On one hand there is the property rights of Seino transport and the owner of the box. On the other hand there are the rights of Mr. Sato and Mr. Suzuki (T2) and the public interest around the embezzlement and traffic of whale meat. Society has the right to be properly informed about a tax payer sponsored program. They have the right to know what is going on.
-Prof. Dirk Voorhoof on "Balance of Interests" and the case of the Tokyo 2
Today was the final day for this phase of the trial of the Tokyo Two. Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki are facing trial for exposing a whale meat embezzlment scandal within lethal research whaling in Japan. Having deconstructed the cover-up of the embezzlement scandal during the first part of the week, the defense now had to establish that Junichi and Toru were not only morally, but also legally justified in their actions. To do so, it had called Professor Dirk Voorhoof, an international expert on the right to freedom of expression, to explain the significance of international treaties Japan has ratified.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human regarding freedom of expression has been interpreted in nearly 600 cases over the last 30 years. This body of case law is often applied when making judgments on the application of other international conventions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees freedoms of expression and freedom of information.
There is less case law on Article 19, so countries that are parties to the ICCPR have used examples from the European Court of Human Rights to pass down opinions. According to Voorhoof and even prominent Japanese legal authorities like Yuji Iwasawa, the current chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, Article 19 should be taken into account in criminal cases in Japan. The ICCPR is binding and has a place within the legal order of Japan.
Case after case was brought to the court showing both Article 19 of ICCPR and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights being applied to journalists, NGOs, and citizens who had acted within their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of information.
According to Voorhoof, these numerous cases help to establish criteria for the European Court of Human Rights to decide whether a person who had violated a criminal code in pursuit of information, was still acting in accordance with their rights of freedom of expression. Below are summarized points Voorhoof made about these criteria and the application of them to the case of the T2.
1. The case has to do with revealing information of public interest. There is indication of illegal trafficking of whale meat under the guise of scientific research. The interest of the public and the right to know should be considered
2. There were no real effective alternatives to obtain evidence of whale meat embezzlement
3. This was (box of unesu, or whale bacon) crucial evidence, it was convincing evidence, sufficient evidence that whale meat was being secretly embezzled
4. No major damage was done to persons or institution-no physical damage to anyone, only the minor damage of temporarily keeping the box before delivering to the public prosecutor's office
5. It is clear the T2 had no intention to steal or keep something for their personal profit. This is demonstrated by the fact that they brought the evidence and information to the attention of media and the public through a press conference and then delivered it to the public prosecutor.
6. They presented their evidence with integrity, without sensationalizing it - they did not breach the personal privacy of the crew members, an element that shows good faith
7. Future effects: If you convict a journalist, a citizen, or members of an NGO it can have a "chilling effect making others scared of expressing information in the future. Proportionality is important to this. If a disproportionate sanction (jail sentence, fine, admonishment, even lenient punishment ect) is given that in itself can violate Article 10 of the European Convention
Today, T2 co-defendants Junichi and Toru finished their testimony to the Aomori District Court. When questioned, they demonstrated their commitment to transparency, a commitment the whaling company Kyodo Senpaku, the prosecution,, and Fisheries Agency of Japan do not share. Step by step the T2 outlined their process in uncovering the whale meat embezzlement scandal. During the Greenpeace investigation in 2008, informants statements were confirmed, shipments tracked, on the street interviews took place with underground whale meat vendors, crew lists and shipment records cross-checked. All of this meticulous leg work led to a box, the physical confirmation of embezzlement. The contents were unesu, whale bacon which confirmed an “open-secret” of embezzlement taking place on the Nisshin Maru ship.
Junichi explained the roles on the investigation team. He described sending a box through courier to help track the shipments. Toru recalled fact-checking on tips from informants. You can read about this in the evidence from Greenpeace.
This afternoon, in an emotional moment Toru recounted his experience surrounding his arrest. In numbers: 75 police officers were sent to arrest the T2, 8 men searched Toru's home, he spent 26 days in custody, 23 without charges and under interrogation without lawyers, he lost 6 kilos in the first 4 days of a 9 day hungerstrike in protest of the disregard by police of the Greenpeace explanation of the investigation.
Toru was told by one policeman that it usually takes only two officers to arrest a person for a something like taking a box. The police's reaction during the T2 arrest versus their reaction to the embezzlement evidence was disproportionate to say the least. When asked why he didn't take the box to the police, he told the court that from his experience in the motorcycle trading business that police would not move on a tip especially one that involved government, DIET (parliament) members, or even ‘research whaling.' It would be necessary to mobilise media and public pressure to secure a proper investigation. One officer told Toru, that if it weren't for his occupation as a policeman, he would tell Toru he had done a great job.
