To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/982
Accused
Lt. Tamaki Koji (D1)
Sgt. Chiba Arashi (D2)
Sgt. Fujiie Horoji (D3)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge (against each Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at Heito Camp, Formosa, between July 1942 and March 1945, whilst members of the Camp Staff of Heito Camp were in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in their custody, causing suffering to many and contributing to the death of some.”
Second Charge (against first Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at Kokutsu Camp, Formosa, between May and August 1945, whilst members of the Camp Staff of Heito Camp were in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in their custody, causing suffering to the said POWs.”
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at Heito Camp, Formosa, between July 1942 and March 1945, whilst members of the Camp Staff of Heito Camp were in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in their custody, causing suffering to many and contributing to the death of some.”
Second Charge (against first Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at Kokutsu Camp, Formosa, between May and August 1945, whilst members of the Camp Staff of Heito Camp were in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in their custody, causing suffering to the said POWs.”
Background
All the Accused were members of the staff of one of the Japanese Prisoners of War (‘POW’) Camps in Formosa (Taiwan) – the Heito Camp (also known as Camp No. 3) located in the south of Formosa.
The first Accused (D1) was a work manager and administrative officer of the Camp and was later promoted to Camp Commandant. The second Accused (D2) was a Quartermaster Assistant and N.C.O. at the Camp, and the third Accused (D3) was a Medical Corporal, later promoted to the rank of Sergeant.
D1 was also second in command and Administrative Officer at Kokutsu Camp.
In essence, the case was about ill-treatment of POWs, causing suffering to all and death to some of them.
The first Accused (D1) was a work manager and administrative officer of the Camp and was later promoted to Camp Commandant. The second Accused (D2) was a Quartermaster Assistant and N.C.O. at the Camp, and the third Accused (D3) was a Medical Corporal, later promoted to the rank of Sergeant.
D1 was also second in command and Administrative Officer at Kokutsu Camp.
In essence, the case was about ill-treatment of POWs, causing suffering to all and death to some of them.
Allegations
Charge One (Heito Camp)
This was a joint charge against all Accused.
Regarding the first Accused, the prosecution sought to establish that he personally inspired a policy of ill-treatment, humiliation and degradation of POWs and that the POWs were in fact his “bêtes noires”.
It was alleged that the ill-treatment committed against the POWs included beating irrespective of their states of health (using bare fist or bamboo poles or sabers); insufficient food for all POWs (e.g. 480g of rice daily maximum for heavy workers, sometimes arbitrarily taken away); starvation; misappropriation of Red Cross food and supplies; forcing the sick to do manual work; failure to provide air raid shelters; collective punishment; forcing POWs to kneel for hours under the sun; holding in stress positions (e.g. “up position” of push-ups or the ”hands down” treatment ) for hours etc.
The inadequate diet and care caused the POWs to become malnourished, thus indirectly or directly causing the prevalence of diseases such as malaria and beri-beri among the POWs.
D2 was alleged to have viciously beaten a number of POWs. He was also said to have misappropriated Red Cross supplies.
D3 was alleged to be responsible for denial of medical treatment to the sick. He also participated willingly in the first Accused’s policy of forcing the sick to work and also in beating a number of POWs.
Charge Two (Kokutsu Camp)
This was just against D1. It was alleged that he continued his policy of ill-treatment of POWs, resulting in physical suffering to the POWs, in the Kokutsu Camp.
This was a joint charge against all Accused.
Regarding the first Accused, the prosecution sought to establish that he personally inspired a policy of ill-treatment, humiliation and degradation of POWs and that the POWs were in fact his “bêtes noires”.
It was alleged that the ill-treatment committed against the POWs included beating irrespective of their states of health (using bare fist or bamboo poles or sabers); insufficient food for all POWs (e.g. 480g of rice daily maximum for heavy workers, sometimes arbitrarily taken away); starvation; misappropriation of Red Cross food and supplies; forcing the sick to do manual work; failure to provide air raid shelters; collective punishment; forcing POWs to kneel for hours under the sun; holding in stress positions (e.g. “up position” of push-ups or the ”hands down” treatment ) for hours etc.
The inadequate diet and care caused the POWs to become malnourished, thus indirectly or directly causing the prevalence of diseases such as malaria and beri-beri among the POWs.
