6.b.ii [Mental Element for Element 5] [Consequence of depriving one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees:] The perpetrator was aware that the deprivation of a fair and regular trial to one or more persons by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 would occur in the ordinary course of events.

P.15. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed.

P.15.1. Evidence that the perpetrator took part in discussions concerning unfair trials.

P.16. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.16.1. Evidence that the perpetrator was aware of unfairness of trial.

P.16.2. Evidence that perpetrator was aware of insufficiency of evidence.

P.16.3. Evidence that perpetrator accepted evidence without question.

P.16.4. Evidence that perpetrator was aware that trial was used as a cloak for reprisals.

6.b.ii [Mental Element for Element 5] [Consequence of depriving one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees:] The perpetrator was aware that the deprivation of a fair and regular trial to one or more persons by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 would occur in the ordinary course of events.

P.15. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed.

P.15.1. Evidence that the perpetrator took part in discussions concerning unfair trials.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at p. 59:

"[…] The Lagmannsrett also stressed the fact that the accused Latza had taken part in the discussions at Skaugum, where he must have learned that the whole trial was nothing but a camouflaged act of reprisal with only one possible outcome to those to be tried- the death sentence. Furthermore, during the conference with the German Prosecutor Weiner at Victoria Terrasse, he must have clearly understood that the evidence which Weiner proposed to submit to the Standgericht was insufficient. In the opinion of the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza must have been fully aware that the intention of the trial was to take reprisals and clothe them in a cloak of legality. He had thus, unlawfully, wilfully, and intentionally caused Dr. Saethre’s and Advokat Vislie’s death."

B. Evidentiary comment:

It should be noted that on retrial by the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza was acquitted because, inter alia, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that he had had interacted with the German Prosecutor Weiner before the trial. (Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at pp. 67-70) The decision of the Lagmannsrett was upheld by the Supreme Court.(ibid, p. 83)

P.16. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.16.1. Evidence that the perpetrator was aware of unfairness of trial.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Trial of General Tanaka Hisakasu And Five Others, (United States Military Commission, Shanghai) UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, p. 66, at. p. 69:

"In a statement taken before his trial, Watanabe said : " Yes, I think that was a very unfair trial ", explaining that he thought that the trial was not fair because the Major had no defence counsel, no witnesses and no opportunity to produce witnesses. In his testimony, Watanabe attempted to retract this part of his former statement."

P.16.2. Evidence that perpetrator was aware of insufficiency of evidence.

A. Legal source/ authority and evidence:

Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at p. 59:

"[…] The Lagmannsrett also stressed the fact that the accused Latza had taken aprt in the discussions at Skaugum, where he must have learned that the whole trial was nothing but a camouflaged act of reprisal with only one possible outcome to those to be tried- the death sentence. Furthermore, during the conference with the German Prosecutor Weiner at Victoria Terrasse, he must have clearly understood that the evidence which Weiner proposed to submit to the Standgericht was insufficient. In the opinion of the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza must have been fully aware that the intention of the trial was to take reprisals and clothe them in a cloak of legality. He had thus, unlawfully, wilfully, and intentionally caused Dr. Saethre’s and Advokat Vislie’s death."

B. Evidentiary comment:

It should be noted that on retrial by the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza was acquitted because, inter alia, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that he had had a talk with the German Prosecutor Weiner before the trial. (Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at pp. 67-70) The decision of the Lagmannsrett was upheld by the Supreme Court.(ibid, p. 83)

P.16.3. Evidence that perpetrator accepted evidence without question.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Trial of Lieutenant General Shigeru Sawada and Three Others, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. V, p. 1 at p.7:

"As for Yusei Wako: He, as Judge and law member of the Military Tribunal, had before him purported confessions of the American fliers and other evidence obtained and furnished by the Military Police Headquarters in Tokyo. Although he held this position and was legally trained, he accepted the evidence without question and tried and adjudged the prisoners on this evidence which was false and fraudulent. However in voting the death penalty he was obeying special instructions from his superiors."

P.16.4. Evidence that perpetrator was aware that trial was used as a cloak for reprisals.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at p. 59:

"[…] The Lagmannsrett also stressed the fact that the accused Latza had taken aprt in the discussions at Skaugum, where he must have learned that the whole trial was nothing but a camouflaged act of reprisal with only one possible outcome to those to be tried- the death sentence. Furthermore, during the conference with the German Prosecutor Weiner at Victoria Terrasse, he must have clearly understood that the evidence which Weiner proposed to submit to the Standgericht was insufficient. In the opinion of the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza must have been fully aware that the intention of the trial was to take reprisals and clothe them in a cloak of legality. He had thus, unlawfully, wilfully, and intentionally caused Dr. Saethre’s and Advokat Vislie’s death."

B. Evidentiary comment:

It should be noted that on retrial by the Lagmannsrett, the accused Latza was acquitted because, inter alia, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that he had had a talk with the German Prosecutor Weiner before the trial. (Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and Others, by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV, at pp. 67-70) The decision of the Lagmannsrett was upheld by the Supreme Court.(ibid, p. 83)