Page 15,424
The French Army, called as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, being first duly sworn, testified through French interpreters as follows:
MR. ONETO [French prosecutor]
The witness can only speak French, and with the authorization of the Court, I would like to interrogate him in this language.
Q: Please give your name and first name.
A: Gabrillagues, Fernand.
Q: What is your profession?
A: I am a French officer – officer in the French Army, non-commissioned officer.
THE FRENCH OFFICER: Correction: Officer in the French Army.
Q: What is presently your occupation?
MR. BROOKS: [for the defense]
If the Court please, we did not get his name over the IBM. I wish the French would take a little more time and give us a chance to get these names.
Q: Would you please repeat your name and first name?
A: My name is Gabrillagues.
Q: What is presently your occupation?
A: I am a delegate of the service of the War Tribunal in Indo-China.
Q: What is presently your address:
A: 181 Rue Mayer, Saigon.
Q: Where were you before the beginning of the war?
A: I was a student in Paris.
Q: And during the occupation?
A: Until September 1942, I was in France.
Q: And after September 1942, where were you?
A: I was in the Colonial Service of the French Colonies in Africa.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Western French Africa.
Q: Did you hold this position during the entire course of the war?
A: I was mobilized almost immediately.
Q: Where did you go afterwards?
A: In North Africa, In Italy, in France, in southern Germany.
Q: What is presently your occupation?
A: I am in the War Tribunal for Indo-China.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Delegate for War Crimes in Indo-China.
Q: How did you learn about war crimes committed in Indo-China by the Japanese forces in this quality?
A: I know of these facts because of my study of the documentation of the war crimes that we were making of the war crime [sic] in Indo-China.
Q: Is it on the basis of your investigation and of your activities in Indo-China which you have prepared this statement which is here and the map which accompanies it?
A: It is solely on the documentation that I have gathered it.
Q: Do you recognize this statement and the map which is being shown to you?
A: THE FRENCH MONITOR: The certificate and map.
A: I do.
Q: Is it your signature which is attested to the statement and to the certification which is attached to it?
A: Yes, it is.
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, I present to the Court this statement which bears no. 2963.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Brooks.
MR. BROOKS: If the Tribunal please, I want to object to the introduction of this document no. 2963 that is being offered. The witness, in identifying it, has stated that he is not a prisoner of war. All of his testimony as set out in there is therefore based upon hearsay and possibly upon hearsay. Some of his conclusions therein would invade the province of the Court and would not be evidence but would be his opinion and conclusions from documentary evidence, possibly part of it being hearsay, and there is no protection on the defense to investigate that; and for the further reason that the conclusions of this witness in this statement do not show what documents he utilized in forming the statement of what material was studied that the witness has examined.
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, it is precisely because of the quality of the members of the Indo-Chinese War Crimes Service that the witness has been called. The witnesses which he should have liked to present to the Court relative to certain phases of the atrocities having been unable to return from France, where most of them have gone, the prosecution thought that it would be interesting for the Court to gather information – by an officer who is particularly competent – of certain information and facts about atrocities about which he has some knowledge.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Because of his very functions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he merely state what he has read in documents, or does he attempt to draw conclusions from what he has read in those documents? Captain Brooks says he draws conclusions. I do not know. I have not read the document.
Let Mr. Oneto answer, Mr. Brooks.
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, I think that the lecture of the document which I am going to read will answer to – in advance to the objections of the Court.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Answer by itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the question is whether, in the opinion of the Tribunal, this document has any probative value. It is really a question of fact upon which I will, as usual, take the views of my colleagues.
The Court has decided to admit the document for what it is worth.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Prosecution’s document no. 2963 will receive exhibit No. 2157.
Whereupon, the document above referred to was marked prosecutor’s exhibit no. 2157 and received in evidence.)
MR. ONETO: With the permission of the Court, I will read this document.
(reading) “Statement made in Tokyo 7 January before Mr. Albert Oneto, Associate-Prosecutor for France.
My name is Fernand GABRILLAGUES, born 1 January 1918 in Paris. I am an officer of the French Army and a representative of the War Crimes Service of Indo-China. I live in Saigon, 101 Rue Mayer.
“Being in charge of the investigation bureau for war criminal suspects I have been led in the performance of my functions to study a comprehensive body of documents and this fact has permitted me to have cognizance of the war crimes committed in Indo-China by the Japanese forces.
“The number of these crimes is considerable, the documentation concerning them is voluminous, and there could be no question of making a complete expose of them. Certain of them are and will remain unknown because of the absence of witnesses and the systematic destruction of their files carried out by the Japanese in anticipation of the Allied landings.
“I will leave aside the blow at the liberty and dignity of individuals, the pillage, theft, various cruelties and even murders, mentioning only certain salient facts.
“I propose to call attention particularly:
“1. To the atrocities committed on the premises of the Kempitai [Japanese military police] and in the Prisoner of War camps.
“2. To the massacres of Prisoners of War and civilians.
“Whilst the Japanese Command in Indo-China was concentrating all the French population in the cities within enclosures where they were often the most exposed to Allied bombardments, the KEMPITAI was signalizing itself by its atrocities. Hundreds of Frenchmen were imprisoned and subjected to a state of affairs worse than that of common criminals; penned up in cramped quarters and under distressing sanitary conditions, without clothes, without medical care, without water, sometimes deprived of food for whole weeks, most often receiving all in all nothing but a single ball of rice, excessively filthy and under loathesomely dirty conditions.
“On the pretext of interrogation, a great variety of tortures were sytematically inflicted: clubbings that left lesions and fractures, lighted matches slipped under the nails, burns by cigarettes and by lighted tapers, torture by sharp-edged blocks, torture by water, torture by electricity, hanging by the thumbs, and others.
“These conditions of life and these tortures caused the death of many prisoners, some having been tortured to death, others having died in the course of their stay in prison, exhausted by abuse and sickness. At Hanoi, at Haiphong, at Vinh, at Hue, at Saigon, at Pnom-Penh and in all the places where the Kempitai raged, hundreds of Frenchmen of all conditions as well as a certain number of nationals of Allied nations were subjected to degrading treatment from which a great many had no deliverance except by death. Those who by reason of Japan’s defeat were able to escape certain death left the Kempitai prisons mere skin and bones, their health definitively broken.
“The examination of the files makes clear the identity of the methods employed in Indo-China in the different local sections of the Gendarmerie.
“In the Prisoner of War camps the atrocities committed did not lag behind those habitual to the Kempitai. These officers and men were forced to work like convicts at defense works. Even the sick, who were soon a considerable number, were also forced to work and were clubbed and beaten with iron bars at the slightest faltering. Scarcely-fed, left without medical care, herded like beasts into huts which they had, with great difficulty, constructed with crude means subjected to exhausting labor. The prisoners died in great numbers: 98 over a period of fifty days in the Hoebinh camp at Tonkin.
“but [sic] above all – in many parts of Indo-China the Japanese massacred the Prisoners of War”.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Whereupon, at 1445 a recess was taken until 1500, after which the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East is now resumed.
MR. ONETO: Continuing from the top of page 3:
“At Long Son sixty defenders of Fort Priere de l’Isle were shot and finished off with the bayonets immediately after the fighting was ended.
“At Long Son also, at the Citadelle, more than 200 French prisoners were massacred. The execution too place in successive batches of 50 men each: the butchers worked with sabres, with bayonets, with blows of pick axes, and threw themselves upon the survivors. From the second batch on, the new victims stood on soil running with blood.
“Massacres of Prisoners of War and of civilians took place in various other parts of the city of Long Son. General Lemonnier, Colonel Robert, the Resident of the province, were among the victims. A child only a few months old, in its mother’s arms, had its skull smashed. The mother, by a miracle, survived the massacre.
“At Dong-Dang, after a fight which lasted three days, the garrison gave itself up and received the congratulations of the Japanese officers for its heroism. A few months later the Captain commanding the garrison was slaughtered under the eyes of his men. Thereafter, it was the turn of all the other defenders, executed by sabre and bayonet, and of all the Europeans of Dong-Dang. The only survivor of the massacre, Coronel Cron, describes the execution of the Captain and fifty of his men.
At Dinh Lap, all French survivors as well as Annamite Tirailleurs were massacred. Similar massacres of prisoners at Tien-Yen, and Hanoi, at Dem-Ha, particularly as far as this last mentioned post is concerned, evidence shows that four wounded Annamites and one European were burned alive.
“The massacres mentioned above were the work of the 225th Regiment of the 37th Division, commanded by Colonel Shizume.
“The 226th Regiment, which belonged to the same Division, has to its credit in particular the massacres of Xin-Men, Hoan-Su-Phi and Hagiang, where French prisoners to the number of a hundred were massacred.
