Quartermasters can also fight the devils

In some trials of the Huaxia Special Military Court, the defendant's defense lawyers mentioned to the court the defendant's educational background and the social roots of the crime, some suggested that some of the alleged crimes were committed by the defendant's former commander, and some requested the court to pay attention to the defendant's personal circumstances.

For example, a defendant had resigned from his post when he committed the crime. Some pointed out that as a low-ranking officer, the defendant did not participate in policy making and therefore should not bear the primary responsibility for the alleged crime.

Some of the lawyers defending the defendant further pointed out that although the defendant was a senior officer of the Japanese army, some important military operations must be authorized by superiors before they can be implemented. Therefore, the defendant's defense lawyer suggested that the court should distinguish between the criminal responsibility of the defendant and his superiors in order to reduce the defendant's guilt. Most of the defense lawyers emphasized that the defendant had shown remorse and asked the court to impose a lighter sentence.

In some special circumstances, the defendant's defense lawyer also raises some special questions to the court to protect the defendant's rights and interests. For example, in the trial of Rokuzo Takebe, the defendant was unable to appear in court due to a serious illness. The court therefore agreed to the defense lawyer's request and allowed the trial to be held in the hospital where the defendant was receiving treatment.

The Huaxia Special Military Court appointed judge Yang Xianzhi to attend the trial, accompanied by clerk Lou Yu. State prosecutor Cao Zhenhui and defendant's defense lawyers Guan Mengjue and Zhao Jingwen also participated in the interrogation. These measures to protect the interests of the defendants also reflect the humane treatment of the defendants.

Many international human rights treaties and conventions clearly stipulate that the accused has the right to a public trial. Therefore, the trials of Japanese war criminals by the Huaxia Special Military Tribunal in Shenyang and Taiyuan were all open to the public. In the courtroom, there were more than one hundred people, including representatives of various democratic parties and people's organizations, representatives of factories, schools and institutions, as well as representatives of the military.

Journalists also observed and reported on the trials of the Huaxia Special Military Court in Shenyang and Taiyuan. This procedure fully exposed the trials of the Huaxia Special Military Court to the supervision of the people and ensured the transparency and fairness of the trials of the Huaxia Special Military Court.

Regarding the sentencing of Japanese war criminals, after the investigation was completed in 1955, the Procurator General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, together with relevant government departments, conducted a preliminary study on the sentencing of Japanese war criminals. Among them, the Northeast Working Group suggested that 70 detained Japanese war criminals were primarily responsible for the heinous war crimes and should be sentenced to death.

However, at a meeting in December 1955, the Political Bureau Standing Committee clearly stated that a policy of leniency would be adopted towards Japanese war criminals, that is, "no one would be sentenced to death, no one would be sentenced to life imprisonment, and only a very small number of those sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment would be sentenced."

However, representatives of the democratic parties, the China Federation of Industry and Commerce and non-partisans have raised objections to this policy because they feel that this policy will not be able to quell public anger.

There are two reasons for the policy of lenient sentencing. First, these Japanese war criminals had already been imprisoned for ten years, which was enough to serve as an alternative sentence for the crimes committed by most of them. Longer imprisonment was only applicable to a small number of criminals who committed extremely serious crimes.

Secondly, given that ten years have passed since the Second World War, the status of both China and Japan in international affairs has undergone tremendous changes. Adopting a lenient sentencing policy will help promote the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan and peace and stability in the international situation.

The "Decision on the Handling of War Criminals in Custody during the Japanese Aggression against China" clearly shows that the crimes committed by Japanese war criminals have caused extremely serious damage to the Chinese people. They have committed heinous crimes that violated the norms of international law and humanitarian principles and should have been severely punished.

However, in view of the changes in the situation and the current situation of the Japanese government in the ten years since its surrender, as well as the development of friendly relations between the peoples of China and Japan, and taking into account that the vast majority of these Japanese war criminals have shown varying degrees of remorse while in custody, it has been decided to deal with these criminals in accordance with the policy of leniency.

In January 1956, the leaders in charge of the trial of Japanese war criminals and legal experts such as Shi Liang, Zhang Zhirang, Pan Zhenya, Zhou Ensheng, and Mei Ruoyu held a special meeting to discuss the sentencing issue based on the principle of leniency. The sentencing principles were also reflected in the verdict of the Special Military Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court.

The verdicts of the four cases rendered by the Special Military Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court determined that during the Japanese army's invasion of China, the defendants implemented Japan's policy of aggression against China, assisted the Japanese army's war of aggression, and violated the norms of international law and humanitarian principles. Based on the facts and applicable international and domestic laws, the defendants were found guilty of war crimes and counter-revolutionary crimes, including usurping the sovereignty of the Chinese state, planning and advancing aggressive policies, destroying towns and villages, expelling civilians, plundering property, raping, persecuting and inhumanely treating, abusing and massacring prisoners of war, participating in espionage, manufacturing biological weapons, and using poison gas.

However, the Chinese Special Military Tribunal did not sentence the Japanese war criminals to life imprisonment or death penalty, even though they deserved heavy sentences for their crimes. Therefore, the Chinese Special Military Tribunal sentenced all Japanese war criminals to no more than twenty years in prison.

The trials held by the Huaxia Special Military Tribunal in Shenyang and Taiyuan can be said to be successful in a certain sense, because Japanese war criminals who committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war of aggression against China were brought to justice.

In addition, during these two trials, the Chinese Special Military Tribunal also revealed Japan's wartime policy toward China and exposed the brutal crimes committed by Japanese war criminals against the Chinese people, thus forming an official record of the nature and truth of Japan's war of aggression against China and the crimes it committed.

Compared with the trials held by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, the trials held by the Special Military Tribunal of China in Shenyang and Taiyuan can be regarded as successful, because all the Japanese war criminals prosecuted by the Special Military Tribunal of China admitted their crimes.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, no Japanese Class A war criminal pleaded guilty. When Hideki Tojo was about to be executed, he still denied his guilt. As far as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trial in Tokyo is concerned, although the crimes committed by 28 Japanese Class A war criminals were prosecuted, many people evaded war responsibility, including Japan's Emperor Hirohito. In addition, 19 Japanese Class A criminals were released before trial.