Defendant: Hazama, Kosaku, Camp Commander at Tanagawa Branch Camp aand
Oeyama Branch Camp, Osaka Area, Honshu, Japan
Docket No./ Date: 143/ Feb 3 - Mar 19, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the laws and customs of war: 1. Did permit collective
punishment on groups of Allied PWs for offensess alleged to have been
committed by individual PWs (spec 3) 2. Did willfully and unlawfully permit
and condone the unlawful mistreatment administered by a subordinate (spec
4,5,7) 3. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat PWs (spec 8, 24) 4. Did
unlawfully disregard and fail to discharge his duties as commander to
control and restrain the members of his command and persons under his
supervision and control, by permitting them to commit atrocities and other
offenses against PWs (spec 9a-e,i, 25a-aa, cc,dd,ff-uu, ww, yy-aaa, cccc-eee,
ggg-jjj) 5. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and abuse PWs (spec.
12,14) 6. Did unlawfully permit PWs to work and perform arduous labor
while sick, diseassed or physically unfit to perform such labors, therre
by contributing to the illness or disability of numerous PWs (spec. 23)
Specifications: command responsibiliity; beating using ruler, open hand;
slapping;
Verdict: 15 years CHL
Reviewing Authority's Recommendations: At the camp, if a guard observed
an infraction by one of the prisoners, the entire group would be forced
to suffer punishment. The accused observed the mistreatment and beating
of prisoners by his subordinates for being in the wrong place or for passing
out but did nothing. The accused also slapped prisoners for failure to
wear hats issued to them. As the commander, the accused was responsible
for the misconduct, mistreatment, abuse, torture and other violations
of international law committed by his subordinates, whether or not he
saw what happened. There was presented evidence that accused, when he
saw it happening, took pleasure in it. At one of the camps, while the
accused was in command, the victims of beatings were often rendered semi-conscious
or completely unconscious.
Reviewing Authority: Accused had no control over the civilian employees
at the company and no authority to punish civilians employed by the army:
the latter got their orders from the Main Camp and under "peculiar
situations" had a right to refuse to obey his orders. His only recourse
was to report insubordination to the Main Camp; as camp commandant, he
was not given the authority or the rank to punish subordinates like a
company commandant would have been given. Accused also stated that he
had "no knowledge" about which prisoners were sick and which
prisoners would be excused from going to work; the medical officerr had
full authority over such decisions. Accused 'at all times ordered his
subordinates to handle sick prisoners of war carefully and to work hard
for their speedy recovery." Accused stated that the Red Cross supplies
were dealt with as ordered: due to the development of diarrhea, the second
year he ordered that Red Cross supplies be used in the kitchen to supplement
the regular food supply; they never got enough supplies for everyone.
Accused tried to treat prisoners well; he ordered one month's rest when
PWs first arrived so that they could recuperate. He also was criticized
for treating PWs too well; he ordered subordinates never to strike PWs;
he requested that the company supply more medicine, food and fuel for
the PWs; and, he refused to allow PWs to work on rainy days, contrary
to the company's request. The request took complaints about the mistreatment
of PWs seriously and whenever he heard of mistreatment, he cautioned the
abuser; threatened the company with not allowing PWs to go to work; or
got the individual abuser dismissed as in two occasions. Accused stated
that he did slap 4 or 5 PWs for not wearing the hats that he had obtained
with such difficulty because he got angry; but never as many as 20. Accused
denied knowing about or seeing any of the other occasions of mistreatment.
If it happened, it was despite his warnings and his actions to prevent
such actions such as returning in the evenings in civilian clothes to
check on the actions of his subordinates and going to the work site to
watch over his subordinates. No evidence to support specifications 25ff,
25ll, 25mm. It is considered that specification 25oo and 25 ss are referring
to the same prisoner and the same event. The reviewer found that the sentence
given to the accused, even with the disapproval of the above-mentioned
specifications, was still extremely lenient considering the crimes for
which the accused was found guilty: "contribution to the death of
a prisoner, for beatings, abuses and mistreatments of other prisoners
of war." Paul E. Spurlock, Reviewer Allan R. Browne, Lt. Col., JAGD,
stated that "such a low sentence as was returned under the facts
in evidence bespeaks a serious miscarriage of justice." Following
this statement was his "standard" statement about the blackest
rogue…
Prosecution Arguments:
Defense Arguments:
Judge Advocate's Recommendations:
