Foreword

I have conducted so many cases and there is one thing I clearly feel. Those who are going throw trials and adjudged guilty are so called weak people. As an opposite there are mighty people generally who do not experience trials. They have high abilities, powerful friends, who can advise how to act.
Mighty people can solve any problem before it become too worse. Weak people are opposite.

As attorney I have meet a lot of weak people and advocate them in the court. I have had immutable pity to them. Rather to say not pity, but empathy. I want to say that I couldn’t leave them in their troubles. I myself do not understand why I feel like this.

Every time I see a person arrested and suspected of a high gravity crime, I think ‘Poor man, he won’t leave jail in this life’. And in this moment strong compassion rises in my heart.

The same compassion I felt seeing Mr. Shoko Asahara from Aum Shinrikyo arrested. Before that I didn’t like Mr. Asahara much. His appearance, his conduct… I even hated him. I couldn’t believe that he is a religious man. I thought ‘ You cannot meet so easily such a doubtful and haughty person. I am not like him’.

But after he was arrested I change my mind completely. I became his main attorney and had many opportunities to talk with him. And what I want to speak in this book about is why I changed my mind and why I respect Mr. Asahara till now.

Mr. Asahara whether he like that or not is one of those weak people. And he was involved in that story. And I feel my responsibility for his present weak-willed state (I am going to tell about this also). I indefinitely regret that Mr. Asahara is in such situation.

In Yamanote and Sitamati where on one side there are well-being and stability and on the other poverty and disorder, crimes are frequently.
But mighty people can do not think about it, sometimes they even do not know about it. But living condition of weak people are different. They have not only personal problems but react also on social problems and they turn to crime or wrongly charged in.

To choose someone and to assign a guilt of all crimes – I think this will only increase crimes.

A crime is very difficult thing and in order to understand why it happened you should look into social conditions and motivation of the person. That why I suppose that penalty especially death penalty is not a thing lessening number of crimes. I think it is even increasing them.

That is the one of the reasons why I am against death penalty. As attorney I want to help those who may have death penalty. There are few attorneys who have enough courage to advocate such people. That is why I do it.

Being an attorney of Mr. Asahara I myself was accused wrongly and arrested. In this case I can say that I myself is one of those weak people.

But fortunately and thanks to help of so many people in the first court I established my guiltlessness. The court decided that accusant’s averments were insufficient and acquitted me.

So many people are suffering because of wrong accuse. I was lucky.

I want to see how the law in Japan is going to change. And I want to help weak people further.

Yoshihiro Yasuda

Arrest of a religious organization’s founder

20 of March 1995… At the day of sarin attack in Tokyo subway I was in hearing in the court of Sendai. I got this news only after returning to Tokyo. At that moment I remembered one article in Yomiuri newspaper. At 1st of January they wrote about bad smell in the place of Kamiku-issiki (Yamanasi prefecture) that people started to feel in July 1994. Not waiting for police investigation journalists themselves decided to check the region and on the leaves and ground they found traces of chemical substance which can arise only in the process of making sarin. But they didn’t say that there are Aum Shinrikyo’ s buildings in Kamiku-issiki.

After this incident in Matsumoto police would better to check all medical centers and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. But there was no response on that article – police didn’t do any investigation. Yomiuri journalists themselves thought that Aum was guilty in Matumoto incident. They intentionally published that article in the 1st of January. It wasn’t false report. They had chosen that day because had proven information.

Five day before sarin attack in Tokyo subway one thing happen which could have link to sarin attack. 15 of March at subway station Kasumigaseki there was found a case and there was spray in it. It was only water spray but police reacted very emotionally. They started to distribute picture of the case wanting for possible witnesses. I was surprised on that reaction of the police. And after sarin attack I was starting to think that these two cases have a link.

Returning to Tokyo the train didn’t stop at Kasumigaseki.

Two days later 22nd of March enforced search was done in AUM Shinrikyo’s buildings. AUM followers was suspected in kidnapping of secretary Mr. Kekoru Seishi from consulting agency. And what happen then were Aum members’ arrests.

16th of May Mr. Asahara was found in 6th Satyam (building in Kamiku-issiki belonging to AUM Shinrikyo) and arrested. He was suspected in murdering by sarin in Tokyo subway.

Seeing on TV channel Mr. Asahara in the police car I was thinking about crossing the river Styx. And at that time I felt strong pity and empathy. And I thought about him as about others suspected in serious crime – ‘He won’t go out’. The process is the following – you are arrested and you don’t have any chance to see the sun again and what happen then is death penalty. I think trial is only formality before making death penalty.

I could not even image that they come to me to ask for advocating. I thought like that because I didn’t like religious or non-religious organization in general and the second reason was disliking Mr. Asahara. I saw him on TV channel and could say that do not like his appearance and even his clothes. I thought that my mission as attorney is to help poor people forgiven by society, those who do not have connection with any organization and that is why cannot receive help from them. I thought it is what I can and must do. Mr. Asahara was different.

But after half a year I became Mr. Asahara’s attorney.

Becoming a court-appointed lawyer of Mr. Asahara

After Mr. Asahara was arrested, among lawyers, who specialized on possible death sentences, there were voices: “In this case there should be a private counsel, chosen by defendant himself”. Because, for such a great incident, the government would try to finish up trial with convenient result. To prevent it, only private counsel should deal with the case. Such opinion was strong.
For some reason, out of all AUM members, only Mr. Asahara had no appointed counsel. So Mr. Y. was chosen as his personal private counsel.

Mr. Y. was constantly molested by mass media, and even though suffering from outside, he tried, as he could, to fulfill his advocatory duty. Of course, one lawyer along is just physically unable to catch up everything: to read all the case papers, to get outside of the real circumstances, to moderate bold push of the court, the prosecutor and the police, acting together, and, in addition, to stop mass media outrage.

Though a little, Mr. Y. continued to advocate Mr. Asahara, as he could. He made efforts to arrange frequent appointments, helped to recover the communication with the religious organization and advised Mr. Asahara to use his right to silence at questionings.
Per contra, the court was going to begin proceedings of the first stage, although it was only temporary detention for Mr. Asahara.

Usually, it is completely out of common sense. To begin proceedings, proper preparations are necessary. Because the court relies on analysis of arguments given by prosecutor and on what prosecutor presents as an inculpatory evidence, and at this point, more than ever before, thorough investigation of real circumstances is necessary.

All the more so ever since Mr. Asahara was arrested in May, the court prolonged his arrest once and again, while during 5 months prosecutor and police in cooperation were trying hard to find out any inculpatory evidences. In such conditions, it was impossible to prepare for the trial so fast.
But the court – throwing away its minimum duty to keep impartiality and legality during the trial, as a pleasing camp-follower of mass media voices: “Adjudge Asahara’s guilty! Execute him!” – ignored the right to counsel and decided to begin the trial faster.

Then I thought: “Well, that will never do. Whoever Mr. Asahara is, if this goes on, it will become the worst leading precedent”. And then things changed in unexpected way: on the 16-th of October, Mr. Asahara suddenly denied Mr. Y. as a counsel. The court was completely discouraged.

Mass media ready to hands lifted up a cry that it is outrage from Mr. Asahara and his challenge to the whole judiciary system and so on. The court also attacked: called him and demanded to explain the reason of the denial and to appoint a new counsel. Whereat Mr. Asahara answered that he needed some time to choose a new counsel.

The situation suddenly changed. The court decided to close the gap and to appoint a public lawyer. Because if there will be a public lawyer, in other words, a counsel, chosen by the government itself, he would surely be fixed under the court interests. Furthermore, the defendant doesn’t have the right to deny the public lawyer, and the lawyer himself can’t tender resignation by his own will. So the court decided to speed up the proceeding, without delaying it because of such unexpected denials. On the other hand, the Bar (faculty of advocates) took up the same attitude, as the court, though by the different reason. It was because of distrust toward Mr. Y.
Mr. Y. worked as a lawyer in Osaka, so he was not known as a lawyer in Tokyo. And everybody judged founding on media information only. His age, appearance, voice – everything looked straw, truthless. So much, that everybody suspected that he undertook the case just to attract public attention to himself. And if the things went in this way, there wouldn’t be any normal advocate defense for sure, and he would become just in derision for public. And this would cause damage to the reputation of all lawyers. So the Bar decided that if Mr. Y. or somebody like him undertook the case of Mr. Asahara, it would be no better than a court-appointed lawyer.

Then, the Bar started to select candidates for that important role; as a result, I became a candidate as well. At that time my connection with the Bar was not so strong.
Once, there was a period in my life, when I took part in the activity of the Bar: I was a member of the investigation commission, worked at the committee, worked at the advance training for young lawyers. But then, after working at the committee of opposition to civil violence, I resigned and broke away from the Bar at all. I even had no interest, what was going on there.

Firstly, I didn’t expect the Bar to decide to take part in the trial of Mr. Asahara, because I thought, they didn’t deal with apart criminal cases.

“Anyway, I request you to come,” – vice-chairman of the Second Bar of Tokyo, which I belong to, suddenly called me. Vice-chairman is the person of the most confidential relations I had from my first year of advocacy. But one case slacked those relations.

In December 1989, the Convention of Abolition of Death Sentence passed in United Nations. I thought we should get this opportunity and make the Bar work on Abolition. But he was against that. Because he thought, it was too early. “The problem of Death Sentence is not discussed in the society yet. And few people want to pass Abolition. So if we will make a proposal in such situation, it wouldn’t pass and the reputation of our Bar would be damaged as well. And we will be in isolation.” This way of thinking made the protest rising up in my mind. Even if the proposal wouldn’t pass for a while, the try itself makes sense. I thought at least we could make the people realize, that UN Convention of Abolition makes closer the time of reconsideration of death sentence. We argued, but did not coincide in opinion.

So, on the quiet he put the chairman of All-Japan Advocate Congress on denial of the proposal of Abolition. On the other hand, he made up things so that the chairman of All-Japan Advocate Congress, during questions and answers, expressed the opinion that the consideration of the problem of death sentence should be started. So, inside the Committee of Human Rights of All-Japan Advocate Bar, the Committee of the Consideration of the Problem of Death Sentence was created. By so doing, to start consideration of the problem of death sentence.

But I couldn’t agree with such a bureaucratic approach. Because just surface discussions about the problem of death sentence can neither clarify the problem, nor create understanding. However he, as he planned, initiated the formation of special committee inside the Committee of Human Rights, and became its member.

So I refused to cope with All-Japan Advocate Bar for the problem of death sentence. Because I couldn’t stand inside the frame he created. Since then our relations became colder. Looking at all those surface discussions, timeserving approach to advance the idea, I understood that I have different way of thinking with one, who does not have enough faith.

Private counsel or public lawyer?