The prosecution didn't have much to say, and probably only spent 20 minutes in total cross-examining the T2. Their questions didn't lead to much either, and the lead prosecutor once even posed the befuddling argument well, if crew members, Kyodo Senpaku, and the Fisheries Agency of Japan all know about it and it is not a secret then it cannot be embezzlement. I suppose the prosecutor must not consider very important the idea that individuals are personally profiting off of a taxpayer sponsored ‘research' program, or that this meat is not recorded in the Kyodo Senpaku Compnay record.
Junichi and Toru sit across from the prosecution table. Between the prosecution and the defense is a three-sided screen blocking the audience view of the witness stand. These screens kept away from sight a whistle blower witness, the only one of many informants during the whale meat embezzlement investigation to take the stand. He said he came to court today because he is in favor of commercial whaling and thinks that the research whaling and embezzlement practices within it should be stopped.
Insider Information He based his testimony on nearly 30 years of working for Kyodo Senpaku, the whaling company, and his observations of the inner workings on the Nisshin Maru whaling vessel during two voyages with the fleet in the early 90s. The whistle blower commented that in his view, embezzlement occurred when crew took the best parts of whale meat on deck before the company takes its official data, when the total amount of whale caught is never properly recorded. He witnessed crewmembers salting or preserving whale meat in their rooms, and noted that crew members favor the young and soft whale meat. One difference between “souvenir” meat distributed by Kyodo Senpaku, and “embezzled” meat he noted, was that embezzled meat is often of higher quality. He said that whilst he was on the ship officials, members of ICR, The Institute of Cetacean Research took onomi, tail meat for themselves claiming it was for research. According to the whistle blower, crew members did not like the officials taking such valuable cuts, as they where there to do their lethal research not private business. He recounts finding an ICR member on the 93-94 Antarctic voyage in the ship’s freezer storing the coveted onomi. He talks of boxes addressed to DIET members (Parliament of Japan), the Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) officials, and how the head of whale processing status about as good as the ship captain. Hierarchy could get you more cuts of valuable meat he explained, and embezzlement on the Nisshin Maru is an open secret, once you are on board the Nisshin Maru, you are aware it is happening.
A Supposed Investigation When the T2 brought forth all of the evidence of whale meat embezzlement to the Tokyo Prosecutor, the whistleblower was approached by police. The police came to him with their own assumptions. that Greenpeace had stolen official “souvenir.” whale meat. After taking his statement, the police returned with an official copy. They had omitted the information he gave regarding any widespread embezzlement, and he protested. The police suggested he sign a statement that he had never received unauthorized whale meat. He wouldn’t, he said, that was just untrue. According to the whistleblower crews in recent years have actually taken more cuts of meat than before.
Tradition versus Reality
Ship crew, whale meat production staff, and ICR employees on board may be aware of details described above, but a survey done by Greenpeace Japan in 2006 revealed the public does not: 77% of people surveyed where against Japan whaling outside of Japan’s seas, 95% did not eat whale meat, 92% did not know that whalers also caught endangered species like humpback whales. When Junichi took the stand at 1:15pm today, the court got the chance to hear the truth about commercial whaling and research whaling. Finally, evidence from the whale meat embezzlement investigation that Junichi helped uncover would be heard.
He spoke about Japan’s role in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) including monetary incentives given for countries to join, their side. At the IWC, Japan states that research whaling is an exception to the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, and that is how the Nisshin Maru can continue to hunt. This is the same research whaling the whistleblower accuses of embezzling whale tail meat.
The Right to Know Junichi retraced conversations with many informants. Crewmembers provided pictures, and long detailed stories to Junichi and the investigation.. You can read more about this evidence in the whale meat embezzlement scandal as well as follow-up investigations in the updated dossier. The box of whale bacon, unesu, was finally intercepted and documented by the team, the linchpin in a long investigation. After talking to the prosecutor’s office which had agreed to follow-up on the investigation, he was surprised to discover later that the investigation had been dropped. He was more surprised though when a reporter called him to ask if he had any comments about his imminent arrest to occur the next day.
The lead defense lawyer asked, what do you want to say to the Aomori Court?
Junichi gave an impassioned speech about citizens and democracy, that citizens have a right to investigate and the UNWGAD (UN working group on arbitrary detention) supports that statement. If this was just a case of a stolen box, why would he make such elaborate documentation and research? NGOs should be supported in their endeavors to uncover the truth for the public good.
The prosecution will cross-examine Junichi tomorrow, and Toru will take the witness stand. What happened today was amazing, as was Junichi's bravery: a dossier of
evidence was laid out including video from the investigation, and
whaling was finally put on trial in a Japanese courtroom.
