To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1029
Accused
Col. Sazawa Hideo (D1)
Lt. Hioki Shiro (D2)
Corpl. Matsumura Yoshio (D3)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge (Against all Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at or near SHIROKAWA FORMOSA, between July 1943 and August 1945, the accused Colonel SAZAWA as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group, the accused Lieutenant HIOKI as Commandant of No. 4 Branch Camp, SHIROKAWA and the accused Corporal MATSUMURA as a member of the medical staff of the said Camp, being responsible for the well being of British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said No. 4 Branch Camp, were in violation of the laws and usages of war were together concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilians resulting in physical sufferings to many of them."
Second Charge (Against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he at Formosa between July 1943 and March 1945 as Commandant Prisoner-of-war Camps Group and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in Formosa, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and internees at No. 1 Branch Camp KINKASEKI, No. 2 Branch Camp TAICHU, No. 3 Branch Camp HEITO, at Headquarter Camp at DAICHOKU and in transit resulting in the deaths of a number of the said Prisoners-of-War, and in physical suffering to many Prisoners-of-War, and civilian internees.”
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at or near SHIROKAWA FORMOSA, between July 1943 and August 1945, the accused Colonel SAZAWA as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group, the accused Lieutenant HIOKI as Commandant of No. 4 Branch Camp, SHIROKAWA and the accused Corporal MATSUMURA as a member of the medical staff of the said Camp, being responsible for the well being of British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said No. 4 Branch Camp, were in violation of the laws and usages of war were together concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilians resulting in physical sufferings to many of them."
Second Charge (Against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he at Formosa between July 1943 and March 1945 as Commandant Prisoner-of-war Camps Group and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in Formosa, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and internees at No. 1 Branch Camp KINKASEKI, No. 2 Branch Camp TAICHU, No. 3 Branch Camp HEITO, at Headquarter Camp at DAICHOKU and in transit resulting in the deaths of a number of the said Prisoners-of-War, and in physical suffering to many Prisoners-of-War, and civilian internees.”
Background
D1 was in command of several Prisoner of War (‘POW’) camps in Formosa. He succeeded Col. Nakano, and he was later succeeded by Major Uete.
There were six POW camps in total: The No. 1 Kinkaseki Camp; The No. 2 Kaichyu Camp; The No. 3 Heito Camp; The No. 4 Shirakawa Camp; No. 5 Mokasaku (Taihoku) Camp and No. 6 Daichoku (Taihoku) Camp.
D2 was the Commandant of the Shirokawa Camp.
D3 was a Medical Orderly of the Shirokawa Camp.
There were six POW camps in total: The No. 1 Kinkaseki Camp; The No. 2 Kaichyu Camp; The No. 3 Heito Camp; The No. 4 Shirakawa Camp; No. 5 Mokasaku (Taihoku) Camp and No. 6 Daichoku (Taihoku) Camp.
D2 was the Commandant of the Shirokawa Camp.
D3 was a Medical Orderly of the Shirokawa Camp.
Allegations
The Prosecution tendered numerous affidavits, and called live witnesses who were formerly POWs in Formosa, to establish its case. The Prosecution argued that there was ample evidence on record to show, inter alia, that food was insufficient, medical facilities were inadequate, the sick were made to work, actions in the nature of reprisal were taken against officers who refused to work, prisoners were generally ill-treated, mainly by being slapped and beaten, and that several deaths occurred which might well have been saved had a more humanitarian outlook been adopted by the authorities concerned.
Specifically, the Prosecution alleged that there were: exposure of prisoners to ridicule, mass punishment, imposition of cruel rules, perpetual work, insanitary living conditions, withdrawing of Red Cross supplies, total lack of air-raid shelters, utter lack of food amounting to a deliberate policy of starvation.
