OTTAWA, ON, August 16, 1990 - The response of the Japanese government, reported in today's media, to the effect that the 1952 Peace Treaty exempts Japan from further payment of claims of prisoners of war has been challenged by international legal experts. This was the statement made today by Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of The War Amps Task Force which, earlier this week, submitted a claim on behalf of Canada and five other nations before the Subcommittee on Human Rights in Geneva.

"Japanese officials have been making this statement for a number of years," Chadderton said. "On the other hand, international legal experts including Professor John Humphrey of McGill University and Professor John Kidd of the University of Queensland, Australia, have stated that Section 14 of the Peace Treaty does not preclude further payments by the Japanese."

The 1952 Peace Treaty stated that Japanese assets held by Canada, and other countries, could be seized and sold and reparations paid from the proceeds. In Canada, veterans of the Hong Kong Force received an initial payment of $1.50 per day for the 44 months they were in Japanese captivity.

"It is our opinion that Japan may well change its mind when it sees the many volumes of evidence which we filed before the Human Rights Commission this week, including not only the reports of the War Crimes Tribunals immediately following World War II, but many new stories of torture and denial of human rights which we have been accumulating over the past few years," Chadderton said. Chadderton stated further: "If the Human Rights Committee makes a finding recommending that Japan pay compensation, that country would have two options. It could either negotiate settlements or it could continue to stonewall the requests for reparations arising out of the brutalities inflicted upon prisoners of war in World War II."

"If there is a finding by the Human Rights Commission that the Japanese atrocities represent what is known as gross violations of human rights and recommends compensation, and Japan refuses to accept the findings, the story of Japanese atrocities would be revealed through the United Nations," Chadderton said.

"The feeling we got throughout the human rights community in Geneva was that this could result in an international boycott of Japanese goods. If Japan wishes once again to have its actions examined, it may well be the civilized world which would be the final judge of whether Japan, given its economic recovery, should now pay these just claims," Chadderton concluded.