JFBA Report under the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2)~ Recommendations to be included in the Concluding
Observations and Background Information ~Date: March 18, 2020
(Date of Publication: July 1, 2020)
Japan Federation of Bar Associations

(Table of Contents)
Introduction ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 4
A

Purpose and General Obligations (Article 1-4) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 61(a)Discriminatory Terms, including “Insanity” ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 61(b)Human Rights Model of Disability ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 6

1(d)Participation of Persons with Disabilities ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 71(e)Systematic Training for Professionals ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 7

2

Optional Protocol ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 8

B

Specific Rights (Article 5 – 30) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 8
3

Legal System on Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 5) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 8

4

Remedies Available in cases of Discrimination (Article 5) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 105(a)Mainstreaming of the Rights of Women and Girls with Disabilities (Article 6)ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 115(b)Measures for Ensuring Capability Development, Advancement andEmpowerment of Autonomous (Article 6) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 13

6(a)Mainstreaming of the Rights of Children with Disabilities (Article 7)ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 13

6(b)Right to Express their Views (Article 7) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 14

7(a)Measures to Combat Negative Stereotypes and Prejudices (Article 8)ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 15

8(a)Measures to Ensure Accessibility (Article 9) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 16

9(a)Measures to Ensure Compliance with the CRPD on Laws for Assisted Death(Article 10) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 179(b)Cases of Death due to Forced Hospitalization or Physical or Chemical
Restraint of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities (Article 10) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 18

10(a) Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Normative Framework for
Disasters (Article 11) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 19
10(b) Provision of Accessible Information in Case of Disaster (Article 11) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 21
10(c) Accessibility to Evacuation Shelters, etc. (Article 11) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 21
10(d) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Article 11) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 2210(e) Securement of Residence (Article 11) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 22
11(a) Repeal of the Laws restricting Rights to Equal Recognition before the Law
and Transition to Supported Decision-Making (Article 12) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 24
11(b) Support for Exercising Legal Capacity (Article 12) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 24
11(c) Awareness-raising (Article 12) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 25
12(a) Provision of Individualized Support and Procedural Accommodation in
1

Judicial Proceedings (Article 13) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 26
12(b) Awareness-raising Activities for those who are involved in the Judicial
System (Article 13) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 28
12(c) Ensuring Access to Justice by Persons with Psychosocial or Intellectual
Disabilities who are suspected of Criminal Acts (Article 13) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 28
13(a) Repealing of laws permitting forced hospitalization (Article 14) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 29
13(b) Increase in the Number of Hospitalizations of Persons with Intellectual or
Psychosocial Disabilities and Indefinite Hospitalization (Article 14) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 29
14(a) Measures to abolish Forced Medical Treatment (Article 15) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 30
14(b) Independent Monitoring System to investigate Violations of Rights (Article15) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 31
15

Measures for Investigation of Forced Sterilization Cases, Limitation of
Institution of Litigation and the Content of Compensation by the Lump-sum
Money Payment Act (Article 15) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 31

16(a) Protection from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse (Article 16) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 33
16(b) Violence against Women and Girls with Disabilities (Article 16) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 33
17

Legal and Practical Measures to Abolish Forced Sterilization (Article 17) ꞏ 34

18

Refusal of Entry into the Country Based on Disability (Article 18) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 35

19(a) Current Status of Deinstitutionalization (Article 19) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 36
19(b) Strategies for Deinstitutionalization and Allocation of Resources (Article 19)ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 38
20

Personal Mobility Support (Article 20) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 38

21(a) Promotion of Use of Sign Language (Article 21) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 39
21(b) Provision of Braille and Other Communication Means (Article 21) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 40
21(c) TV Broadcasting (Article 21)ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 41
21(d) Information Provision via the Internet (Article 21) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 41
23(a) Elimination of Discriminatory Provisions against Persons with Disabilities inLegislation, such as the Civil Code on all Matters related to Family Life,
Marriage and Divorce (Article 23) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 42
23(b) Family Separation due to Disability (Article 23) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 42
24(a) Inclusive Education (Article 24) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 43
24(b) Individualized Support, Reasonable Accommodation, Systematic Training of
Teaching and Non-teaching Personnel (Article 24) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 44
24(c) School Dropout Rates of Students with Disabilities (Article 24) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 452

25(a) Compliance with the CRPD on Laws and Regulations (in particular,
Intractable/Rare Disease Act) concerning Medical Care and Health Services
for Persons with Disabilities (Article 25) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 45
25(b) Scope of Health Services and Accessibility, etc. (Article 25) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 47
27(a) Transition to Open Labor Market (Article 27) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 48
27(b) Provision of Reasonable Accommodation and Support, Discrimination on theBasis of Disabilities in Employment (Article 27) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 49
27(c) Awareness-raising of Employers (Article 27) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 50
28(a) Housing Issues (Article 28) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 51
28(b) Guaranteed Income (Article 28) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 51
28(c) Social Protection and Support for Persons with Intellectual or Psychosocial
Disabilities after their Deinstitutionalization (Article 28) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 52
29

