Singapore Cases:
No. 235/813
Gozawa Case
Accused: (1) Capt Gozawa Sadaichi
(2) Lieut Kaniyaki Nakamura
(3) Capt Okusawa Ken
(4) Lieut Kajino Ryuichi
(5) Sjt Major Tanno Shozo
(6) Sjt Major Ono Tadasu
(7) Sjt Yabi Jinichiro
(8) Cpl Osaki Makoto
(9) Cpl Ashiya Tamotsu
(10) L/Cpl Chiba Masumi
of the Imperial Japanese Army
Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 21-26, 28-31 Jan 46, and 1 Feb 46
Finding and Sentence:
Accused No. 1 - each charge - Guilty - 12 years imprisonment
Accused No. 2 - each charge - Guilty - death by hanging
Accused Nos. 3 - Guilty - 2 years imprisonment
Accused Nos.5 & 7 - Guilty - 3 years imprisonment
Accused Nos. 8 & 9 - Guilty - 5 years imprisonment
Accused No. 10 - Guilty - 7 years imprisonment
Accused Nos. 4 and 6 - Not guilty
There was no printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in the
court.
Charges:
First charge: (Against No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, No. 6, and No. 2 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together while in charge of Indian
prisoners of war en route for and at Bebelthuap Palau between 20 Apr 43
and 10 Sep 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war failed to care
or provide food, clothing and medical attention for and permitted abetted
and took part in the beating, overworking and general maltreatment of
the said prisoners by others under their command as a consequence whereof
the said prisoners contracted disease and were otherwise weakened in health
and a number of them died.
Second charge: (Against No. 1, No. 2 and No. 10 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together at Babelthuap Palau on or
about 25 Apr 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war conspired to
execute by beheading and did so execute Sepoy Mohammed Shafi at that time
an Indian prisoner of war of the Imperial Japanese Army.
Third charge: (Against No. 1, No. 2, No. 5, No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together at Babelthuap Palau on or
about 27 Apr 44 in violation of the laws and usages of war flogged and
otherwise maltreated Indian prisoners of war at that time in their charge
as a result whereof eight of the said prisoners were so injured that they
died.
Facts relating to the several charges:
First charge:
On the 5 May 43, 520 Indian prisoners of war sailed from Singapore on
the "Thames Maru", under the command of the first accused. The
ship reached its destination, Babelthuap in the Palau Islands, on 8 June
43, and remained there until Sep 45. All the accused were from time to
time officers or NCO's in charge of this party. The conditions on board
the Thames Maru beggared description. It was overcrowded and unhygienic.
There were only 2 latrines provided for 2000 Indian troops on board. This
resulted in dysentery and no medical supplies were provided. Food was
plain rice in inadequate quantities and maggot infested radishes. This
resulted in a number of prisoners dying during the first months on Babelthuap.
On the island, the prisoners received similar treatment to that on the
ship, aggravated by beatings by the Japanese. Throughout, the prisoners
were doing heavy manual work while surviving on food that would only be
sufficient if they were not doing any manual work. The number of prisoners
increased to 550 over time, and of these men, 117 died, mostly of beri-beri
and dysentery.
Second charge:
During Apr 45, 15 prisoners went on a working detachment under the command
of accused 10. Some worked out a plan to escape that was discovered by
accused 10. He took one of them away named Mohd Shafi. Shafi was first
beaten by the accused 2 and 10. Following that, he was made to sit in
a trench by accused 10 and beheaded by accused 2.
Third charge:
During Apr 44, sugar had been stolen from the company's stores and the
Japanese conducted a search during the course of which they discovered
some sugar in the possession of the Indian POW's. Some 30 or 40 Indians
were beaten by the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th accused.
Accused handling of the charges:
Accused 1 denies that he knew anything of the beatings that occurred in
the first charge, and that he had many duties to perform and delegated
responsibility to his officers and NCO's. He was not in a position of
command on the ship and could not do anything to alleviate the conditions.