“In the last mentioned regions, several cases of rape of French women occurred. A woman and her sister aged 14 years were compelled to cohabit for weeks with 50 Japanese soldiers who treated them brutally as well as violating them. One of them went mad and both were subsequently executed. Another example: a young French girl of 15 years and her mother were violated and then assassinated.
“Over and over again, in several regions, native women were forced into prostitution.
“In the section of another Japanese unit, the 21st Division, massacres of French prisoners were equally frequent. They took place, in particular, during pursuit actions with the rearguards of General Alessandri, which, departing from the Hanoi region, tried to reach China and got there at the price of heavy losses. At Tong, five Frenchmen and 12 Annamite Tirailleurs – prisoners – were executed. AtTan-Qui, fourteen French prisoners were killed by sabre and bayonet, there was a single survivor, Corporal Jubin, who describes the massacre. Similarly (there were) executions of prisoners at Yen-Bey, Phuto, Sonla, [2 names illegible] [...] .. [ellipsis in original transcript]
“Finally, in Laos at Takhak, a town likewise occupied by the 21st Division, practically all the male European population was massacred. Fifty-five French were thus executed. Two Bishops, the Resident of the Province, two women and a child figured among the victims.
“I must add that Colonel TSUCHIHASHI, Chief of Staff of the 37th Division, now under detention, at Saigon, in the course of an interrogation before an Investigating Officer of the War Crimes Services, stated particularly that General NAGANO, commanding the 37th Division, had congratulated the troops of Colonel SHIZUME after the end of the fighting and massacres at Long Son and that the General considered these massacres to be an act of war.
“Colonel TSUMIOSHI further stated that General TSUCHIHASHI, Commander in Chief of the Japanese troops in Indo-China, to whom the massacres at Long Son were reported, declared in these very words: ‘Act as if I knew nothing about it.
“Under oath I certify that the foregoing statements are true.
“Captain F. Gabrillagues, Delegate of the Indo-China Federal War Crimes Service.
“Deposition taken at Tokyo, Tuesday, 7 January 1947. R. Oneto, Associate Prosecutor for France.”
THE PRESIDENT: Several of the atrocities referred to in the exhibit that you just read appear to be evidence already. Is that so?
MR. ONETO: Yes, it is so, but not entirely so. And I feel that the witness would be in a position to give some further details which would supplement the information already submitted to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are you going to examine him further?
MR. ONETO: I have only a few questions very rapidly to ask to the witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed to ask him those questions.
MR. ONETO: A map is affixed to the deposition of Captain Gabrillagues with a certificate which I will read:
“The attached outline map indicates the whereabouts of the majority of the localities in Indo-China where murders and atrocities with respect to the civil population and prisoners of war surviving the occupation by the Japanese armies, were committed.
“Capt. Gabrillagues, Delegate of the War Crimes Office.”
BY MR. ONETO (Continuing):
Q: During the course of your functions you have had to study a large number of documents. It is not my intention to ask you to give precisions on all those which you have studied. Going over only depositions which you have given here I have the intention only of asking you a few supplementary details within the limit of which your memory is capable. In page 1 of your statement, speaking of the atrocities which were inflicted upon the victims, you speak of sharp blocks of wood, could you give us some details about this?
A: These tortures consisted of making the prisoners kneel on blocks of wood which were placed on the ground with the sharp edge turned upwards. While the prisoner was kneeling on these blocks of wood, a non-commissioned officer who was supposed to interrogate him jumped on the legs of the prisoner.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Correction: One of the aides of the non-commissioned officer who was interrogating – who was supposed to interrogate him.
Q: Regarding the atrocities which were blamed upon various sections of the gendarmerie, were you under the impression that these were isolated cases?
THE FRENCH MONITOR: Due to local sections of the gendarmerie – local sections.
A: (In French.) [not recorded in the transcript]
MR. LOGAN: If the Tribunal please, I object to the question as calling for a conclusion of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the question is answered now, but I think ought to be stricken, as the Americans say.
Do you think this further examination is worthwhile, Mr. Oneto?
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, I had the intention to ask the witness a few questions about the massacres of Takhek. May I pose him those questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, anything worthwhile.
Q: The witness, can he give us some precisions about the conditions in which the massacre at Takhek was conducted?
A: We have on the whole few precisions on the massacre at Takhek. We know that 55 French people, of whom 40 civilians, 10 soldiers, 2 women, and 1 child, were massacred.
Q: At Takhek?