Guarantee of Opportunities to Vote and Accessibility to Information (Article29) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 52

C

Specific Obligations (Article 31 – 33) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 53
33

Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities (Article 33) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 54

34

Human Rights Monitoring Mechanism in Accordance with the Paris
Principles (Article 33) ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ 54

3

Introduction
JFBA submitted on June 19, 2019 to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities “JFBA Report on the Initial Report of the State Party Submitted by the Japanese
Government under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ~ Matters to be
included in the List of Issues and Background Information~” (hereinafter referred to as“Report 1”) and on September 23, 2019, JFBA participated in the briefing of Preliminary
Review by the Committee conducted in Geneva.
The Committee adopted on October 29, 2019 the “List of Issues in relation to the Initial
Report of Japan” (hereinafter referred to as “LOIs”).
This Parallel Report states the current status regarding the list of issues indicated in
LOIs and provides recommendations to be included in the Concluding Observations.
(Statements in this Parallel Report correspond to the alphabetic lettering and numbers used
to identify the list of issues in relation to the Initial Report of Japan. Details of the list ofissues are omitted and a summary of the text is stated as a headline in place thereof.) Parallel
Reports should be prepared based on Japanese Government replies to LOIs, but due to time
constraints, this Parallel Report was prepared without waiting for any formal response fromthe Japanese Government.
For further details on the background information of this Parallel Report, please refer tothe Report 1 and Data attached to the Report 1.
In this Parallel Report, the following abbreviations are used for names of conventions
and laws.
CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Discrimination Elimination Act: Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons
with Disabilities
Employment Promotion Act: Act for Employment Promotion etc., of Persons with
Disabilities
Comprehensive Support Act: Act on Comprehensive Support for Daily and Social Livesof Persons with Disabilities
Mental Health and Welfare Act: Act on Mental Health and Welfare for the Mentally
Disabled
Medical Treatment and Supervision Act: Act on Medical Care and Treatment for Persons
Who Have Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity
Abuse Prevention Act: Act on Prevention of Maltreatment of Persons with Disabilities
and Support for Attendants of Persons with Disabilities
4

Barrier-free Law: Act on Promotion of Smooth Transportation, etc., of Elderly Persons,
Disabled Persons, etc.
Intractable/Rare Disease Act: Act on Medical Care and Social Supports for Patients with
Intractable/Rare Diseases

5

A

Purpose and General Obligations (Article 1-4)1(a)Discriminatory Terms, including “Insanity” (Article 1 – 4)
(1)

Current Status
The term “insanity” is used in the Penal Code Article39, paragraph 1 and“diminished capacity” is used under the same Article, paragraph 2 and based on
this Article, the “Act on Medical Care and Treatment for Persons Who Have
Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity” was enacted. In addition,in the Police Duties Execution Act1, the disparaging term “mental derangement” isstill in existence2.
(2)

Proposals
Take measures that harmonize with the CRPD including measures towithdraw terms such as “insanity,” “diminished capacity” and “mental
derangement.”1(b)Human Rights Model of Disability (Article 1 – Article 4)(1)

Current Status
In various disability-related measures, including dicision for grant necessity

under the Comprehensive Support Act, disability certificates, disability pensions
and employment of persons with disabilities under the Employment Promotion
Act, a medical model has been applied and a human rights model has not been
adopted3.
(2)

Proposals[1]

For all laws, regulations and guidelines concerning disability-related

1

The Police Duties Execution Act was enforced as of July 12, 1948 and has not been amended since the last
amendment in June 1954.
2“In the event that a police official identifies a person who clearly falls under any of the following items,
judging reasonably on the basis of unusual behavior and other surrounding circumstance, and moreover has
reasonable grounds to believe that such person needs emergency aid and protection, the police official shallprovide such person with immediate protection at any appropriate place such as a police station, hospital,
facilities for housing persons with mental disease, shelters, etc.
1. A person who is likely to inflict injury on his or her own or others’ lives, bodies or property due to mental
derangement or drunkenness.
2. A lost child, a sick person, an injured person or the like who is not attended by any proper custodian andis considered to require emergency aid and protection (except in any case where such person refuses to
accept the same).” (Police Duties Execution Act, Article 3, paragraph 1)
3
Refer to Report 1, Article 1 to Article 4-1.

6

measures including dicision for grant necessity under the Comprehensive
Support Act, disability certificates, disability pensions and employment of
persons with disabilities, a human rights model of disability should be
adopted.
[2]

Indicate a schedule of amendment of laws in order to thoroughly
incorporate a human rights model.