In October, 24-th, 1995, there was a long-awaited meeting at last.
Vise-chairman respired and said: “The Bar is going to prepare a firm advocate defense for Mr. Asahara. Could you, please, become a public lawyer?” I answered, that I have an intention to become Mr. Asahara’s lawyer, but as a private counsel. So the talking was finished. In the evening I consulted by telephone with Mr. Nakamichi Takeyoshi, lawyer from Osaka, and Mr. Funaki Tomohiko, lawyer from Sendai. Three of us together were fighting for a long time for the abolition of death sentence.
They knew very well, that the public lawyer wouldn’t be able to argue with the court so intensively. We’ve discussed what to do. I didn’t expect, that both of them would also come to the opinion, that if not to maintain defense as a public lawyer, then the defense itself would be impossible. Whereat I told, actually, I was thinking to maintain defense with all three of us together as a counsels, chosen by defendant. They answered: “Well, if you decided to maintain defense as a private counsel anyway, we will also fight together. But rather then to work at the atmosphere of such a hard censure and pressure, it is better to do it as a public lawyer. At least we can avoid assaults for some extend”.
And finally I decided to conduct defense as a public lawyer.
After 25 days I was told to come urgently. Not into the meeting hall of the Second Bar of Tokyo, but into the main office. One more lawyer was sitting there. I would like to forget, but I can’t – he was lawyer Mr. Vatanabe Osamu.
At the times, when I just became a lawyer, minister of justice, pretending that the active criminal code have been passed at the age of Meiji, decided completely change it. He decided to make the law more severe, extend the meaning of crime itself, and bring in action of “preventive detention”. But All-Japan Advocate Bar heatedly protested: “It is contrary toward Constitution and democratic principals!” And in the center of that protest there was a lawyer Mr. Vatanabe Osamu.
Besides, Mr. Vatanabe Osamu was the leader of lawyers group, related to Communist Party of Japan. Because of that relation to communists, I didn’t trust him. For the reason that he is such a person, that though saying he is clearly against and we have to stop it, finally, anyway would compromise with the opponent.
At that time lawyers of faction “New Left” unexpectedly for executive body of All-Japan Advocate Bar called the urgent meeting. And because the meeting was unexpected, viewpoint of lawyers of faction “New Left” gained the majority. And head’s plan was defeated.
But Mr. Vatanabe was not thinking of surrender. This time he called urgent meeting from the side of the executive body.
And I, just a beginner at that time, was directed to the meeting as a member of the lawyers group “New Left”. Mr. Vatanabe sat on the tribune delicately ruling the process of questioning and arguing of “New Left” toward the executive body. Our opposition wing was ready to argue all night long.
A few hours passed from the opening of the meeting, evening came, tension at the hall started to calm down, and there was some kind of relaxing state. And suddenly Vatanabe Osamu elevating the sonorous voice, said: “Discussion is finished. Lets go on with a voting. It’s the time to clear the meeting hall”. And though at the moment few people was outside the hall having a hurried meal, he used that moment and made up voting by force.
The plan of the executive body was passed without any problem by the majority vote.
I was shocked by such a virtuoso trick of Mr. Vatanabe.
From that time Mr. Vatanabe became my archenemy.
Of course, at that time he did not have to know each and every youngling like me. So that was an enmity from my side only.
At the age of students fight; when we planned to organize all-students strike we often had a wrangles with students-communists. Because they took power in students’ trade union and pretending “to protect University from radical-minded students”, “to try to make University better”, – were against our supposal to strike. As far as in students’ trade union they had a majority, our plan failed.
Mr. Vatanabes’ manner, complaisance, great oratory just recalled those times in my mind. That’s why I felt strong enmity toward him.
At that time, founding on the course of Mr. Vatanabe, we thought the reform of the criminal code would be done in the near future for sure. But 20 years passed, and the minister of justice never changed the criminal code. Mr. Vatanabes’ course succeeded, and in process of time everything safely finished with nothing.
Everything he told from the tribune, proved by reality. I realized propriety of his choice to the marrow of my bones. (To be correct, later, in the last year, the big-scale changes were made in the criminal code, especially in the part of punishment. Its sphere became wider. And punishment for violation of public security – which was the main object of opposition – in this year was also passed in the law of medical examination of mental cases.) But to see such his greatness, I needed some time.
Now, the same Mr. Vatanabe was in front of my eyes.
Director said to both of us: “The Bar considers it’s necessary to appoint a public lawyers. So we called you two to come. We request you to undertake the case.”
Mr. Vatanabe considered the situation as critical, because Mr. Y. was dishonored all over the world. And he said we have to start from as early stage as possible. If necessary, he agrees to be a public lawyer. And this might be reported to the Bar.

…

Mr. Asahara in a Cell of the Tokyo Police Agency

When I went to meet Mr. Asahara for the first time, the investigation had been going on for about half a year.

‘If you plead guilty, we won’t dissolve your community and apply to it the Subversive Activities Prevention Act’, they urged. And Mr. Asahara perturbed and exhausted with everyday interrogations similar to tortures, which continued day by day, and deceived by sweet promises of the prosecution, decided to shoulder part of the guilt for the lawyer Sakamoto and Mr. Otida Kotaro murder cases and [some] others. Then, for a while, when he saw that the prosecutor wanted just to trap him, he refused to testify against himself, but later he continued to do so. The situation was that difficult.

I persuaded Mr. Asahara with fervor, ‘All prosecutor’s promises are lies because he alone won’t be able to keep them. And if you plead guilty [for something] once, then it will be impossible to deny it in court. You won’t be able to change anything if you sign the transcript. You’d better not sign any transcripts, you’d better keep silent. Try to keep silent’. But not once in the process of investigation Mr. Asahara was given the chance to enjoy the right to keep silent guaranteed by the Constitution.

‘We won’t let you keep silent! You must have perpetrated all that, that’s why you’re keeping silent! Are you trying to avoid responsibility? If you go on to keep silent, we’ll drag you through one arrest after another. We won’t release you on bail, and we’ll arrange it so that you’ll be found guilty, that’s for sure!’ There was no end to swearing, abuses and threats. ‘And if it is your lawyer who advised you to keep silent, then we’ll put pressure on your family and he will be removed!’ Such was the real state of things during the investigation.

