Comfort Woman : a Filipina's Story of Prostitution and Slavery Under ...

xviii
Introduction
fi nding group made up initially of seven women’s organizations, including
BAYAN-Women’s Desk, Batis Centre for Women, National
Council of Churches in the Philippines Women’s Desk, and Women’s
Legal Bureau. Shortly afterward, the number of member organizations
increased to fi fteen, and the Task Force started searching for former
“comfort women.” It was Maria Rosa Henson who fi rst responded,
in September 1992, when the TFFCW made a radio announcement
asking former “comfort women” to come forward. One after another,
women followed Maria’s lead. Eventually, 169 women were identifi ed
as former “comfort women.”
Several Japanese lawyers, including Takagi Kenichi, Hayashi Yoko,
and Yokota Yuichi, visited the Philippines to interview many of the
women and record their testimonies. These lawyers were also working
for former Korean “comfort women” who had sued the Japanese government
for compensation. In April 1993, eighteen of these Filipina
victims fi led a lawsuit against the Japanese government at the Tokyo
District Court, demanding an indemnity of twenty million yen per
person from the Japanese state. Eventually, the number of plaintiffs
increased to forty-six.
One of the legal bases of the claim is that Japan violated the
Hague Convention of 1907, whose regulations protect civilians in
occupied territories. The Japanese government had ratifi ed the convention
in 1912 and was thus bound by it when the Japanese Imperial
Forces began attacks in the Philippines in late 1941. Article 46 of
the convention stipulates “respect for the reputation and rights of a
family” and “of an individual life.” This regulation clearly prohibits
the violation of the basic rights of an individual as well as of his or her
body. Furthermore, in most societies, sexual violence against a woman
constitutes a serious violation of family honor and reputation. Rape
and sexual abuse of women are thus a clear breach of Article 46 of
the Hague Convention.
Another legal base is that the conduct of the Japanese troops in
the Philippines clearly constituted “crimes against humanity,” a notion
offi cially defi ned and adopted in Article 6 of the International Military
Tribunal Charter, which was established immediately after World War