The Yasukuni issue has become complicated.
Personally, I think the Tokyo Trial was a very poor trial with weak legal foundations. But that does not mean that simply rejecting international demands—mainly from China and South Korea—should be the only response.
Yasukuni Shrine is, in the first place, a shrine that enshrines those who died in war, and specifically combatants. The Class-A war criminals were executed after the war, so this was not a death in war, and some Class-A war criminals were not even combatants. Therefore, if a separate place were established to enshrine the Class-A war criminals currently enshrined there, and they were separated, then:
(1) from the standpoint of Yasukuni’s defenders, it would merely restore the shrine to its original form;
(2) China and South Korea would no longer have grounds for complaint.
Would that not be good for Japan? The point is not to say that Class-A war criminals should not be enshrined because they are criminals, but rather that Yasukuni has simply been restored to its original form as a place to enshrine combatants who died in war. That would allow the Yasukuni side to save face as well.
At the same time, China and South Korea would have no reason to find fault, so it would be all good for Japan. Of course, if that happened, they would probably find another reason to find fault.