Thanks to our persuasion Mr. Asahara stopped to answer questions once again. The prosecution and the police were simply enraged by that obstacle in the path of investigation. If everything went as smoothly as before, the officials from those two departments would probably win great fame for ‘making this accomplished villain, Shoko Asahara, confess all his crimes’. But because the course of affairs took such a turn, their dream vanished. After that, though the interrogations continued for another four months, he kept silent and did not say a word to the investigators.

I went to see Mr. Asahara whenever I had some time. He told me a lot of things, and I told him a lot, too. Sometimes we started to talk in the evening and finished at 6.00 in the morning the next day.

The Tokyo Police Agency has got four rooms for the purpose. But every time I came, the visit always took place in the same room. I suspected that they installed special equipment and the room was bugged. But we had our conversations disregarding the fact.

Once it snowed in Tokyo. The next day Mr. Asahara greeted me joyfully, ‘Last night I was flying over Tokyo in the falling snow! And the parliament building was covered in snow, too. It was so beautiful!’

‘In 2003 the US will provoke the last world war on religious grounds. They will drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima again. This is not a prophesy. I’ve really been to Hiroshima of 2003 and seen it [1]. On the scorched field I came across a man who had radiation sickness and I asked him what had happened. He explained using the local dialect. When I passed his exact words to my disciples, one of them, who knows how they speak in Hiroshima, said, “This is the Hiroshima dialect for sure”. Then I realized: what I saw was a reality’.

‘There will be an earthquake in Tokyo on such-and-such day of such-and-such month. So please leave soon. And pass it to all the lawyers, please’.

I don’t quite remember when it happened, but once Mr. Asahara had been talking for a long time when suddenly the light in the room went out. We were in complete darkness. Not a beam of light penetrated through the window. But his voice did not change a bit, he went on speaking as before. After a time there was light again. But he continued talking as if nothing had happened. Till the end of my visit he did not say anything like, ‘[Tonight] the light went suddenly out, didn’t it?’

I used to have various groundless suspicions, ‘Is he really unable to see or is his blindness only feigned?’ and the like, but then I became convinced that actually Mr. Asahara could not see at all. After that I decided to ask him straight out if he could see anything. He said, ‘Usually I can see nothing. But when I’m in a very good state and if I focus my attention, I can see the faintest light, but only with one eye’.

Being in total darkness with nobody to take care of him, put in the cage of a cell, he endured 46-hour interrogations without a single complaint, because he thought all that was his [spiritual] practice.

Mr. Asahara advised me to read the main yogic sutras. He explained that otherwise I would be unable to understand AUM, I did not follow his advice. I thought that I was defending him personally, not his religion or religious community, and there was no need [for me] to touch upon religious issues. But now looking back, I understand that it was a mistake.

Mr. Asahara is a person for whom religion is everything. And he was persecuted and prosecuted because of that, too (he was like a thorn in the flesh of Japanese society). Regardless of whether he had committed any crimes or not, it would be impossible to defend him without understanding his religion.

If they passed the verdict of guilty, that would only mean the death penalty. And if it was the death penalty, I was afraid he would be executed earlier than anybody else. [I thought] ‘It must be stopped in any case. Even if he turns out to be guilty, he mustn’t be put to death’. On the other hand, Mr. Asahara once said, he wouldn’t be executed until his state lawyers stayed with him, and he would probably have time to accomplish his mission in this life. I felt an unbearable burden of that responsibility.

---

[1]Mr. Asahara is talking about his experience in meditation, referring to the future. (–editor)next>>>

The Subversive Activities Prevention Act Against AUM

The first sitting of the court was drawing near, but the prosecution had not submitted the evidence. In the meagre amount of it that we were given all the important places containing the evidence by Mr. Asahara’s disciples were blackened. The prosecution explained, ‘Otherwise the accused may put pressure on his disciples and they will change their evidence’. I was surprised: Mr. Asahara was in a solitary confinement and did not meet with anybody except his lawyers. How then could he put pressure on his disciples?

When Mr. Asahara was made to testify against himself, he wrote by touch in his pad in large letters that his confession was invalid because it was extracted fraudulently by the prosecutor. We wanted to obtain the pad, but the prosecution and the police refused to give it to us. They insisted that the pad had to be kept by the police and therefore he (Mr. Asahara) could not give it to anybody. But the pad was bought by Mr. Asahara with his money, so the police could only take it for a time. Hence, it did not mean that Mr. Asahara had no right to give it to anybody. We lodged a request to the court to consider it illegal, but the police argued, ‘This pad contains the notes of the founder of the religious organization written in his own hand, it can greately inspire his followers and they may attempt to commit another crime or free their leader by force. If the pad is kept in the lawyers’ office they might burst into it willing to take posession of the pad. It is that dangerous! That is why we can’t give permission to take the pad out of the Police Agency’.

We were surprised and just could not understand it: the organization had been rooted out and crushed, who were those followers that were going to set Mr. Asahara free by force? In short, the police and the prosecution were simply trying to show everybody how dangerous AUM was. And the court approved of it.

Later, however, it agreed to my taking the pad on the condition that a bodyguard would accompany me to the Police Agency. It even put forward another condition. Now the pad had to be kept in the safe belonging to the Bar, not in the lawyers’ office.

Meanwhile the prosecution resumed actions aiming at applying the Subversive Activities Prevention Act to AUM. This act is really terrible. First the order is issued to liquidate the given organization and then all its members are put under arrest, and [thus] they annihilate the whole organization. Even the former Prime Minister XXX was said to be against it. But in October 1995 the then Socialist Party and Murayama’s government came out with a proposal to use the Subversive Activities Prevention Act against AUM.

