Quartermasters can also fight the devils

The third is that the evidence against Japanese war criminals must be consistent, the fourth is that the causal relationship between the crimes committed by Japanese war criminals must be clear, and the fifth is that all legal documents and legal means related to the reconnaissance work against Japanese war criminals must be complete and have legal effect.

These conditions were also used as guidelines for prosecuting Japanese war criminals. Therefore, Chinese investigative prosecutors repeatedly checked and reviewed the materials for prosecution based on the above conditions, with the aim of ensuring that every piece of evidence against the defendant was conclusive and sufficient.

At the same time, every criminal fact that the Chinese Special Military Tribunal accused the Japanese war criminals of had to be supported by five pieces of evidence. The first was the interrogation record, the second was the Japanese war criminals' confession of their crimes, the third was confirmed witness materials, the fourth was archival materials, such as the archival documents of the Japanese and puppet regimes, and the fifth was the denunciations of accomplices.

For cases that have been approved for a final decision, the Huaxia Special Military Court will give all the investigation files to the defendant for review, and the defendant will identify each item one by one and then sign them one by one. Therefore, the evidence prepared by the Huaxia Special Military Court for the trial is very sufficient.

The Huaxia Special Military Tribunal's special military court in Shenyang had a total of more than 28,000 indictments, appraisal reports and more than 8,000 Japanese and puppet archives related to this case.

The Huaxia Special Military Court also examined a large amount of physical and documentary evidence, listened to the statements of the prosecutors and the testimony of witnesses to ensure that the evidentiary materials provided were sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubts about the charges.

In the case of Suzuki Keihisa and others, the Huaxia Special Military Court examined 920 complainants, including 338 complaints filed by the victims and their relatives, 19 accusations filed by the defendant's subordinates and colleagues, 112 testimonies from 814 witnesses, as well as the defendant's oral and written confessions and other evidence materials during the investigation, and heard the testimony of 19 witnesses summoned to court and the defendant's own confession.

In the case of Takebe Rokuzo and others, the Huaxia Special Military Court examined 642 complaints filed by 949 complainants, 47 reports of accusation filed by 74 former subordinates and colleagues of the defendant, 360 testimonies from 1,211 witnesses, 315 Japanese and puppet archives and books related to the case, as well as the defendant's oral and written confessions during the investigation, and other evidence materials, and heard the testimony of 47 witnesses summoned to court and the defendant's own confession.

In the case of Hiroshi Shirono and others, the Huaxia Special Military Court reviewed 316 complaints filed by 681 complainants, 153 testimonies submitted by 119 former subordinates and colleagues of the defendant, 83 testimonies from 143 witnesses, 50 archival documents and 349 other evidentiary materials related to the case, and heard the on-the-spot complaints of 12 victims and the on-the-spot testimonies of 23 witnesses.

In the case of Juntaro Tominaga and others, the Huaxia Special Military Court examined the testimonies of 24 witnesses, 102 Japanese and puppet archival documents and exhibits related to the case, and heard the testimonies of six witnesses summoned to the court.

The evidence submitted to the Huaxia Special Military Tribunal included the prosecutor's indictment, witness testimony, testimony from the defendant's former subordinates and colleagues, archival documents, the defendant's confession, and the in-court statements of the prosecutor and witnesses. With such sufficient evidence, all the accused Japanese war criminals admitted the crimes they were accused of.

In terms of procedural rules, the 1956 "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody during the Japanese Aggression against China" is relatively simple.

In addition to the two provisions on the rights of the accused, the "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody during the Japanese Aggression against China" also stipulates that the judgment of the Special Military Tribunal of the People's Government of China is the final judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the Special Military Tribunal of the People's Government of China cannot be appealed. This is consistent with the practice of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

The "Decision on Handling War Criminals in Japan's War of Aggression against China" also stipulates that if the sentenced Japanese war criminals behave well during their sentences, they can be released early in accordance with Article 6 of the "Decision on Handling War Criminals in Japan's War of Aggression against China".

At the same time, in accordance with relevant legal provisions, the Special Military Tribunal of the Huaxia People's Government established the basic principles and systems of criminal proceedings, such as the principle of open trial, the principle that the accused has the right to defense, the principle that citizens have the right to use their own ethnic language in litigation, and the trial collegial system.

Since China's criminal procedure rules are similar to those of the continental legal system, the trial procedure of the Chinese Special Military Court is roughly as follows: first, the prosecutor reads the indictment, followed by a court investigation. The presiding judge interrogates the defendant on each alleged criminal fact and questions the witnesses. With the permission of the presiding judge, the prosecutor and defense lawyer may ask questions to the defendant and witnesses.

Afterwards, the court begins the debate phase, during which the prosecutor and the defense lawyer express their respective opinions on the case and provide evidence. Both sides can debate with each other. After the debate, before adjourning for deliberation, the court allows the defendant to make a final statement. Finally, the court publicly announces the verdict.

In addition, the Huaxia Special Military Court also fully respected the rights of the defendants in the litigation, ensuring that the defendants had the right to know the charges, the right to defense and the right to a public trial.

The defendant has the right to know the charges against him, which is also a basic right of the defendant stipulated in international human rights law. Considering that the defendant is Japanese, the "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Detention in the Japanese War of Aggression against China" stipulates that the language and documents used by the Special Military Tribunal should be translated into the language understood by the defendant.

One week before the trial of the Huaxia Special Military Court began, copies and translations of the indictment were delivered to each defendant, which is also in line with international practice rules.

Moreover, the Huaxia Special Military Court selected and appointed 32 people from many law schools and judicial departments to serve as defense lawyers for the defendants. A few days before the trial, the Huaxia Special Military Court also summoned defense lawyers to meet with the defendants and discuss the case in accordance with legal procedures. When the trial began, the court also clearly informed the defendants that they had the right to defend themselves or hire a lawyer to defend them, and had the right to make a final statement.

At the same time, the defendant's defense lawyer also conscientiously performed his duties to ensure that the defendant had the right to a fair trial.