A: At Takhek. We have found their bodies in the course of exhumation a certain number of them had had their heads cut off, while others had a rope around their neck which gave us to believe that they had been hanged when Takhek was taken. After all resistance had been overcome, all the civilian population, men, women, and children, were taken prisoners. After a certain lapse of time the women were separated from the men. The women survived as long as the armistice and we could interrogate them and learn of the conditions in which they had lived at Takhek. For the most part nearly all of them didn’t know what had become of their husbands and children. We learned, however, that the men, with two exceptions, had been murdered. These took place on three occasions; there were three principal occasions: the first at Takhek itself in the military camp; the other two in the neighborhood of Takhek.
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, may I ask one more question of the witness relating to the massacre of Long Son?
Q: Can you give us some details?
A: The massacres at Long Son were numerous as I have already said in my deposition. There was one massacre at Fort Priere de l’Isle, one in the Citadelle, and several others in the town. We have had a few precisions on the massacre that took place in the Citadelle according to the deposition made by one of the Japanese officers who was present at the time. His name is Capt. INUDA. He told us that the French prisoners were got out of the Citadelle by groups of 50 or 60 and killed by the river. He gave us the description of the massacre of the first batch of men as he didn’t witness the others.
THE FRENCH MONITOR: He gave us from a witness of the first batch.
A: The first batch of fifty men were taken to the courtyard where a fire had been lighted. Fifty French people – they were all French, all Europeans, no Annamites were in there, as he himself told us – were lined up with one Japanese behind each man – before each man. All fifty prisoners were killed either with bayonets or sabres. The survivors were executed with picks, according to another deposition than that of Captain Imuda.This witness tells us that, horrified by these spectacles, he ran away and hid under six blankets so as to isolate himself physically as well as otherwise from this terrible spectacle.
Q: Do you have any precisions on the conditions of executions of the other prisoners?
MR. BROOKS: Mr. President, it appears to the defense that this is repetitious as matters already in evidence, as just recently put in by the prosecutor here, and this testimony is based on hearsay.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearsay is admissible. Mr. Oneto said he was adducing additional facts. We do not want repetition, certainly.
MR. ONETO: I have no more questions to ask the witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Brooks.
MR. BROOKS: If the Tribunal please, the defense moves at this time to strike from the evidence exhibit 2157, the statement of the witness, after we have heard it read, for its lack of probative value, and--
THE PRESIDENT: We have already decided to admit that, Mr. Brooks. If it contains any conclusions that invade our province we will disregard them.
Mr. Logan
MR. LOGAN: If the Tribunal please.       

pp. 15,444-72, Tokyo Trial transcript.
[Q: How long were you in charge of the investigating bureau for War Crimes Service in Indo-China?
A: I have been concerned with researches of the War Crimes Tribunal of Indo-China since September, end of August or early September, of 1945.]
Q: In your work as investigator, did you interview any witnesses yourself and take statements from them or did you get all the information contained in your affidavit from other affidavits?
A: I have not understood the question.
Q: We will hold that for a minute and go back and clarify the one previous. It came over the transmitter that you said “1945”. Is there a mistake there?
A: It is a mistake.
Q: What should it be?
A: 1946.
Q: When you received the documents respecting these incidents did you go out and take any statements yourselves from any of the people involved?
A: I read most of the affidavits and the complaints which were registered by witnesses.
Q: Did you ever question a witness yourself in connection with any of these incidents you have related in your statements?
A: I did not myself interrogate witnesses. It wasn’t my work.
Q: Is it a fact that these prisoners of war mentioned in your statement were De Gaullists?
A: I do not know.
Q: Didn’t you make any investigation to try to find out what army these soldiers belonged to?
A: Which soldiers?
Q: Prisoners of war you mention in your affidavit.
A: They belonged to the Indo-Chinese army.
Q: Were any of them De Gaullists?
A: I do not know.
Q: Were any of them guerrillas?
A: Some of them belonged to the underground.
Q: On what side were these Chinese troops? Were they on De Gaul’s side or were they on the side of the recognized French government, the Vichy government?
A: I have not understood the question.
Q: Didn’t you say a moment ago that some of these troops – you didn’t know whether De Gaullists or on the side of the Vichy Government – they were Chinese troops?
A: I don’t believe I have spoken of Chinese troops.
Q: Indo-Chinese troops, what side were they on?
A: The Indo-Chinese troops were part of the French army of Indo-China.
Q: Were they under the command of the Vichy government at that time?
A: They were under the orders of the commanding general, the senior commanding general of the troops in Indo-China.
Q: For what government were they fighting?