In connection with it Mr. Asahara said, ‘All this talk about using the Subversive Activities Prevention Act [against AUM] is just pointless. Religion is a phenomenon of a different order. AUM Shinrikyo can’t be annihilated by this act. Religion can existed even when as many as three followers get together. And if the persecution continues, one can do [spiritual] practice on one’s own. Isn’t it so?’

When listening to this declaration, I seemed to understand Mr. Asahara’s attitude, it was the attitude of a religious person.

But quite a number of people were against this act for a different reason. They thought it was no good at all to use the act, which had not been used once for 50 years after the war, only against AUM. If the act was only used once, it would establish a precedent of using it in the future and prolong the existence of the Public Security Investigation Agency (PSIA). It would be unwise to influence the course of history applying this act only to one religious group. Many people were against using this act for this reason. The [annihilated] religious organisation presented no danger, and it was improbable that the remaining group of followers could start fighting using weapons. But as it turned out, Mr. Asahara’s words about the Subversive Activities Prevention Act in relation to AUM made the government once more suspicious, and it had doubts if the organization had stopped being dangerous and everything could be left as it was.

However, during the course of events Mr. Asahara changed his approach. Perhaps he thought it would be better this way or, being completely isolated from society, he might have decided to help people who supported him, but he resigned his post as founder of the religious organization, gave his consent to rename it and to remove the doctrine considered dangerous. He also gave orders to his followers forbidding unlawful actions. And at the court sittings when the possible application of the Subversive Activities Prevention Act was discussed, he objected to the statements of the Public Security Investigation Agency that the whole religious community, all its members participated [in one way or another] in carrying out the sarin gas attack [on the subway] and in other incidents.

Among the lawyers, who worked with the Subversive Activities Prevention Act, there was a man whom I knew very well. And I thought if we were able to use his abilities [as a lawyer], then the schemes of the PSIA could be destroyed. But during his preliminary discussion of the matter with Mr. Asahara a prison warder, who was present at the meeting, recorded the whole conversation. And because both the prison and the PSIA are parts of one structure with the Ministry of Justice at the head, all the secrets of that preliminary talk became known to the enemy – the PSIA.

I cooperated on all issues with the lawyers working with the Subversive Activities Prevention Act, because I believed it to be important to prevent using this act for the sake of lawyers’ professional activities as well. Or else the work of the lawyers defending AUM might also be considered as a crime. So, Mr. Asahara and I were well prepared for a debate in court to be able to destroy the main arguments in favor of using the Subversive Activities Prevention Act.

The court sittings, which went on for two months, resulted in a decision not to use the Subversive Activities Prevention Act against AUM Shinrikyo. And thus the plan of the PSIA safely failed. They lost hopelessly.

In principle, this intrigue using AUM-related incidents for political purposes must have faded, however it continued.

Meanwhile the mass media were trying their best to heighten feelings against AUM. The stream of groundless and sometimes simply comical information grew larger. There appeared even a new type of newspaper commentators – ‘AUM wottya’ (i.e. ‘AUM observer’). Putting on airs and pretending to be experts on the subject they wrote about what was happening with AUM and around it, passing their lies off as absolutely reliable information. Even some lawyers [outside the defense team] were involved in this “housewives’ gossip” of the mass media.

There was only one entrance/exit in the courtroom fitted with metal detector, and all personal things of those passing through it were carefully examined. But there were no people among the remaining group of followers who were going to help Mr. Asahara out… Still, a black prison car worth 100,000,000 yen was bought to bring Mr. Asahara to the court, and a specially equipped room worth 50,000,000 yen was allotted for visits [with the accused].

The Public Security Investigation Agency after giving up as hopeless its intention to apply the Subversive Activities Prevention Act to AUM managed to succeed in the realization of another scheme. A new anti-AUM law which placed the organization under surveillance was adopted. It was a very severe law because as a punishment the organization was placed under constant (vigilant) surveillance. It means that the organization is required to submit regularly to the PSIA the list of its members including information about their places of residence, to give details about real property such as the area of land under the buildings and the living space in the facilities occupied by them. What is more, the representatives of the Agency can turn up at any such facility at any time to see what is going on.

What the PSIA failed to achieve using the Subversive Activities Prevention Act it managed to realize with the law placing AUM under surveillance. The PSIA increased the number of its members and found a new sphere for its activities. They regularly burst in a body into facilities occupied by AUM followers of long standing. It is hard to imagine how many media people, policemen, prosecutors, judges and lawyers found an additional occupation for themselves and got a chance to live off AUM.

AUM Shinrikyo was stripped of its official status as a ‘religious legal entity’, its property was turned into money and either distributed among the victims of the incidents or confiscated by the state. Now the money to be paid off as the remaining part of compensations had to be earned by ordinary followers. Most of the remaining followers not only had anything to do with any of the crimes, but they did not have any idea that those incidents had relation to their religious organization. Both the money and property they needed for themselves but nevertheless donated to their religious community were taken by the state.

When all is said and done, the people who had suffered and happened to be abandoned as a result of the AUM-related incidents were ordinary followers.

The misery of the parents of those followers was unspeakable. Formerly they were fighting to get back their children who were in the community and then they had to shoulder all the responsibility for the crimes [allegedly] committed by them.

next>>>

The First Sitting of The Court.

Our lawyers’ team consisting of twelve people had plenty of work.

We talked to Mr. Asahara, read records of the case, visited incident locations, spoke to the people who had something to do with the case. The lawyer Watanabe is exellent at questioning witnesses. Every day we went together to see Mr. Asahara, we talked things over and made various arrangements. On the whole I had a feeling that we’d become very close. The lawyer Watanabe’s outlook, the way he worked, his ability to intuitively comprehend the essence of the matter and his instant response – everything was remarkable. There was no trace whatsoever of hostile feelings that I had against him earlier.

