the produce of the camp farm was given to the POWs.
The rice situation was bad due to the conditions which affected
the supply source: the Southern part of Sumatra was over the
rice harvesting season at that time; also because the severe
lack of transportation facilities and labour made it difficult
to harvest the rice. Also, owing to the Allied Forces blockade,
the importation of rice from outside the island became more
difficult.
Concerning the medical supplies, bad conditions again made it
impossible to increase the amount of medical supplies to the
Japanese. Due to the decrease of production in Japan and the
impossibility of transportation by sea, after about March 1944,
anti-malarial drugs and other drugs needed in the camps became
most difficult to obtain. There were efforts made by the POWs to
obtain the necessary medical supplies but the supplies for POWs
were based on regulations issued by the Southern Regions Army
and hence it was beyond their control to obtain the amount of
supplies needed.
They argued that concerning the improper feeing of the POWs, in
view of the general conditions of supply, in most cases this was
due to the general objective state of affairs and not deliberate
negligence. In terms of the supply situation, the staffs of the
camps could not be held at all responsible for the conditions,
which were out of their hands.
Defence regarding the 1st charge:
I. Period of responsibility
According to their charge sheets, Accused 1, 2 and 3 were held
responsible for a period that was after they were transferred
out of Palembang. The defence argued that their responsibility
term clearly should be limited to the period of their being in
charge of running of the camp, and should not be prolonged
beyond that. They should not have to take responsibility for
something that took place after they left Palembang.
II. The reversion of responsibility
The defence argued that the accused merely ran the camp
faithfully and diligently following the command of their
superiors. The scales of all the supplies such as food, clothes
and medicines for the POWs, were decided not by them but the
H.Q. of the Southern Expeditionary Forces, and the actual supply
was made by the 25th Army. As such junior officers and accused
were not entitled to change the scale and supplies stated above.
The accused, especially Accused 1 and 2 and various personnel
actually made efforts and did their best on one hand in making
application to the 25th Army for the increase of food and other
necessities, and also tried hard to enlarge the self-supplying
farm in their own camp for the sake of the POWs.
The defence argued that some of the illegal acts that took place
in forms of ill-treatment towards the POWs were not done in
accordance with orders from their superiors, and so the camp
commandant and his staff were hardly to be blamed.
III. Food, clothes and medicines
The defence argued that before the food cut on May 27 1945 the
food for main and extra consumption was enough for POWs, and not
a single case of starvation was found in the camp. The death
rate was also very low. They argued that the food cut was in
accordance with orders from the superiors, and this happened
after the transfer of accused 1, 2 and 3 and hence they had
nothing to do with it.
The defence claimed that all the medical supplies received from
the Army Supply Depot including the Red-Cross parcels were given
to the POWs medical Department. They also argued that accused 3
made efforts by building isolation wards for the prisoners.
IV. Death Rate
The defence argued that the death rate was due to the conditions
at the time. Considering the unhealthy tropical climate and
sudden change in their mode of life that the POWs were subjected
to, the death rate could be regarded as extremely reasonable.
The defence attributed the main cause of death to be from the
food cut, but claimed that the H.Q. of the 25th Army was
responsible for it.
Defence concerning responsibility of each accused:
For the First Charge -
a) That the accused made efforts to improve the conditions of
the POWs, especially the accused who were in authoritative
positions.
b) The accused denied that any ill-treatment of the POWs had
occurred, or other involvement in the charge that they were
involved in.
c) They claimed that the death rate was not unduly high, given
the circumstances.
d) For the accused that had lower ranks, it was argued that they
were only acting according to superior's orders.
e) There was evidence against some of the accused, which was
imaginary or dependent on indirect information and therefore
insufficient to demonstrate the truth.
f) Any ill-treatment that occurred had been executed as
punishment and was not severe enough to be considered a breach
of international law.
For the Second charge -
a) Accused 2 was not guilty because the facts had not been
proved that he starved and tortured POWs.
For the Third charge -
a) It was denied that Accused 4 was involved. The defence argued
that it was not a fact that the POWs were suffering from
starvation or malnutrition, and also not true that the POWs were
tortured deliberately.
For the Fourth charge -
a) It was argued that Accused 3 had made efforts for the POWs
and tried every means in his power for medical treatment of the
POWs.
For the Fifth charge -
a) The defence argued that there were very few incidents in
which POWs were ill-treated and actually no evidence could be
seen concerning the ill-treatments by accused 5, 8 and 12. Also,
the evidence against them was insufficient.
b) Also, the beatings that the guards executed were disciplinary
measures against the POWs who had offended against POW
Regulations.
For the Sixth charge -
a) The defence argued that this took place after June 26, when
the Accused were no longer in Palembang. They insisted that the
accused related to this charge were not guilty as in the first
charge.
For the Seventh charge -
a) The defence argued that this also took place after June 26,
when Accused 4 was no longer in Palembang.
b) Also, the accused had also made the utmost effort to purchase
extra provisions to lessen the high death rate during this
period.
For the Eighth and Ninth charges -
a) The defence argued that the ill-treatment that occurred was
merely to maintain discipline. The slapping had not caused any
injury much less the death of the POWs.
Conclusion:
The defence argued that it was natural that individual Japanese
in part of the widespread battlefront felt themselves "up
against things". It was difficult for them to maintain
conditions in the POW camps when they were fighting a losing
battle. The defence submitted that they treated the POWs fairly
and scrupulous obedience to orders was expected by their
superiors. They argued that the Japanese did make efforts for
the POWs, by providing food, clothing and protection to the very
end when all was lost for them. They did not have any malicious
intent nor did they set out to "hate these POWs to death", but
actually showed much kindness and were definitely helpful when
there was no special call by race to do so.