A: The troops were fighting for France.
Q: When you say France, do you mean the Vichy Government?
A: France.
Q: You understand, of course, that the Japanese troops went into Indo-China under an agreement with the Vichy Government. Now, in your investigation did you find out that these Indo-Chinese troops were opposed to the Vichy Government?
A: I do not believe I have the information with me to answer this question.
Q: Didn’t you think it important in your work as an investigator to find out what army, if any, these people were employed by at the time of these alleged atrocities?
A: I concerned myself solely with the identification and the search for war criminals.
Q: How can you determine who was a war criminal unless you know army he is fighting for?
A: Criminals are judged by the crime which they commit.
Q: That isn’t an answer to the question I gave you. Will you please answer the question?
A: Would you please repeat the question?
Q: Do I understand you made this investigation and tried to determine whether or not a person was a war criminal without knowing on which side the prisoners of war were?
A: I made researches regarding prisoners of war from the complaints which I received.
[Q: Who was the Governor General, representative of the Vichy government, in Indo-China?
MR. ONETO: Mr. President, I object to this questioning that seems to be past – to go beyond the deposition of Captain Gabrillagues.
THE PRESIDENT: It does go beyond it, indeed, but, I think that Mr. Logan is trying to lay the foundation for submission of law later. He is not supposed to know who the Governor General was and it is not relevant anyhow. The political affiliations of these people may have some relevance, but not their names.]
Q: Do you know who was the leader of the Indo-Chinese army?
A: General Martin.
Q: And was General Martin a representative of the Vichy Government?
A: I do not know.
Q: You were in charge of this Investigation Bureau, weren’t you?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, wasn’t it part of your duties to find out if these prisoners of war were guerrillas?
A: I have never considered these prisoners to belong to bands of guerrillas.
Q: Well, what did you consider them to belong to?
A: To the Army.
Q: Whose army?
A: The French Army.
Q: What do you mean by the French Army?
A: I cannot give you a definition. It seems difficult to give you an immediate definition.
Q: Well, can you give us a definition tomorrow?
A: I think it would perhaps be possible.
Q: Can you tell me how many of these prisoners of war set forth in your statement were members of the Indo-Chinese Army?
A: They all belonged to the Army of Indo-China.
Q: Were they naturalized Frenchmen?
A: They were either French subjects or French citizens.
THE PRESIDENT: The nationality of the French didn’t change with the change of government.
MR LOGAN: In your investigations did you also come across a document which gave the Japanese Army the right to go into Southern Indo-China in July, 1941?
A: I have never seen such a document.
Q: Now, isn’t it a fact, Mr Witness, that you know that the Vichy forces and the De Gaullist forces were fighting in Indo-China?
A: Fighting how? I don’t know.
Q: You don’t know? Do you know there two factions in Indo-China, the De Gaullist faction and the faction representing the legal Vichy Government?
[THE PRESIDENT: You forget, Mr. Logan, perhaps, that there is such a thing as a crime against humanity as well as a conventional war crime.
MR LOGAN: I know there is such a crime charged, Your Honor, and I am coming to that in a little while.
THE PRESIDENT: Crimes against soldiers may conceivably be not war crimes, but they may be crimes against humanity in relation to war. You have got to keep that in mind.]
Q: May I have an answer to the question?
[THE PRESIDENT: I do not want to interfere with your cross-examination, but I want you to understand that we quite understand also what the position is.]  
I think there is a question unanswered, your Honor. Will the court reporter read the question?
[(Whereupon the question referred to was read by the official court reporter.)]
THE WITNESS: You are telling me about it.
Q: Well, is that true and do you know it?
A: What?
Q: Do you know it to be a fact that there were two factions in Indo-China, one representing the legal Vichy Government and one representing the De Gaullists?
[THE PRESIDENT: Crimes against humanity could extend to fellow subjects of the person charged.
We will adjourn until half-past nine tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 1600, an adjournment was taken until Friday, 17 January 1947, at 0930.
Friday, 17 January 1947
Court House of the Tribunal
War Ministry Building
Tokyo, Japan
The Tribunal met, pursuant to adjournment, at 930.
For the Tribunal, same as before.
For the Prosecution Section, same as before.
For the Defense Section, same as before.
(English to Japanese, Japanese to English, French to English and English to French interpretation was made by the Language Section, IMTFE.
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East is now in session.