He is not just an outstanding lawyer dealing with criminal cases. He has an innate need to wage an uncompromising struggle for the truth. He gained my confidence to such a degree.

He was the first person with whom it was so easy to work. Gradually we succeeded in solving various problems at a stroke. Although he was the eldest among us and headed our lawyers’ team, he did all work on an equal footing with the others. In the courtroom we would read out our claims standing up together and after the sittings we would leave it together again. We even got angry about the same things without any previous discussions. [In the end] we established truly trustworthy relations.

Once in a while there were such interrogations of witnesses when brains started boiling [so to say] because of the tension. It usually happened when we had to ask the same questions over and over again to crush that [invisible] impregnable wall between us. Sometimes when all the efforts seemed to be in vain, the lawyer Watanabe, who was as exhausted as me, would whisper into my ear, ‘Try to press here’ and there would miraculously appear a gap in the ‘wall’. He was a really reliable fellow-worker.

And when I was taken into custody and became the accused myself, many people turned away from me. But the lawyer Watanabe volunteered to defend me and he defended me to the last as my lawyer.

‘Let anybody say what they wish, but Yasuda is not guilty and he is sure to be acquitted’. If I were in his place, I could also continue defending the accused, but it would be hard for me to continue claiming confidently, ‘He is sure to be acquitted’.

But there was one point on which we had different views, and it concerned our relations with the mass media. The lawyer Watanabe believed that we had to go on the offensive and to stop discreditable information from spreading at least to some extent. He also believed that if we had a ‘good talk’ with media people, then anyone of them would understand and support us. So every day he had press-conferences and tirelessly explained the attitude adopted by our lawyers’ team. In his young days at university he was a member of the editorial board, that was probably the reason why he still had some faith in the mass media.

But I had a different opininon. The lawyer is only allowed to talk to defend the accused. It is impermissible to talk for any other purpose. Besides, the lawyer has the right to give a talk only in the courtroom.

In any case, it was wrong to meet media people. It was wrong to give them any information. If we stopped giving them information, then the supplies they fed on would run out eventually and they would have to become silent. [I believed] that if we wanted to give some information, we had to choose somebody whom we could trust. Some day he would tell a true story to everybody.

In principle, the Tokyo District Court had no right to investigate the AUM case, because sarin was released in a carriage of a train bound to N. station. The Tokyo District Court is situated near the exit from this station, and some people injured in the gas attack were found there, too.

The fact that the Tokyo District Court was carrying out the AUM case was equivalent to the situation when the victim was trying the criminal, i.e. the court was strongly biased.

To make this situation even worse, day after day the mass media were doing their best to make the atmosphere around AUM as tense as possible, arousing victims’ passions in order to stir up anger and hatred towards AUM in Tokyo to the upper limit. Therefore a fair trial in Tokyo was impossible.

We thought it would be fine if the trial could take place outside Tokyo, but we did not expect the court to agree to that. It would most likely insist on the lawyers’ team moving there as well. In the end [we understood] this idea could not be realized, it only remained a dream.

The debate with the court as to when to open the first sitting was becoming increasingly heated. The court wanted to complete the case as soon as possible at any cost, and it was obvious that its only desire was to start the sittings at the earliest date. To achieve this purpose, the judges were putting pressure on the prosecutors to make them bring the investigation somehow to an end. Mr. Asahara was even transferred to a Tokyo prison. So to speed up the investigation the court was prepared not to take the trouble to collect evidence. As for the right of the accused to have a normal defense the judges were not going to think about it at all.

We needed no less than a year to understand all the materials of the case, to inquire the defendant about the real state of affairs, to learn the opinion of experts and people connected with the case, that is to perceive the whole picture of what had happened and to determine the course to be followed by the trial. After all, the evidence was fabricated by joint efforts of thousands of policemen and prosecutors.

I realized it still earlier that until each lawyer looked into all pieces of evidence, it would be imposible [for us] to understand the whole picture of the incidents. Each lawyer had to form his own opinion about it. And only after everyone of the twelve lawyers came to understand what had [really] happened, we could get together to discuss the matter and offer different opinions. Otherwise there was no point in appointing twelve lawyers to deal with this case. We voiced our opinion, ‘The first sitting of the court is to begin in autumn’.That was the biggest concession that we could make to the court.

During the time when we had talks on the subject, a strange touch in the behavior of the presiding judge drew our attention. As soon as there appeared some friction in the talks, he would stop the debate and disappear. The same also happened every time after the talks – he would hurry away out of the courtroom and disappear.

Later, after looking into the room occupied by the deputy chief of the Tokyo District Court, I understood where he used to go. Every time the presiding judge went out of the courtroom he gave him a report about how the talks were going on and received instructions what to do next. In reality, the presiding judge was not the presiding judge himself but the deputy chief of the Tokyo District Court. And the presiding judge was just a puppet.

‘The first sitting of the court will be open in late April by all means’ – this unusually strong determination of the presiding judge caused confusion in our lawyers’ team. On the whole there were two different approaches to the problem in our group: either to make a compromise and try to come to an agreement at least about slightly more acceptable terms for us or to fight to the last. Even if we put up a strong resistance, the court might fix the opening date of the trial unilaterally. And because we could not then boycott court sittings the plan of the court would succeed. But the people who favored the other approach believed that exactly in this case we had to boycott the sittings, even if we were reprimanded and removed from the post of a state lawyer. We took a break and then resumed the debates, but we failed to reduce the difference in opinion. The first sitting of the court would be opened if only one of the twelve lawyers attended it. Until our lawyers’ team became really united, we would not be able to follow the strategy ‘to fight to the last’.