1(d)Participation of Persons with Disabilities (Article 1 – Article 4)(1)

Current Status[1]

Participation of persons with disabilities at various levels of council,
which handle matters related to disabilities, is insufficient and in many cases,
participation is limited to persons with physical disabilities4.
For the Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities5, there is no[2]

provision to appoint a certain number or more of members from among
persons with disabilities. Persons with intellectual and psychosocial
disabilities have not been appointed as members, making this an extremely
unfair composition.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Take measures that ensure that persons with disabilities are able toparticipate in councils, etc., related to disabilities both at the national andlocal level.

[2]

Amend the Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities to specify that acertain number of persons with disabilities shall be appointed as membersof the Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities. Take measuresthat ensure that not only persons with physical disabilities but also persons
with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities shall be appointed as
members.

1(e)Systematic Training for Professionals (Article 1 – Article 4)
(1)

4
5

Current Status

Refer to Report 1, Article 1 to Article 4-2.
It is established in the Cabinet Office under the Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities, Article 32.

7

Among professionals who work with persons with disabilities, for social
workers, systematic training for the CRPD is conducted in training organized by
the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, however, training for members of the
judiciary and police and prison officials6, it is seldom or never conducted.
(2)

Proposals
Provide systematic training on the CRPD for professionals who work withpersons with disabilities (in particular, members of the judiciary and police andprison officials, etc.7).
2

Optional Protocol (Article 1 – Article 4)(1)

Current Status
No specific plan for ratification of the Optional Protocol has yet beenpresented.
(2)

Proposals
Ratify the Optional Protocol immediately and introduce individualcomplaints procedures8.
Specific Rights (Article 5 – 30)

B
3

Legal System on Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 5)(1)

Current Status[1]

In the Discrimination Elimination Act, definition of “Discrimination” isnot provided in Article 2 (Definitions) and there are no provisions that include
definitions of “disparate and unfair discriminatory treatment” and “nonprovision of reasonable accommodation.” (Article 7, Article 8).
Under the current Act, although “disparate and unfair discriminatory
treatment” and “non-provision of reasonable accommodation” are prohibited6

In addition to prison officers, including legal instructors and classification technical officials.
In addition to prison officers, including legal instructors and classification technical officials.
8
JFBA adopted a “Resolution Requesting the Implementation of an Individual Complaints Procedure and theEstablishment of a National Human Rights Institution” at the Human Rights Protection Conference as of
October 4, 2019.
(Japanese)
https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/document/civil_liberties/year/2019/2019_2.html(English)https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/document/statements/2019_2.html
78

as discrimination, it is not clear whether only direct discrimination but also
indirect discrimination and related discrimination are included in “disparate
and unfair discriminatory treatment.” Therefore, it can be interpreted in the
Act that indirect discrimination and related discrimination are not included.
[2]

Women with disabilities face, in particular, multiple discrimination andintersectional discrimination, but no provision prohibiting these forms of
discrimination exists, including in the Discrimination Elimination Act9.

[3]

Among state organs, only administrative organs are subject to prohibit
discrimination and the legal system on prohibition of discrimination is notapplicable to judicial and legislative organs.

[4]

Under the Discrimination Elimination Act, as a provision of reasonableaccommodation by private sector businesses, there is only an obligation to
make an effort10 11.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Establish a provision that includes a definition of discrimination in the
Discrimination Elimination Act and the content should clarify prohibitionof indirect discrimination, related discrimination, multiple discriminationand intersectional discrimination.

[2]

Conduct investigations and review measures for elimination ofmultiple and intersectional discrimination against women with disabilities.

[3]

Expressly provide in laws, including the Court Act, Code of Procedureand the Diet Act, that judicial and legislative organs shall be prohibitedfrom all forms of discrimination based on disabilities.

[4]

Amend the Discrimination Elimination Act to immediately establish aprovision with a legal obligation of reasonable accommodation by private

9

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Concluding observations on the combined
seventh and eighth periodic reports of Japan (Provisional Translation) March 2016/Recommendations: “13 (c)Enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits multiple/intersectional forms of
discrimination against women belonging to various minority groups, and protect them from harassment andviolence, in line with General Recommendation No. 28 (2010) on core obligations of States parties.”
10
In the area of employment, reasonable accommodation by private sector businesses is a legal obligation
under the Employment Promotion Act.
11
As of February 2020, in the “Opinions on Review after Three Years from Enforcement of the Discrimination
Elimination Act (Draft)” prepared by the Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities, the direction toestablish a certain “period of notification” until enforcement is recommended although reasonableaccommodation shall be the legal obligation of private sector businesses.

