In contrast, the argument document emphasizes Coomaraswamy report with "exaggerations subjective everywhere" based on "the prejudice". Because I quoted the writing of the Seiji Yoshida and others who testified falsely when I engaged in labor procurement in Shimonoseki all over George Hicks and the wartime of the Australian journalist with many errors that a report was clear and gathered charity dames in "slave hunting", "it was uncritical and criticized the document which you should not originally depend on with adoption".

About the legal argument, I assumed that a report demanded legal responsibility of Japan "interpretation of the wrong international law" and turned it down with "a politics claim based on the arbitrariness (spread)-like interpretation not to quite consist legally".
After withdrawal, I explained the actions of the woman fund that I supported to a former charity dame of Asia, and the Japanese Government replaced an argument document with "the Japanese measure" that deleted the description for the negation of the report and a document to do.
The evaluation of the United Nations human rights committee to a part about the issue of charity dame of the report remained for "a notice" (take notebook). The person concerned with then Japanese Government told, I showed an opinion that he/she treated it of the non-adoption and "put a limit talk globally" in a fact, but the fact misconception of the report was not corrected.
◇ Coomaraswamy  report
The report which woman lawyer from Sri Lanka appointed by a "violence special report official for the woman" of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Radhika Coomaraswamy visited Japan and Korea and heard it from war victim and others and gathered up. An agent came in North Korea and investigated it. The description about the charity dame was attached for "statute 1". I urge six items including acceptance of the legal responsibility and the compensation to a victim for Japanese Government.