D2 was alleged to have viciously beaten a number of POWs. He was also said to have misappropriated Red Cross supplies.
D3 was alleged to be responsible for denial of medical treatment to the sick. He also participated willingly in the first Accused’s policy of forcing the sick to work and also in beating a number of POWs.
Charge Two (Kokutsu Camp)
This was just against D1. It was alleged that he continued his policy of ill-treatment of POWs, resulting in physical suffering to the POWs, in the Kokutsu Camp.
Defence
The Defence argued first, that there was a policy concerning the treatment of POWs, formulated by the Chief Camp Commandant, Col Sazawa. In essence, the policy provided that (1) there should be a peaceful atmosphere and (2) POWs should be sent back home once the war ended. The policy required staff to:
(1) maintain the POWs health;
(2) give the best rations possible;
(3) encourage self-sufficiency;
(4) maintain strict guarding; and
(5) maintain strict discipline among Japanese soldiers.
D1 formulated his policy on the basis of these and thus the four rules were developed: (i) take anti-disease measures (ii) increase the work efficiency of POWs (iii) provide amenities and recreations (iv) improve the rations. D1 was only trying to implement the official policy into practice
On the issue of forced labour, it was argued that:
(1) there was no policy that there would be a fixed amount of labour each day, therefore there was no reason for the Accused to compel anyone to work;
(2) the medical officers of the POWs were the ones that should be held responsible for sending the sick to work, the Japanese officers had no role in such orders;
(3) officers were not actually forced to work as the POW’s working hours were only 5-5.5 hours a day with one day off each week.
On the issue of rations, these were fixed by the regulations of the army authorities. The branch camp commandant had no alternative but to carry out the order – and in fact there was extra food provided to the POW such as sweet potatoes, meat, fruit and sugar. The sick would be provided with porridge, rice gruel, eggs, milk, soup and fruits.
On the issue of medical supplies, from the outset, the supplies were not adequate. The Accused had actually improved the situation. Although there might have been some shortages for some specific types of medicine, the condition was certainly not as bad as being “insufficient”, in particular taking into account the Red Cross supplies. It was also argued that, after all, the sick and the death rate did not differ too much from the other camps.
On the issue of misappropriation of humanitarian aid, at a later stage, only the POW medics had access to the warehouse in which the Red Cross supplies were stored. Therefore, the Japanese army could not have misappropriated them.
On those specific allegations of ill-treatment, the Defence argued either a lack of evidence or that the evidence was insufficient to form the basis of a concrete finding and in any case be insufficient to find a “policy” to ill-treat the POWs as alleged by the Prosecution.
(1) maintain the POWs health;
(2) give the best rations possible;
(3) encourage self-sufficiency;
(4) maintain strict guarding; and
(5) maintain strict discipline among Japanese soldiers.
D1 formulated his policy on the basis of these and thus the four rules were developed: (i) take anti-disease measures (ii) increase the work efficiency of POWs (iii) provide amenities and recreations (iv) improve the rations. D1 was only trying to implement the official policy into practice
On the issue of forced labour, it was argued that:
(1) there was no policy that there would be a fixed amount of labour each day, therefore there was no reason for the Accused to compel anyone to work;
(2) the medical officers of the POWs were the ones that should be held responsible for sending the sick to work, the Japanese officers had no role in such orders;
(3) officers were not actually forced to work as the POW’s working hours were only 5-5.5 hours a day with one day off each week.
On the issue of rations, these were fixed by the regulations of the army authorities. The branch camp commandant had no alternative but to carry out the order – and in fact there was extra food provided to the POW such as sweet potatoes, meat, fruit and sugar. The sick would be provided with porridge, rice gruel, eggs, milk, soup and fruits.
On the issue of medical supplies, from the outset, the supplies were not adequate. The Accused had actually improved the situation. Although there might have been some shortages for some specific types of medicine, the condition was certainly not as bad as being “insufficient”, in particular taking into account the Red Cross supplies. It was also argued that, after all, the sick and the death rate did not differ too much from the other camps.
On the issue of misappropriation of humanitarian aid, at a later stage, only the POW medics had access to the warehouse in which the Red Cross supplies were stored. Therefore, the Japanese army could not have misappropriated them.
