Quartermasters can also fight the devils

The Declaration on War Atrocities clearly demonstrated the Allied resolve to prosecute war criminals not only in their own national courts but also in jointly established international tribunals.

In addition, in the 1945 Potsdam Declaration of the United States, China and Britain to urge Japan to surrender, Article 10 stipulates: "The Allies have no intention of enslaving the Japanese people or destroying the Japanese nation, but Japanese war criminals (including those who abused our prisoners) will be brought to justice."

Finally, in the surrender agreement officially signed by the Japanese government on September 2, 1945, the Japanese government promised to implement all the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

On January 19, 1946, General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, issued a "Special Notice of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces", ordering the establishment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. In addition, General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, also emphasized in the notice that the provisions of this order do not prevent the jurisdiction of national, international, or occupation courts, commissions, or other judicial bodies established in Japan or other United Nations at war with Japan to try war criminals.

In other words, all countries that suffered from atrocities committed by the Japanese army have jurisdiction over Japanese war criminals and the crimes they committed during the war.

Based on these documents, England, the United States, France, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Philippines, China and other countries all established domestic military tribunals, which tried a total of approximately 5,700 Class B and Class C Japanese war criminals and sentenced 4,405 of them to prison.

At the domestic level in China, although the new Chinese People's Government abolished all laws promulgated by the Chinese government before 1949, the "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody in the Japanese War of Aggression against China" was passed at the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee of the First National People's Congress on April 25, 1956.

Article 2 of the "Decision on Handling War Criminals in Detention during the Japanese War of Aggression against China" stipulates that the trial of Japanese war criminals will be conducted by a special military tribunal organized by the Supreme People's Court of China. At the same time, the "Decision on Handling War Criminals in Detention during the Japanese War of Aggression against China" also stipulates the jurisdiction of the special military tribunal.

First of all, according to the full title of "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody in the Japanese War of Aggression against China", the time jurisdiction of the China Special Military Tribunal should be from September 19, 1931, when the Japanese Kwantung Army invaded China's northeast region, to September 9, 1945, when the Japanese government surrendered.

However, the first article of the "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody during the Japanese War of Aggression against China" also stipulates that Japanese war criminals who committed other crimes on Chinese territory after Japan's surrender shall be punished together for the crimes they committed.

This is because, after the surrender of the Japanese government, a part of the Japanese army soldiers joined Yan Laoxi's troops in Shanxi Province, China, and continued to commit war crimes during the subsequent war. These Japanese officers and soldiers were arrested around 1950 and subsequently detained in the War Criminals Management Center in Taiyuan. Therefore, the scope of temporal jurisdiction should extend to at least September 30, 1949.

Secondly, although the "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Detention during the Japanese Aggression against China" did not limit the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of the Huaxia Special Military Tribunal, this decision limited the scope of the court's personal jurisdiction to only those Japanese war criminals detained in China.

This means that the Chinese People's Government will not request the extradition of Japanese war criminals who were not imprisoned in China at the time, even if these Japanese war criminals should bear the greatest responsibility for war crimes in the war of aggression. Failure to prosecute those who were not imprisoned in China at the time will cause some Japanese war criminals to escape legal punishment.

However, the 1956 "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody during the Japanese Aggression against China" only stipulated the basic principles for handling Japanese war criminals, but did not stipulate the substantive law applicable to the war criminals trial, such as the charges against Japanese war criminals and the legal basis for conviction.

Because, in 1956, China's new criminal code had not yet been promulgated. At that time, there was only the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Punishment of Counter-Revolutionaries" issued on February 21, 1951. This regulation had 21 articles and listed 11 major crimes. Whether this regulation could be retroactively applied to the trial of war criminals remained questionable.

This is also because the trial of war criminals was a new thing after World War II. Even the "Charter of the Nuremberg International Special Military Tribunal" for the trial of German war criminals and the "Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East" for the trial of Japanese war criminals had only a few provisions on substantive issues.

The trial of the Chinese Special Military Tribunal also interpreted the crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal. Moreover, on December 11, 1946, the United Nations adopted Resolution 95 (I), confirming the legal principles established in the Nuremberg Trial Judgment.

In order to ensure the fairness of the trial of the Chinese Special Military Tribunal, all personnel involved in the investigation, prosecution and trial of Japanese war criminals in China received in-depth training and fully understood the relevant international law. In addition, Wang Guiwu, then Deputy Secretary-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China, gave a special report on "International Public Law and War Crimes".

Mei Ruoyu, a famous judge who participated in the Tokyo trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in 1946 and an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also gave a detailed introduction to the trial of Japanese Class A war criminals such as Tojo Hideki by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The training class also specially invited famous legal experts such as Zhou Ensheng to provide guidance on the preparation of indictments and other legal documents.

It ensured that the Huaxia Special Military Tribunal had solid evidence and legal procedures during the trial, and guaranteed that the tried Japanese war criminals enjoyed their legal rights.

In order to ensure that the evidence for the trial of Japanese war criminals is solid, the Chinese People's Government attaches great importance and concern to the prosecution and trial of Japanese war criminals, and has held many meetings to carefully study the evidence of the crimes of Japanese war criminals.

After sufficient discussion, the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China and relevant judicial experts have improved and formed the five conditions for determining crimes.

The first is that the criminal facts of each crime charged against Japanese war criminals must be clear. The second is that the evidence against Japanese war criminals must be sufficient and conclusive, and more than two pieces of evidence are required.