Outside of the Aomori District Court today, a living statue of Lady Justice stood beside a banner with some of the names of the 500,000 people who have pledged to support the Tokyo Two. Co-defendants Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki walked in to court knowing they have support from all around the world, and walked out with new information that leads us to believe Kyodo Senpaku, government subsidized whaling company, lied to the public and the Fisheries Agency of Japan.
It began with testimony given today by former crew member (Mr. X) of the Nisshin Maru. He is entangled in this case because some of his “souvenir” whale meat was contained in the box of evidence discovered by Junichi and Toru, though he had given it to another crew member. Read more about the investigation, the coverup, and the T2 case.
Although he was a defense witness, Mr. X was not exactly thrilled to be in the Aomori courtroom and was considered a hostile witness. According to his own evidence, he must have taken far more than his “souvenir” allowance in unesu or whale bacon as a crew member. His story has changed in regards to amounts, of whale meat he sent home in boxes, the types of cuts (young whale unesu or less valuable guts and fins), and when he sent them. It seems in order to account for the high number of boxes sent as personal effects, he claimed many of the boxes he sent contained alcohol or ice from Antarctica.
Mr. X was unable to explain why more senior crew members leave with more “luggage” at the end of their journey, boxes and boxes of items loaded immediately by the processing crew onto to trucks after arriving to port. They would not have been able to acquire such a load from gift shopping at ports of call (there are no shopping malls in the Southern Ocean). He also couldn’t explain why a box of whale bacon worth thousands of dollars was labeled cardboard.
He was clear about one thing: Kyodo Senpaku, his former employer, has never contacted him about the whale meat embezzlement case or the T2. The company claims to have launched an internal “investigation “after Greenpeace uncovered the original embezzlement. Kyodo Senpaku arranged their internal investigation on instruction from the Fisheries Agency of Japan which oversees the company. In July 2008, the Agency released a document and announced they were scandal-free and that in the course of the investigation, all crew were interviewed and asked about their personal cargo.
Public support has helped make it possible to hear evidence like this, to help put whaling as an industry on trial. We hope that the Aomori District Court will get the message from our living statue who faced the cold and snow today. Justice is blind, and the judges should not weigh evidence one way because of government involvement.
This morning, acting on the request of and in solidarity with local groups in Aomori and thousands of people from across Japan, Greenpeace delivered close to 7000 petitions to the Governor of Aomori. Greenpeace is calling on on him and the Government of Japan to stop the ongoing reprocessing of nuclear waste, which continues to put people and countries at risk.
A shipment of high-level radioactive waste, reprocessed at Sellafield in the UK, is scheduled to arrive at the port of Mutsu-Ogawara in Aomori in the next few days. It is the first shipment with many more expected to follow. Sellafield is now predominantly a commercial site with reprocessing facilities, fuel fabrication and other installations. It has one of the highest concentrations of radioactive waste on the planet, and a disastrous safety record with hundreds of accidents involving the release of radioactive substances into the environment and the irradiation of workers.
A delegation comprising of Jun Hoshikawa, Executive Director of Greenpeace Japan, Rose Young on behalf of citizens and a concerned civil society in the UK and co-executive Director of Greenpeace Japan, and local activist Araki-San met the Governor at his office.
No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing, it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. Reprocessing is another name for nuclear waste dumping That puts current and future generations at risk.
In addition to raising general background levels of radiation, marine life in particular algae, plankton, and crustacean's including lobsters absorb significant amounts of radiation, in many cases exceeding safety levels set for seafood after a nuclear accident.
In their dialogue with the Governor, they highlighted a significant threat these wastes could pose to one of Japan’s key economic underpinnings, the Fishing Industry. If there was an accident or even a threat of contamination - real or perceived- Japan's fishermen will pay the price.
The delegation also highlighted the need for real solutions -- a cleaner and safer energy programme, which would include a shift from reliance on dangerous nuclear technology, to safer, reliable and cleaner alternatives, wind and solar, amongst others. This would also be seen as demonstrable action to Prime Minister Hatoyama’s progressive commitment to a 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by Japan, made in December 2009 at Copenhagen.
Greenpeace exists because this fragile earth deserves a voice.
It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action.
Please follow us by the news feed or twitter @GPJen.
©Greenpeace/ Sutton-Hibbert
Junichi explained the roles on the investigation team. He described sending a box through courier to help track the shipments. Toru recalled fact-checking on tips from informants. 
Junichi and Toru sit across from the prosecution table. Between the prosecution and the defense is a three-sided screen blocking the audience view of the witness stand. These screens kept away from sight a whistle blower witness, the only one of many informants during the 
Tradition versus Reality
the Lady Justice, Junichi and Toru ©Greenpeace/Jeremy