THE PRESIDENT: All the accused are present except OKAWA, ARAKI, MATSUI and TOGO, who are represented by their counsel. We have a certificate from the prison surgeon at Sugamo certifying that the accused ARAKI, MATSUI and TOGO are unable to attend the trial today on account of illness. .The certificate will be recorded and filed.
Mr. Logan.
MR. LOGAN: If the Tribunal please.
FERDINAND GABRILLAGUES, called as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, resumed the stand and testified further through French interpreters as follows:
Q: During the course of your investigation, you, of course, found that that the Japanese troops entered Northern Indo-China in 1940, isn’t that a fact?
A: The Japanese troops entered Northern Indo-China.
Q: And you also found out that they entered Southern Indo-China in 1941, isn’t that so?
A: I have not worried about this question.
Q: Irrespective of whether you worried about it, have you found out that to be a fact?
A: The documentation which I have consulted does not allow me to answer that question – to give an answer to that question.
Q: Irrespective of the documents which you have consulted, is it a fact?
A: I say that it is possible but I cannot give any precisions.
Q: Do you mean to tell us that you have made all these investigations and you do not know when the Japanese army entered Indo-China?
A: I know that there were Japanese penetrated into Southern Indo-China but I do not know the exact date of the penetration.
Q: What is your best recollection on it?
THE PRESIDENT: This is utterly trifling and we do not want his assistance on these points at all. He says he does not know and let us leave it at that. You are not testing his credibility effectively this way, Mr. Logan. It is possible that he does not know the exact date; I do not. I would have to refresh his memory from the evidence.
MR. LOGAN: I am not asking these questions, if the court Please, to test this witness’ credibility. I am asking it to try to ascertain the facts.
[THE PRESIDENT: I will read this note: “Counsel might test his credibility by this line of cross-examination. I think at present the witness is hedging.
I do not agree. “Hedging” is the last word in that note.]
Q: From your investigation what was the earliest year that you found out that the Japanese were in – entered Indo-China.
[MR ONETO: I object to the question as being immaterial, irrelevant and beyond the scope of the witness’s statement. The witness, Mr. Gabrillagues, has been called here to testify on things which are within his functions, that is, atrocities. He was not present when these – when the facts referred to took place. The question put by counsel refers to the general phase of this case which is already past, and this, the present phase, is of atrocities and only atrocities.
THE PRESIDENT: What have you to say, Mr. Logan?]
MR. LOGAN: I prefaced my question by asking him whether or not he obtained this information from his investigation or not he obtained this information from his investigation, which brings it squarely within the statement made by this witness on directly testimony. He has made this statement referring to various alleged atrocities. It is important to find out just when the Japanese army entered Indo-China to see if it was actually present at the time of these alleged atrocities and to investigate the further situation of the resistance troops operating in Indo-China.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is allowed. Objection overruled.
A: I cannot give you any precise date. I recollect some complaints which were – which date from 1943, 1942, 1945, 1946, but my recollections are not very, very clear on this point.
Q: Let me ask this, then. Is it a fact that after the Japanese troops entered Indo-China there sprang up a Resistance movement?
A: The documents do not allow me to answer in a precise answer to this question.
Q: Well, what would allow you to answer that question?
A: I was at the war crimes office in charge of researches on crimes committed by the Japanese Army. Complaints were received and on the basis of these complaints I began my investigations. My work was a material work of researching what crimes had been committed and where the criminals were, so that they could be rounded up.
Q: Have you finished?
A: Yes.
Q: Yesterday you referred to the underground. Will you tell us what you meant by that?
A: During my researches I have sometimes found the word “resistance”, “underground”, in the documents which I have seen.
Q: Did you investigate to find out just what this underground or resistance was?
A: No.
Q: Weren’t you interested, as the person in charge of the investigating bureau, to find out what this Resistance was?
A: I did not take up that matter.
Q: Did you ask anybody else to take it up?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Do I understand you, Mr. Witness, that you appear in this Tribunal and present affidavits where you mention “Resistance group” and “underground”, and you mean to tell this Tribunal that you don’t know what it means?
A: I do not understand – I do not very well understand the question as it has been translated.
MR. LOGAN: May I have it re-translated?
(Thereupon, the last question was re-translated,)
A: I did not present any affidavits to this Tribunal. I only —I have only told of them what I had done, or the work that I had done, in the war crimes office.
Q: Well, let me ask you this question: Do you, of your own knowledge, know what the Resistance group was?
[MR. ONETO: Mr. President, I object to this question because I do not find on what part of the statement the counsel bases these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not for you to take objections. You answer the questions until objection is taken by counsel and allowed.
THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: Mr. President, the translation was just given of Mr. Oneto’s objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is all right. I misunderstood it. I was reading his statement when Mr. Oneto was speaking.]
I think the question is allowable and should be answered. It is quite a simple question.
A: I believe that I have already answered this question.
Q: Well, answer it again, will you, please?
A: I answered that in the documents that I had I found a few – several times, the word “resistance”.
Q: I understand what you said, Mr. Witness, but that isn’t the question I put. I am asking you now. Do you know, of your own knowledge, what the resistance movement was?
A: I have no precise knowledge on movements of the underground – movement of the Resistance.
Q: Well, what was that movement?
A: What I could tell you could only be a repetition of what was told to me. That is hearsay, and I want to speak before this Tribunal only of things which I know by myself, in my own knowledge.
Q: Well now, Mr. Witness, as a matter of fact, your entire affidavit submitted by you on direct is all hearsay, isn’t it?
A: I did not say that what – that my deposition was based on affidavits, but on depositions of witnesses of victims of these crimes.
[MR ONETO: I object to the translation, because I think the translation is somewhat wrong.]
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have no reference board as far as French is concerned. We have nobody to whom to refer that, and I cannot accept any correction from the floor.
After consulting with one of my colleagues, I think that the following questions are pertinent and I will ask the witness to answer them:
Did the members of the Resistance wear uniforms?
THE WITNESS: I have not been able to ascertain it
]THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we still have crimes against humanity to consider.
MR LOGAN: I appreciate that, Your Honor, but they are on different counts of the indictment.]
BY MR LOGAN (Continued): Well, tell us what you heard this Resistance was?
A: I practically have no knowledge of the movement – concerning the Resistance movement. I only received complaints from victims of atrocities of the Japanese Army, and I confined my activities to that.
Q: Isn’t it a fact that the Resistance Movement was started in Indo-China against the Japanese and the Vichy Government in Indo-China?
A: The documentation which I have seen does not allow me to answer your question.
MR. LOGAN: If the Tribunal please, I think I have been patient about this. I think we ought to have a direction and make this witness answer these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you, in fact, know anything more than appears in the documents?
THE WITNESS: All that I have heard beyond that I considered as hearsay, and I cannot give evidence of these before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You can. You are mistaken. You must answer from hearsay, but you can say the sources of your information.
THE WITNESS: I haven’t heard any information on this point.
BY MR LOGAN: (Continued):
Q: When you were in the Colonial Services of the French colonies, were you in the Vichy army or were you in the Resistance Movement from that point onward?
A: I was mobilised – I was drafted February 1, 1943 – no: 1944.
Q: Do you understand English?
A: (In English) Very small.
Q: Was that year incorrect that was just given over the translation system?
A: (In English) It seems that the number – (In French) I think that the number given “4”, is not exact – is not correct. It is “43”.
Q: What time were you a member of the Resistance Movement?
A: I was drafted February 1, 1943 in the French Army of Africa.
Q: Was that under the Vichy government or was that in the Resistance Army?
A: In the French Army of Africa.
Q: Was that as a member of the Resistance Group or a member of the forces of the Vichy government?
A: It was as a French citizen who was still under military obligations.
THE PRESIDENT: It is suggested to me that if you words “Free French” instead of “Resistance”, you might get more satisfactory answers.
Q: Were you a member of the Free French?
A: Since February 1, 1943 I belonged to the French Army of Africa, the only army which was in Africa.
Q: Were you under General Le Clerc?
A: I did not say that I was in Africa. I was in West of Africa – in French West of Africa.
Q: I didn’t ask you that. Were you under General Le Clerc?
A: General Le Clerc was not in the West of Africa.
Q: Were you under him?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Then you were under some general of the Vichy Government?
A: I do not think so.
Q: Do you seriously want this Tribunal to understand from your testimony that you were fighting for France but you didn’t know which army you were in?
A: I was only thinking of fighting for France.
Q: And you didn’t care which army you were in, is that it? And, furthermore, you don’t know which army you were in, is that it?
A: I was in the French Army.
THE PRESIDENT: The French Government employed him on war crimes, apparently, and that is the Free French Government.
Q: From whom did you receive your pay from 1943 on?
A: The Disbursing Officer of my unit.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Logan, this is trifling. I say it again to any Member of the Tribunal having a similar view.