In the end we had no choice but to make a compromise with the court. ‘Let’s start after the public holidays in May’, we insisted, but the court rejected this proposal too, and decided to open the first sitting on April, 24. It was our first defeat.

If we had been more united, we would not have had any divergence of views on this point. As a rule, if there is some difference in opinion, the majority wins. But it was not so in our team of state lawyers, because we had to make do with those who agreed to join it. As a result, the minority opinion outweighed and determined our policy. Such was the situation when the first sitting of the court started.

next>>>

Fighting for Mr. Asahara’s Religious Garments

The first sitting of Mr. Asahara’s trial was opened in the Tokyo District Court on April 24, 1996. There were over 12,000 people who wanted to attend it on that day, so the queue extended as far as nearby Hibiya Park. The sitting was opened at 10 a.m. in the biggest courtroom of the Tokyo Court – Courtroom 104. The presiding judge, two associate judges and a supplementary judge were sitting in a row on the platform. On the left (if you looked at them from the seats for the audience) there were eight police officers and on the right, facing them, there were twelve state lawyers.

The defendant, Mr. Asahara, was brought into the courtroom at 10.02. The audience closely watched his every gesture. And when the presiding judge was about to declare the sitting open, I spoke first, ‘The defendant would like to attend the sitting in red-violet religious garments[1]. This is an important freedom of choice for the defendant to wear what he wants. [If it is impossible] we would like the court to allow the defendant to appear [at the sittings] at least in white garments’.

Court sittings usually proceed in the following order: at first the questions are put to identify the accused to be certain that this person is the same as the one mentioned in the indictment, next comes the reading of the indictment, then the court asks the accused questions or ask his lawyers wheather they acknowledge or deny the facts stated in the indictment. Apart from that, the prosecutor makes an opening speech reading out the facts, which he is going to prove by evidence. There are usually no contradictions between the judges, the accused and the lawyers about this procedure. But that time it was different.

We wanted to bring to the prison the religious garments usually worn by Mr. Asahara, but were refused to do so. We were told that if he (Mr. Asahara) was allowed to wear them in prison, it would inspire AUM followers and that might cause public disturbances.

The court also did not give the accused permission to wear his religious garments at the sittings. Then the lawyers’ team made a compromise, ‘Let it be not the red-violet religious garments worn by the founder of the organization, but the white ones worn by ordinary followers’. But we were refused that either. Finally, we had no choice but to decide on the dark-blue tracksuit.

As a matter of fact, the court has to protect the freedom of the accused to appear in the courtroom wearing the clothes he chooses himself. If a student puts on his [favorite] clothes or an office worker puts on his suit, what’s the difference? The judge himself wears special black garments.

We wanted the court to allow Mr. Asahara to wear those garments, because we wished to accentuate that he was a religious person and thus to uphold his honor. But from the very first the judges alongside with the mass media considered Mr. Asahara an enemy. And they had fears that if they made the slightest concession, then both ordinary people and media people would bombard them with accusations.

To tell the truth, Mr. Asahara did not care at all about what he worn, he was completely indifferent to his clothes.

The second stumbling block was whether to cut down the reading of the indictment or to read it out in full.

The accused was charged with murders and attempted murders in the sarin attack. The list of 3938 victims of the attack was submitted, and if it was read out in full, i.e. the name, the incident location where the person was injured, and how serious the injury was, it would take 3 to 4 hours. And the court came to a decision: in order to close the sitting at least a bit earlier the prosecutor had only to read out the data about victims who were badly injured [in the gas attack].

But the indictment is something that underlies all legal proceedings. It specifies what precisely the accused is charged with. It was especially important [in Mr. Asahara’s case] because Mr. Asahara could only listen to what was written in the indictment being unable to see. That was why it was necessary to read it out in full.

To tell the truth, in this case we really might drop off the hooks. However, because the accused was charged with such serious criminal offenses as murders and attempted murders, reading out the short version of the inictment to save the time would be equivalent to showing disrespect both to the court and to Mr. Asahara. We were strongly against it and demanded that the indictment should be read out in full, but agreed to its being read out in such a way as not to take so much time (that is more quickly than usual).

And then the court suddenly declared that the accused had to listen standing up to what the prosecutor would be reading. But there is no such clause in the law that the accused must listen to the indictment standing up! Perhaps there are such cases but only as tradition. It would be nothing else but a torture – to make Mr. Asahara, who was blind, to stand up for a few hours listening to the indictment.

So, to spite us the court decided to make Mr. Asahara suffer, since we persisted in reading out the indictment in full. And if we did not like it, to make us agree to reading the short version. It just came down to a quarrel the children might have in a sandbox.

It was due to a desperate protest on our part that the court unwillingly gave Mr. Asahara permission to listen sitting down. Nevertheless, he had to stand up for the first 30 minutes by the demand of the court.

The third issue had to do with TV shooting prior to the court sitting. Because that trial had attracted a lot of public attention, TV people wanted to show the courtroom before the sitting was opened. But the lawyers from our team refused to take their seats during the shooting. The trial was not a show.

What feelings did they want to stir up in viewers showing the courtroom where only the judges, the prosecutor and the lawyers were present? It was just a cheep trick.

But the court asked, ‘Could anybody from your team, even one person, take his lawyer’s seat? After all, the media helps us a lot. Why not meet them half-way?’ The court must rise above it. How can it administer justice if it comes under the influence of the mass media?

The sitting opened with questions to identify the accused. The presiding judge asked questions about his name, place of residence, date of birth and occupation. What answers would he give? What name? To humiliate the accused, media people stubbornly used his secular name instead of his religious name.

