and the International Military Tribunal, and war crimes of Lower categories under the jurisdiction of Legal Section. 5. Also apparent from those orders is the intention to establish the International Prosecution Section and The International Military Tribunal for the Far East as continuing bodies with the responsibility of carrying on their assigned functions as long as there are major war criminals to be prosecuted and tried. This no doubt holds true with Legal Section insofar as the lesser war crimes are concerned. Both IPS and Legal Section were organized as ?Ç£Special Staff Section?Ç¥ of GHQ. (Par. I, G.O. No. 20; Par. 2. G.O. No. 21). Originally, under General Order No. 10, Legal Section had the all-inclusive power to investigate, prepare and supervise the prosecution of all war crimes regardless of their categories. (Pars. 1 and 2, G.O. No. 10). With the creation later of IPS, the jurisdiction of Legal Section over war crimes with international aspect was transferred to IPS (Par. 1, G.O. No. 20; Par. 2, G.O. No. 21) Nothing in General Order No. 20 or in the Charter could be faintly interpreted to mean that IPS and IMTFE were brought into temporary being for the sole purpose of prosecuting and trying only the specific defendants new in the dock. In fact, when IPS started its work in December 1945, its main concern and job were to investigate into the background and records of so many suspects, and after weighing thoroughly the evidence accumulated for or against them determined whether or not they should be in included in a master list of some eighty major war criminals in the Far East to be prosecuted and tried for having brought about the war of aggression on the Allied powers. On the other hand, General Order No. 20 is emphatic that IPS is charged with the duty ?Ç£to prepare for trial and prosecute all cases?Ç¥ involving crimes arising from planning and waging aggressive warfare. The Charter enunciates that the Tribunal, which practically co-exists with IPS, is established ?Ç£for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminal sin the Far East.?Ç¥ That the status of the Tribunal is more than ephemeral, is indicated by the last sentence of Art. 1 of the Charter, which states, ?Ç£The permanent seat of the Tribunal is in Tokyo.?Ç¥ Any remaining doubt as to the permanence of the status of the Tribunal would totally disappear with Art. 14 of the Charter which provides, ?Ç£P{lace of Trail. The first trial will be held at Tokyo, and any subsequent trials will be held at such places as the Tribunal decides.?Ç¥ Considering finally that the Justices, the Chief of Counsel and the Associate Prosecutors have been designated