The Prosecution argued that the Accused were responsible because “by their individual positions of authority they were instrumental in carrying out a shameful system and their liability urged because they either actively committed the various offences, or condoned them”. Alternatively, it was argued that the Accused “failed to carry out the duty imposed upon them by the laws and usages of war towards the prisoners under their charge”.
Specifically, the Prosecution alleged that there were: exposure of prisoners to ridicule, mass punishment, imposition of cruel rules, perpetual work, insanitary living conditions, withdrawing of Red Cross supplies, total lack of air-raid shelters, utter lack of food amounting to a deliberate policy of starvation.
The Prosecution argued that the Accused were responsible because “by their individual positions of authority they were instrumental in carrying out a shameful system and their liability urged because they either actively committed the various offences, or condoned them”. Alternatively, it was argued that the Accused “failed to carry out the duty imposed upon them by the laws and usages of war towards the prisoners under their charge”.
Defence
The Defence sought to deny that the bad conditions were of their making. The Accused themselves and their witnesses, on oath, gave evidence to prove that rations were fixed by higher authority and not by themselves, that medical facilities depended on outside supplies and that the sick were treated by POW doctors.
It was denied that reprisals were taken against POWs refusing to work, but it was admitted that routine orders and regulations were “more strictly enforced”.
As regards slappings and beatings, D1 never administered any himself and did all he could to stop such misdeeds.
D2 and D3 admitted to slapping but maintained that the Prosecution grossly exaggerated the gravity of the offences which were merely in the nature of minor admonishments. They expressed regret and would never have done so, save that they lost their tempers at the unreasonable attitude of the offenders.
In short, the thrust of the Defence was that the Accused, each in his own way, and to his own capacity, did all that was possible for the prisoners in very difficult circumstances.
It was denied that reprisals were taken against POWs refusing to work, but it was admitted that routine orders and regulations were “more strictly enforced”.
As regards slappings and beatings, D1 never administered any himself and did all he could to stop such misdeeds.
D2 and D3 admitted to slapping but maintained that the Prosecution grossly exaggerated the gravity of the offences which were merely in the nature of minor admonishments. They expressed regret and would never have done so, save that they lost their tempers at the unreasonable attitude of the offenders.
In short, the thrust of the Defence was that the Accused, each in his own way, and to his own capacity, did all that was possible for the prisoners in very difficult circumstances.
Prosecutor
Major R.C. Lai (Dep. Of the JAG, India, Barrister)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Tanaka Yutaka (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. N. G. Wait (Intelligence Corps)
Members: Major A Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Members: Major A Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Advisory Officer
Capt. J.N. Whitehorn (Intelligence Corps)
Prosecution Witnesses
W/O Edwards(Warrant Officer, First Class, British Army)
Tsutada Itsuo(Interpreter for Capt. Mackay)
R.C.M. Comfort(Army Officer, British Army; Ex-prisoner, No.3 Branch Camp, Heito, Formosa.)
Yamanaka Robert(Two/Three Start Private; Interpreter, No. 4 Camp, Formosa)
Major J.T.N. Cross(Officer Commanding No. 14 War Crimes Team, Ex-Prisoner of War in Kinkaseki Camp)
Defence Witnesses
Colonel Sazawa Hideo(D1, Chief Commandant POW Camps, Formosa.)
Cpl Matsumura Yoshio(D3, Medical Corporal, Japanese Army, No. 4 Camp Shirakawa and No. 6 Camp Daichuko, Formosa)
Capt. Imamura Yayohachi(Captain, Japanese Army, attached to No. 4 (Shirakawa); No. 1 (Kinkaseki) and the Kokutsu Camp.)
Lt. Kuwabara Hiroshi(Army Lieutenant, Adjutant to the Chief Commandant, Headquarter, Taiwan POW Camps.)
Lt. Ishii Minoru(Branch Camp Commandant, No. 5 POW Camp, Formosa.)
Capt. Kojima Toshio(Army Captain, Branch Camp Commandant of the No. 2 Branch Camp in Taichu.)