The prosecutor, who refused to acknowledge the accused as a religious person, wrote down in the indictment ‘occupation – unemployed’. Trying to restore Mr. Asahara’s honor at least to some extent, we were going to declare publicly that he was above all a religious person.

As the defendant’s lawyers we prepared beforehand the answers to the questions to be asked to identify him, but he remained absolutely indifferent to it. However, in court he answered them following our advice.

‘What’s your name?’

‘Shoko Asahara.’

“Isn’t your name Chizuo Matsumoto?’

‘I don’t use that name.’

‘When were you born?’

‘March 2, 1955.’

‘What’s your permanent address?’

‘I don’t remember it at all.’

‘It’s XXX, isn’t it?’

‘No, I don’t remember.’

‘Where do you live?’

‘I don’t remember.’

‘You live in XXX, don’t you?’

‘I don’t remember.’

‘What’s your job?’

‘I’m the leader of AUM Shinrikyo.’

‘The indictment says that you are unemployed… So you are the leader of AUM Shinrikyo, aren’t you?’

‘Yes.’

After the presiding judge asked the prosecutor, ‘Can the real name, permanent address and place of residence remain as they are in the indictment?’ and the latter answered, ‘Yes, this is so, Your Honor’, there were no more questions to identify the accused.

Then the prosecutor took over and began reading out the lengthy indictment. But the point was that this indictment did not say a word about what in reality Mr. Asahara had done. It only stated that Mr. Asahara was charged with a conspiracy with those who committed the crimes. But this writing said absolutely nothing about when, where and who he conspired with.

However, it is the question of primary imporatnce for the accused – to understand what he is charged with. That must be specified. Until corpus delicity and the prosecutor’s arguments become clear, the trial is impossible.

We demanded that the indictment was clarified, ‘Still, what has Mr. Asahara done?’

But the prosecutor refused to answer. And the court took his side and rejected our uncomfortable questions.

That means that not only the court failed to remain neutral, but from the very beginning it did not intend to make clear the true state of affairs.

---

[1] A high-neck shirt worn over the trousers and trousers; both very simple in style (– editor).

next>>

Mr. Asahara’s Testimony

The presiding judge asked Mr. Asahara, ‘Do you agree to what is stated in the indictment?’

In other words, he asked the accused if he admitted that the phrase consisting of only three words was true, that is ‘participation in a conspiracy’. Unhasitatingly Mr. Asahara gave the following clear answer (it was his first message to the outside world).

‘Since the time before and after the arrest I’ve lived having the only state of mind[1]: my thoughts, words and actions were aimed at all souls’ attaining [the state of] absolute freedom, absolute happiness and absolute joy owing to the Supreme Truth, which alone can enable to attain them. And practicing maitri, Divine Love, [I’ve had] a desire to help all living beings in it’.

‘This is the mind of Divine Compassion, a deep sorrow in regard to lack of freedom, unhappiness and suffering experienced by souls who do not know the Supreme Truth; these are the words and actions based on the Supreme Truth in order to eliminate them, in other words, it is the practice of karuna, Divine Compassion’.

‘This is [also] the mind [full] of Joy and Praise in regard to those who have attained the state of absolute freedom, absolute happiness and absolute joy, practicing the Supreme Truth, and it is the practice of Divine Praise’.

‘And [at last] this is the state of mind when I don’t pay any attention at all to my own lack of freedom, unhappiness and suffering, whichever they may be, owing to the three [above mentioned] practices. And it is the practice of upeksha, Divine Equanimity’.

‘That’s all I can say now’.

Though I listened [carefully] to what Mr. Asahara was saying, I didn’t understand much. Probably you had to know religious terms to be able to understand it. Surely, the judges did not understand much either. But as soon as Mr. Asahara said, ‘This is all’, the presiding judge asked promptly, ‘Does it mean that everything, which is stated in the indictment read out by the prosecutor, you have perpetrated to practice your religion? Is that so?’

No matter what but they wanted to get his words about pleading guilty. The atmosphere was the same as at the interrogation by an investigator. If the accused acknowledged his participation in the incidents, i.e. something he was charged with, the legal proceedings could be completed at once, or else interminable sittings would have to be held [in the future]. The court showed obvious discontent that the trial would be dragging on, and was going to continue making insistent inquires. But then we intervened.

‘Quiet! Now the court is asking questions’, the presiding judge told the lawyers, and he started to intimidate the accused, ‘So you don’t want to answer the last question put to you by the court? Well, so that’s how things are…’

But it was them who read out half an hour ago, ‘The accused has the right to maintain silence from the beginning to the end’.

Then one of the lawyers stood up and asked Mr. Asahara, ‘Do you want to add anything to what you have said?’ ‘No’, he replied distinctly. And the court had to give up at that [without having got what it wanted].

Actually, Mr. Asahara wanted to go on and say, ‘The charge is false. I haven’t committed any crimes’. But we stopped him from doing it. Until the prosecutor made his position clear, it would be better not to say anything about committing or not committing [the crimes]. In addition, if Mr. Asahara claimed right from the beginning that the charge was false, it might spoil the game and provoke animosity in those disciples who trying to justify themselves claimed that it was Mr. Asahara who gave them orders to take part in the incidents and they couldn’t help carrying them out. If Mr. Asahara denied his involvement [in the crimes] from the very first, then they would start desperately inventing testimonies to explain their behavior. And instead of telling the truth, they would make up various stories to prove they were right. But we, the lawyers, wanted to avoid it.

---

[1] Below Shoko Asahara is talking about the Mind of the Four Immeasurables – one of the fundamental Buddhist practices (– editor).