MR. LOGAN: It may be trifling, Your Honor, but to me it is more serious than that. A witness comes here and testifies the he has. I’m trying to find out just what the situation was as he investigated it so that he can give this Tribunal some information on these alleged crimes.
BY MR. LOGAN: Tell me this: Did you ever check to find out if any of the charges made in these affidavits which are submitted by you are false?
A: It was not for me to judge whether the witnesses have made false depositions .  
[Q: I am not talking about the depositions, I am talking about the charges in the depositions.
A: That is what I wanted to say: If the accusations preserved in those depositions were false or not. ]
Q: And you made no check to find that out, is that it?
A: It was not in my province to judge of the exactitude of the directness of witness – of the depositions made.
Q: Now, is it a fact that these people who claim to have suffered these alleged atrocities were members of the Resistance Force?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: And the civilians also mentioned in these affidavits, were they assisting the Resistance Force?
A: Some did and some did not.
Q: And General Martin was the one in charge of the Resistance Force in Indo-China?
A: I do not know.
Q: Did you make any investigation to find out?
A: I did not try to find out.
MR. LOGAN: That is all.
Q: Mr. Witness, what is your age?
A: I was born on January 1, 1942?
Q: You testified, Mr. Witness, that you were a student prior to the war. Then you were drafted in the Army in September, 1942?
A: I stated that it was on February 1, 1943.
Q: Up to that time were you occupied in some profession or vocation?
A: I was a student, and then I went to Africa as a Colonial civil servant.
Q: What duties were you assigned to after you were drafted?
A: I was infantry platoon leader.
Q: Have you, Mr. Witness, before you took up your work with the War Crimes Office in September 1946, engaged in any legal business, either as a prosecutor or a lawyer?
A: Not at all.
[Q: Mr. Witness, you have testified as follows in the latter part of Court exhibit 2157. In this passage, Mr. Witness, you state as follows: “Colonel TSUMIYOSHI further stated that General TSUCHIHASHI, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese troops in Indo-China, to whom the massacres at Long Son were reported, declared in these very words: ‘Act as if I knew nothing about it.’” Does this mean that General TSUCHIHASHI was afraid that other people might know that he, himself, was connected in any way with the massacre at Long Son when he heard about it?
A: I was only repeating what Colonel TSUCHIHASHI told me and adding no commentary to it. I am not interpreting it.
Q: Then, was it your interpretation that Lieutenant General TSUCHIHASHI was afraid of reporting this massacre to the central authorities in Tokyo – was afraid that this massacre would be reported to the central army authorities in Tokyo?
A. I cannot give my impression on this subject.
MR. SHIMANOUCHI: That is all, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, in your investigation, did you investigate to see if any of these alleged acts were taken by way of reprisal?
A: I think that in certain localities the Japanese may have been irritated by the actions – by the attitude of the French population.
Q: Did your investigation show that certain actions complained of were to suppress and deter the activities in resistance of franc-tireurs or others?
A: The massacres at Long Son and other places certainly did not aim at suppressing the activities of franc-tireurs.
Q: Did your investigations uncover any actions that would classify the participants as franc-tireurs?
A: In my deposition I have not spoken of relations between the Japanese and those that may be called franc-tireurs.
Q: In other words, you never made any investigations as to matters that might have been in justification of some of the actions to which you have referred?
A: (No answer)
MR BROOKS: I didn’t get the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you try to discover any reason why the Japanese acted as they did?
THE WITNESS: I did not try to discover any reasons. [I may have had some echoes of this in the complaints.]
MR BROOKS: That is all.
Mr. LOGAN: No further cross-examination. If the Tribunal please, at this time I move to strike out and disregard all the evidence presented of alleged atrocities in Indo-China on the ground that the evidence shows that these resistance troops were not lawful troops of France, they were fighting contrary to the orders of their own legally recognized government, and cannot claim rights are prisoners of war under international law but fall into the classification of guerrillas or franc-tireurs.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, there is no such evidence as you claim, Mr. Logan. We will, at the proper time, pass judgement on the evidence we’ve heard [The application to deal with the matter instanter is dismissed. Mr. Oneto.] 

[This despite the witness’ clear admission that the victims were, in fact, members of the resistance.
Q: Now, is it a fact that these people who claim to have suffered these alleged atrocities were members of the Resistance Force?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: And the civilians also mentioned in these affidavits, were they assisting the Resistance Force?
A: Some did and some did not.
– C.P.]

MR. ONETO: Mr. President, there will be no redirect and I ask the permission of the Court to let the witness stand down.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused on the usual terms.