Defendant:
Sawamura, Masatoshi, Sergeant, Headquarters POW Camp;Taisho POW Camp (No.
10 Branch Camp); and Yokkaichi POW Camp (No. 17 Branch Camp or Nagoya No.
5 POW Camp), all in Osaka Area, Honshu, Japan
Docket No./ Date: 136/ April 14 - 29, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the laws and customs of war: 1. Did willfully and
unlawfully mistreat and abuse PWs (spec 1-5, 13-15, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27)
2. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PW (spec 6-8, 16-18,
21, 24, 25)
Specifications: beating using among others hands, sword scabbard, saber
belt, belt buckle, bamboo sticks, rifle butts; kicking; subjecting PWs
to ju-jitsu; forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time,
sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion,
in the nude; throwing a bucket of ice cold water over PW in cold weather;water
treatment which entailed forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using
among others a hose, tubes; picking up and throwing PW to the ground;
banging head against a wall; raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck
in an effort to make him give information.
Verdict: 30 years CHL
Reviewing Authority's Recommendations: Accused, at times brutally, beat
and tortured PWs for minor infractions of camp regulations (failing to
salute, stealing, being slow or failing to execute orders, accepting food
from civilians outside of the camp, accepting cigarettes from a Japanese
guard that they would not name, eating foodstuffs not given to them) and
for no reason at all ("beaten, humiliated and pestered by Sawamura
constantly"). Accused was known as the most brutal of all the Japanese
in the camps, often inflicting brutal beatings and torture for anything
that he did not find to his liking (the manner of reporting attendance,
for mistakes made while reporting attendance or issuing commands in Japanese,
not marching "to suit" the accused)
Reviewing Authority: Accused admitted to beating PWs mentioned in spec
1 and 7 but not to the degree alleged: he was reluctant but he was ordered
to do so by his superior in those cases. In another occasion, accused
struck PWs once or twice each, who were about to be reported to the camp
commandant for stealing and then returned them to their rooms: had they
been reported, the prisoners would have been severely punished (s5). He
admitted to slapping and striking and throwing water on PWs (s. 13, 14,
16). Many of these events happened while he was at Taisho Camp, under
a superior that ordered him, on threat of beatings, to strike prisoners.
He was told during his entire time in the army that an order from a superior
was like an order from the emperor: so, he obeyed due to the threat of
being beaten himself. There was no way to complain about a superior; he
never reported directly to the Main camp commandant. Besides the events
mentioned, he never participated in any beatings or torture of PWs. The
defense, then submitted evidence that another Japanese in a different
trial was being charged for the same acts alleged in this case. The defense
then submitted the official Japanese "REgulation for the Treatment
of Prisoners of War."**
Prosecution Arguments: The Reviewer stated that in the issue of the other
Japanese accused being charged with the beatings and torture of the same
victims: that he is being charged does not "establish the fact nor
does it absolve Sawamura of guilt." Furthermore, the reveiwer stated
that the defense of superior orders was "not a defense" but
could mitigate the punishment. The reviewer found that the evidence was
sufficient to justify the sentence of the commission: "the beatings,
tortures and abuses perpetrated by the accused were not isolated instances
but were repeated time after time. Where there were alleged breaches of
regulations by the prisoners, the beatings and tortures were out of all
proportion to the offenses" and could have caused grave internal
injuries to the victims. As for the "Regulation for the Treatment
of Prisoners," the reviewer found that the accused also violated
these "Japanese ARmy regulations pertaining thereto."
Defense Arguments: Cyril E. Morrison, Reviewer