Sgt-Maj. Yamamoto Katsuto(Army Sergeant-Major, worked at the No. 4 Branch Camp of the Formosa POW Camp.)
Trial Dates
21-May-1947
22-May-1947
23-May-1947
24-May-1947
27-May-1947
28-May-1947
29-May-1947
30-May-1947
31-May-1947
02-Jun-1947
03-Jun-1947
04-Jun-1947
05-Jun-1947
09-Jun-1947
Judgement Date
09-Jun-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
14-Aug-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
19-Aug-1947
Judgement
Held:
1. All Accused were guilty of the first charge;
2. D1 was guilty of the second charge except for the words “ No. 2 Branch Camp, TAICHU”.
1. All Accused were guilty of the first charge;
2. D1 was guilty of the second charge except for the words “ No. 2 Branch Camp, TAICHU”.
Petition
D1 petitioned:
1. The location of the POW camps; accommodation; allotment of the POWs; rationing; and assignment of work were stipulated by the regulations made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Taiwan Army prior to his assumption of duties.
2. All medical sanitary arrangement of the camps had been made by the Chief of the Medical Department of the Taiwan Army prior to his assumption of duties.
3. He did not take measures of reprisal although the enforcement of regulations was sometimes stricter.
4. He had no knowledge of any ill-treatment and had tried to prevent such occurrences.
5. The deaths of the POWs in the Kinkaseki mine should be blamed on the Nippon Mining Company since the Company had the responsibility to direct the work of the POWs therein.
6. The sentence was unduly severe in light of the evidence.
D2 petitioned. He argued that:
1. He had no connection whatsoever with the alleged matters and did not know anything about them.
2. There were discrepancies in the Prosecution’s evidence.
The Judge Advocate advised that the petitions be dismissed and the findings and sentences confirmed [6 August 1947, unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, Southeast Asia Land Forces]. The lighter sentences may be because "There is some evidence to suggest that at times the accused, the 1st and specially the second, had behaved with a certain degree of co-operation."
1. The location of the POW camps; accommodation; allotment of the POWs; rationing; and assignment of work were stipulated by the regulations made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Taiwan Army prior to his assumption of duties.
2. All medical sanitary arrangement of the camps had been made by the Chief of the Medical Department of the Taiwan Army prior to his assumption of duties.
3. He did not take measures of reprisal although the enforcement of regulations was sometimes stricter.
4. He had no knowledge of any ill-treatment and had tried to prevent such occurrences.
5. The deaths of the POWs in the Kinkaseki mine should be blamed on the Nippon Mining Company since the Company had the responsibility to direct the work of the POWs therein.
6. The sentence was unduly severe in light of the evidence.
D2 petitioned. He argued that:
1. He had no connection whatsoever with the alleged matters and did not know anything about them.
2. There were discrepancies in the Prosecution’s evidence.
The Judge Advocate advised that the petitions be dismissed and the findings and sentences confirmed [6 August 1947, unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, Southeast Asia Land Forces]. The lighter sentences may be because "There is some evidence to suggest that at times the accused, the 1st and specially the second, had behaved with a certain degree of co-operation."
Sentence Imposed
D1: 15 years imprisonment;
D2: 4 years imprisonment;
D3: 10 years imprisonment.
D2: 4 years imprisonment;
D3: 10 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Formosa; Imperial Japanese Army; Prisoners of War; Prisoner of War Camps; "together concerned in"; Committed; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; Poor conditions of detention; Neglect; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Starvation; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Stealing; Red Cross parcels; Humanitarian aid; Reprisal; Collective Punishment; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Discipline of Prisoners of War; Policy; Scope of responsibilities; Orders; Superior Orders; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
Remarks
1 lawyer for 3 co-accused.
See the related Formosa cases, especially that of Lt. Tamaki Koji et al (Case No. WO/235/982).
See the related Formosa cases, especially that of Lt. Tamaki Koji et al (Case No. WO/235/982).