次の文を読んで、問題に答えよ。
When the trial sessions were over, I put all these government decisions in chronological order, and you could clearly see from them how the standpoints had gradually hardened, how step-by-step the war came closer and closer.
I remember that one document did not fit at all into this development from peace to war. I sent the document to the Translation Office (we had an official translation office with one man appointed by the American government, one appointed by the Japanese government, and one by the Court). I sent the document to them and when it came back, it was apparent that previously it had been wrongly translated. The correct translation, made by the official Translation Office, fitted perfectly into its chronological context.
So I call upon my colleagues to meet in chambers, and said: I have a problem. We have a document that was wrongly translated. This wrong translation was used in Court and now the session is over. My proposal was to use the correct translation for our judgment. It was refused. We would have had to re-open the session and introduce the correct translation, so they said, because the wrong translation had been used in Court, and that was the evidence that was before the judges. I found that to be utter nonsense, especially as the Japanese had used the Japanese text, the original text, so they had nothing to do with a faulty English translation. I don’t know whether the majority opinion made use of the wrong translation, but it would be a silly business to render a judgment on the history of Japan knowing that a wrong translation was used. And it might have had a certain influence on Hirota’s sentence.
Antonio Cassese and B.V.A. Roling Estate (1993), The Tokyo Trial and Beyond―Reflections of a Peacemonger, p. 53
下線部の「problem」とは具体的にどんな問題か。