On those specific allegations of ill-treatment, the Defence argued either a lack of evidence or that the evidence was insufficient to form the basis of a concrete finding and in any case be insufficient to find a “policy” to ill-treat the POWs as alleged by the Prosecution.
Prosecutor
Major R.C. Lai (JAG Branch, Barrister-at-law)
Defence Counsel
Takano Junjiro (Japanese Barrister-at-law)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. C.F. Ball (Dept. of JAG, India, Barrister-at law)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt Capt. E.F. Gower, Royal Artillery
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt Capt. E.F. Gower, Royal Artillery
Advisory Officer
Capt. J.N .Whitehorn (J.M. Int. Corps)
Prosecution Witnesses
R.C.M. Comfort (Lieutenant, Royal Army; Former POW, Heito Camp)
D. Nicholson (Captain, U.S. Army; Former POW, Heito Camp)
Warrant Officer John Edwards (Warrant Officer, 1st Class, Royal Corps of Signals)
Major J.T.N. Cross (Royal Artillery; Former POW, Kokutsu POW Camp)
Defence Witnesses
Lt. Tamaki Koji (Accused, Army First Lieutenant attached to the POW Camp in the Formosan Army; Commandant, Heito Camp; Administrative Officer, Kokutsu Camp.)
Sgt Chiba Arashi (Accused, N.C.O., Heito Camp, Formosa)
Sgt Fujiie Horoji (Accused, Employee, Sugar Company; Coporal/Sergeant, Medical Section, Heito Camp)
Col Sazawa Hideo (Army Colonel, Headquarters of the Formosan Army; Chief Commandant of the POW Camps in Formosa)
Lt. Ashida Tsumoru (First Lieutenant, Japanese Army (Illegible) Section, Heito Camp.)
Capt Yoshimi Taneyoshi (Captain, Medical Officer, Head POW Camps in Formosa)
Capt Imamura Yayohachi (Army Captain, Kinkaseki Mine, Formosa; Commandant, Kokutsu Camp.)
Trial Dates
20-Jan-1947
21-Jan-1947
22-Jan-1947
24-Jan-1947
25-Jan-1947
27-Jan-1947
28-Jan-1947
29-Jan-1947
30-Jan-1947
31-Jan-1947
01-Feb-1947
03-Feb-1947
07-Feb-1947
Judgement Date
07-Feb-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
12-Apr-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
14-Apr-1947
Judgement
Held - All were guilty of the charges.
Petition
The Accused petitioned:
1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence;
2. The sentence was unduly severe.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 31 March 1947] noted that because of the preponderance of affidavit evidence, the defence could not cross-examine the deponents.
The Judge Advocate recommended that “the petition be dismissed and the findings and sentences confirmed”.
1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence;
2. The sentence was unduly severe.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 31 March 1947] noted that because of the preponderance of affidavit evidence, the defence could not cross-examine the deponents.
The Judge Advocate recommended that “the petition be dismissed and the findings and sentences confirmed”.
Sentence Imposed
D1: 15 years imprisonment;
D2: 12 years imprisonment;
D3: 12 years imprisonment;
D4: 3 years imprisonment.
D2: 12 years imprisonment;
D3: 12 years imprisonment;
D4: 3 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Formosa; Imperial Japanese Army; Prisoners of War; Prisoner of War Camp; Sick or Wounded; "together concerned in"; Committed;
Starvation; Forced Labour; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Stealing; Red Cross parcels; Humanitarian aid; Collective punishment; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Medical or related personnel; Policy; Scope of responsibilities; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Prisoner of War Camp Regulations; Mitigating factors; Death from natural causes
Starvation; Forced Labour; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Stealing; Red Cross parcels; Humanitarian aid; Collective punishment; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Medical or related personnel; Policy; Scope of responsibilities; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Prisoner of War Camp Regulations; Mitigating factors; Death from natural causes
Remarks
1 lawyer representing 4 Co-Accused.
See the related Formosa cases, especially the case of Col. Sazawa Hideo et al, Case No. WO/235/1029.
See the related Formosa cases, especially the case of Col. Sazawa Hideo et al, Case No. WO/235/1029.