Accused 1 and 2 denied taking part in the beatings that occurred in the
third charge.
Accused 10 was accused of 5 different things relating to the 2nd charge
but only admits to one, which is accompanying accused 2 to the execution.
The court did not believe his denials.
Accused 3, under cross-examination, revealed an attitude towards the
prisoners consonant with the allegations made against him. He denied the
allegations against him and claimed that the Indian doctors were primarily
responsible for the prisoners' health and he assisted them as far as he
could, even exceeding his duty as understood in the Japanese army, by
reporting deficiencies of food and clothing and obtaining medical stores.
The other accused members received lighter sentences and their handling
of the charges in court was not recorded in the outline of the case. It
is assumed, however, based on the denials of the other accused, that they
denied the charges against them as well.
Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:
1. Geneva Convention of 1929.
The defence argued that Japan never subscribed to the Geneva Convention
and therefore cannot be bound by it, and that no evidence of its subsequent
accession to it has been adduced. Therefore, the Japanese were in no way
bound by the provisions of that Convention relating to the "laws
and usages of war".
The prosecution argued that the provisions of the Geneva Convention 1929
were part of the laws and usages of war, and Japan was certainly bound
to observe international law and could not escape the obligation to do
so by refusing to subscribe to it. In any case, Japan did subscribe to
the Hague Regulations of 1907, which provide that prisoners of war must
be humanely treated. Japan is also bound morally to observe the Geneva
Convention 1929 since she announced in Feb 42 that she would apply it
to British, Dominion and Indian troops.
This case was tried under British military law and the law of war, which
means that the Japanese were to abide by international law and the Geneva
Convention when dealing with prisoners of war. Thus they were guilty of
several articles of the Geneva Convention, as argued by the prosecution.
2. The status of the Indians
The defence argued that the Indians concerned were voluntary collaborators
with the Japanese and had forfeited their rights as prisoners of war.
They were governed not by the laws and usages of war but by the regulations
of the Japanese for the discipline of the auxiliary force known as HEIHO.
The prosecution argued that the Indians were prisoners of war under the
Japanese. The Indians that came to be in the Heiho only did so after great
pressure to join the Indian National Army, and they did not do so voluntarily.
This is an important point, because, depending on the Indian's status,
the rights the Japanese have towards them are different and the treatment
that they were subjected to can be interpreted differently. As POW's,
they were under the Geneva Convention and international law. As Heiho,
they were collaborators and, according to the Japanese, under Japanese
military law. The final verdict took the prosecution's stance that they
were POW's.
3. Action according to superior's orders
The defence argued that the accused at all times were acting under superior
military orders. The defence used this as an appeal to weigh how much
responsibility for actions should be attributed to a policy laid down
by an unenlightened belligerent power, and how much can be blamed upon
the individual and personal wickedness of any particular prisoners.
The prosecution does not mention this at all in their argument, suggesting
that this is not a valid argument for the treatment that took place against
these Indian POW's.
Judging from the sentences passed, we can see how the judges took into
account actions according to superior's orders. If all the emphasis had
been put on action according to superior's orders, then accused 1 would
have been the most severely punished, being the Officer commanding this
company. He would have had to take full responsibility for what went on
in his company. However, accused 1 did not receive the heaviest sentence.
Instead, it was accused 2 who received the heaviest sentence, for carrying
out the execution of Mohd Shafi. In the execution, both accused 2 and
accused 10 were involved. Accused 10 ordered the execution, but received
a much lighter sentence than accused 2. Accused 10 only received 7 years
while the accused 2 received the death sentence. It is therefore clear
that the judges did not put emphasis on action according to superior's
orders. Accused 2 was duly punished for his actions with no regard to
whether he did it through orders or out of his own intent and motive.
His superiors received a lighter sentence than he did. In this case, the
judges clearly ignored military hierarchy and discipline.
|