The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
But it is quite obvious that there was neither a fair interrogation nor a fair trial in the 'war criminal' trial in the Soviet Union.
It cannot help saying that this program lacks the understanding of a communism autarchic judiciary completely.
First of all, Japanese Soldiers' Siberian detention was an illegal long-term detention in violation of the provision of the International Law (Geneva Convention) and the Potsdam Declaration, ‘Japanese soldiers shall return home promptly.’
In addition, with the evidence of 'the war criminal' trial being the interrogation in the long time which is accompanied by the forcing, the torture in the sanctum where there is not a fragment in the proper right of the suspect about the granting an audience of the lawyer and so on,
It was the stultified trial to only announce about the judgment which decided direct trial or a defense beforehand as it was not.
I have long argued that a Japanese ‘war criminal’ sentenced person is an innocent prisoner.
The Khabarovsk trial which is one of the 'war criminal' trials is also a fake trial or a dark trial as will be described later.
Therefore, the defendant’s statement and the witness’s testimony in this trial cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the truth, even if the person’s voice tapes.
In other words, this tape has no evidence ability at trial.
Just to be sure, it does not mean that every testimonial on the audio tape is a lie.
Based on the delusional nature of the Khabarovsk trial, it should be strictly and fairly verified whether individual testimonies are true or not true.
First of all NHK should try meditating on Article 38, paragraph 2 of the favorite Japanese Constitution.
"The compulsion, being confessional by the torture or menace or, it interns long in the unreasonableness, or confess after detained, this cannot be made evidence."
This is a major principle of modern law.
It is NHK who responds sensitively enough to the domestic false charge trial, so the importance of this clause should be known as well.
Even assuming that there was no compulsion, torture or intimidation, the evidence capability in the court would be denied just by making a statement in the Soviet Union internment / detained for a long time in the Soviet Union.
This draft continues.
