Defendant: Yamauchi, Kunimitsu, Interpreter and Civilian Guard, Mitsui
Mining Company and POW Camp No. 17, Fukuoka, Japan
Docket No./ Date: 29/April 18 - 19, 1946, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: 1. Willfully and unlawfully commit cruel, inhuman and brutal
atrocities and other offenses against certain POWs, both in his capacity
as interpreter and as civilian guard
Specifications:
Verdict: 40 years confinement at hard labor/ Reviewer reduced to 33 years
due to findings relative to Specifications 1 and 6.
Reviewing Authority's Recommendations: 1. Manual states that "prisoners
have a right to inform the military authorities in whose power they are,
of their requests with regard to the conditions of captivity to which
they are subjected. Article 42, Title III TM 37-251. It would logically
follow that the belligerent nation has a duty to provide interpretation
when such is available. To fail to do so would be a violation of the obvious
intent of the Article...The specification, however, is faulty in that
the accused is charged therein with failing in his duties as an interpreter,
among which is an alleged neglect of duty in not adequately investigation
complaints of the prisoners. It seems logically obvious that the duty
of the interpreter...does not embrace the investigation of complaints."
There fore, accused is guilty of only a part of specification 6. 2. Since
the court found the defendent guilty of an offense occurring 5 months
before the time charged is prejudicial to the accused due to the discrepancy
between the two affidavits given to the defense before the trial. It "no
doubt misled" the defense. Therefore, accused is not guilty of specification
1. 3. In terms of petitions for clemency, the reviewer writes that, "A
general yardstick for evaluating sentences in war crimes cases would be
ina ppropriate because of the varied conditions and circumstances under
which the offenses in different war crimes cases were committed. The accused
lived in America and attended school there. He was aware of the humanitarian
ideas of Americans. The commission may have taken this into consideration
in arriving at a setence and may have thought it an aggravation of the
offenses."
Reviewing Authority: Paul E. Spurlock, Reviewer, Judge Advocate Section
Prosecution Arguments:
Defense Arguments: 1. Superior orders - Superior of the POW camp had
issued a rule which prohibited POWs from talking to koreans or other Japanese
civilians. Also, superintendent of mine stated that he ordered a similar
rule and that the rules were known and posted everywhere. 2. Accused was
never seen to be beating prisoners. 3. Accused was known to treat prisoners
too well. 4. Accused said that he sometimes slapped prisoners for misdeeds
in front of guards because he believed that would prevent them from being
beaten with clubs. 5. Denied many of the abuses of specific individuals
and denied everything but slapping prisoners. 6. Tried to make life a
little easier for the prisoners.
Judge Advocate's Recommendations: 1. Is this the first time that someone
who is prosecuted for violations of the crimes of war for "refusing
to discharge his duties" as interpreter by refusing to interpret?
2. Cross-reference this with the trials of Isao Fukuhara.