Prosecution:
The prosecution argued according to the evidence and facts of
the case. They covered the details of each charge as well as the
offences, which the individual accused committed.
1) Evidence
The prosecution stated that it was going to stress those parts
of evidence upon which the Prosecution relied in order to prove
the statements contained in the nine charges for which the
Accused named against each charge stood their trial. The
prosecution had 40 witnesses who provided evidence against the
accused. They did not wish to discuss the general conditions of
the Camps, since those appeared overwhelmingly in the evidence
of the Prosecution witnesses. They added that the Accused
themselves supported the evidence for the Prosecution.
2) Dates the Accused were involved
The prosecution addressed the defence's argument that the first
3 accused did not bear any responsibility after the date that
they had left the camps. The prosecution argued that
responsibility did not commence until 27 July 1944 but did not
cease on 25 June 1945, because the policies introduced and the
actions during this period had continued consequences.
3) Group Responsibility
The prosecution submitted that where a Unit as in the present
case, the Staff of the Soengei Geron Camp, had been proven to
have been participating in a war crime, then every man who was
proved to be, or have been, a member of that unit during the
relevant period, or any part of it, may prima facie, and be held
responsible for that war crime, if one overt act be proved
against him. They added also that degrees of complicity and
responsibility that were a separate issue, would of course have
to be considered by the Court, should a finding of guilty be
arrived at, because they would bear on any sentence that might
be found necessary.
4) Charges against the accused
The prosecution dealt with the details of each individual charge
in the case and the respective accused's involvement in each of
the charges. I have chosen not to cover the details as they have
already been covered in the write up of the Abstract of Evidence
(above).
5) Responsibility of each accused
Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6:
a) Negligence and indifference to the Prisoners of War which
included misappropriating rations of food, taking away of
medical supplies, thereby contributing to states of
malnutrition, sickliness and death of the involved Prisoners of
War.
b) They were involved in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War,
which included abuse of the working POWs and punishments to the
POWs. Accused 1 in particular, ordered that his subordinates
give orders in Japanese, so that the Prisoners of War would not
be able to understand them, follow the order wrongly, and hence
provide the Japanese with an excuse to punish them severely.
c) They were dishonest when carrying out their duties.
In conclusion, the prosecution submitted that these six men
(ranking no less than Sjt) were the Chief agents in the
ill-treatment of the Prisoners of War in Seongei Geron Camp and
that each of these six aided and helped each other in
humiliating and degrading the prisoners, allowing them to be
starved and beaten and themselves beating and that the
responsibility for the deaths in the camp, rested on the
shoulders of these men jointly.
Accused 7-24 (All Korean Guards):
1) Ill-treatment of the Prisoners of War in the camps, mostly in
the form of beatings. These beatings also contributed to the
sufferings and in some cases deaths of the Prisoners of War.
Conclusion:
The prosecution concluded by emphasizing the importance of the
evidence and what it showed to the court with regards to the
charges. They submitted that if the court was satisfied beyond
such a reasonable doubt that the evidence in the case had
established the guilt of all or any of the Accused, then it was
the court's duty to convict any one or all of them accordingly.
D.J.A.G.'s findings:
The D.J.A.G.'s findings had a big impact in changing the
original sentences passed by the court.
Of the first 6 accused, the D.J.A.G. confirmed findings for all
their death sentences except accused 3 and 6.
For accused 3, he acknowledged his indifference and callous
disregard of the appalling suffering of the POW, and he is
criminally liable for this. However, he felt that the death
penalty was out of proportion to the offences he committed. He
suggested that a sentence of 15 years imprisonment would be
adequate, and this was his final sentence.
For accused 6, he said that he had been found guilty of three
charges of ill-treatment, one resulting in the death of POW and
the other two contributing to their death. However, there was
evidence that he did not actually cause the death of any POW and
there was considerably less against him than accused 4 and 5.
Hence he advised that his sentence be commuted to one of
imprisonment for 15 years.
For Accused 7 and 8, he defended them both, saying that there
was evidence that they were incited to carry out ill-treatment,
and therefore that the sentence for each should be mitigated to
10 years imprisonment.
For accused 9 and 10, he suggested mitigation to 15 years
imprisonment for accused 9 despite his bad record, and confirmed
the death sentence for accused 10. For accused 10 he felt that
there was no evidence to justify clemency.
For accused 11, 12 and 13, he confirmed the sentences of 11 and
12 as he felt that they could have stopped the brutal
ill-treatment of POW had they so desired but they did not. For
accused 13, there was no evidence that he ever actually caused
death, and therefore he advised that his sentence be commuted to
Life Imprisonment.
For accused 14, the D.J.A.G. felt he should be distinguished
from Accused 10, and advised commutation of the death sentence
to Life Imprisonment. For accused 15, he advised 10 years
imprisonment, the same as what he advised for accused 7 and 8.
He was only convicted of one charge after all.
For Accused 16, 17 and 18, 21 and 23 he also suggested 10 years
imprisonment as adequate, and added that in his opinion the
sentences on many of the guards were excessive. He did not
change the sentences of accused 19 and 20 as they were already
receiving 10 years imprisonment.
In conclusion the D.J.A.G. advised that the findings of guilty
and the sentences were confirmed but mitigated as he advised and
the petitions be dismissed accordingly.
This case is a good example of showing how arbitrary judging
can be, since the D.J.A.G. was more lenient than the judges in
the court. It also shows the extent that sentences can be
amended, if the D.J.A.G. so wishes. It is also an example of how
difficult a complex and extensive case like this can be when it
comes to judging, as the court must weigh the evidence and
involvement of each accused thoroughly before they are able to
decide on a sentence.
|