9sector businesses.
4

Remedies Available in cases of Discrimination (Article 5)(1)

Current Status[1]

In judicial procedures, it is interpreted that the Discrimination
Elimination Act and the Employment Promotion Act do not have any effectunder private law, however, where the fact of disparate and unfair
discriminatory treatment (in areas of employment and labor, denial ofreasonable accommodation in addition to disparate and unfair discriminatory
treatment,) was recognized, such act could be invalidated via the abuse ofrights doctrine, etc., or become an issue of a claim for damages under tort. At
the present time, however, there are few precedents that utilize theDiscrimination Elimination Act and the Employment Promotion Act12.

[2]

As administrative remedial procedures, there is an expectation that theDiscrimination Elimination Act will provide administrative guidance by thecompetent minister (requirement of reports, advice, guidance andrecommendations) (Article 12).
We have not obtained all information concerning the fact that the above
administrative guidance was conducted, but it is difficult to say it is working
sufficiently13.

[3]

While Article 14 of the Discrimination Elimination Act requires thecentral and local governments to “establish a system” for dispute resolution
related to discrimination, because it does not vest specific authority of
mediation and recommendation, etc., it is difficult to resolve individual

12
Judgment of the Kochi District Court as of April 10, 2018 ordered payment of consolation money, etc.,
because the disposition of failure in the entrance examination for public occupation training, conducted before
the enforcement of the Discrimination Elimination Act, was direct discrimination due to developmental
disability and illegal under the State Compensation Liability Act and also indicated if it was the selection after
the enforcement of the Discrimination Elimination Act, “we cannot deny possibilities that the framework of
judgment of direct discrimination will be required, because it is probable that qualification requirements would
be determined on presumption of provision of reasonable accommodation in the course of occupational
training.”
13
In the Discrimination Elimination Act, consultation contact is designated by field of business under the
response guidelines determined by the competent minister in order to eliminate discrimination by private sectorbusinesses, but due to the negative effect of vertical administration organizations, consultation contact varies
by field of business and it is extremely difficult for persons with disabilities to understand. Therefore, as it isdifficult to mark the beginning of administrative guidance, it seems that administrative guidance would hardly
be invoked.

10disputes effectively only under the current Act.
There is no new institution that has been established related to the dispute
resolution mechanism, including consultation, and it can be considered thatall dispute resolutions are left to local governments14.
[4]

According to Government statistics, while there is cross-tabulation bygender in the area of disability pensions, there are many cases where only
gender percentages are mentioned, because there are no actual gender
statistics. As very little data and information has been collected in terms of
multiple and intersectional discrimination, formulation and implementation ofpolicies based on the current status have not been conducted.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Publish the results (number of cases) of requirement of reports, advice,guidance and recommendations by the competent minister (including thosewhich were conducted by heads of local governments, etc., under the
Enforcement Order, Article 3) and the details on each fiscal year.

[2]

As a nation, clarify the consultation contact and enhance the dispute
resolution mechanism, including establishment of a new institution so that
persons with disabilities can seek remedies easily and promptly.

[3]

Investigate the matters concerning multiple and intersectional
discrimination, collect and organize public statistical materials that take
into consideration multiple and intersectional discrimination, including
remedial measures and sanctions, and publish the statistical data. Analyze
the statistical data and use the data as a guide for formulating policy,
including remedial measures and sanctions, toward elimination of multiple
and intersectional discrimination.

5(a)Mainstreaming of the Rights of Women and girls with Disabilities (Article 6)(1)

Current Status[1]

Under general gender equality policies, viewpoints of the rights ofwomen and girls with disabilities are not introduced. The Basic Act for Gender14

Some local governments have provided charters and established dispute resolution institutions, including
consultation, however, there is a large disparity among regions.

11Equal Society that promotes gender equality has no provision of the rights ofwomen and girls with disabilities15.
In gender equality policies, issues of women and girls with disabilities
have not considered and the rights of women and girls with disabilities havenot been treated as a policy issue.
[2]

No special legislations, policies and administrative measures to realize
the rights of women and girls with disabilities have implemented andmeasures to issues of multiple discrimination against women and girls withdisabilities have not progressed.
There is no clearly stated laws specifying the rights of women and girls
with disabilities.
As for the policy, the Basic Programme for Persons with Disabilities andthe Basic Plan for Gender Equality refer that women with disabilities are incomplicated and difficult situations, nevertheless no concreate measures,
specifically for women and girls with disabilities to promote human rights andfreedom equality, with resolving the complicated and difficult situations, havebeen taken.

[3]

Under the complicated and difficult situations, the disparities in
economic income of women with disabilities are significant, as the research
results data by private organizations show. 16 Extreme poverty prevents
financial independence and impedes social participation.

(2)

Proposals[1]

In general gender equality policies, the rights of women and girls withdisabilities should be mainstreamed.

[2]

In order to realize the rights of women and girls with disabilities,
establish domestic laws, formulate policies, upon clearly stating thatwomen and girls with disabilities are placed in complicated and difficult
situations, and take measures for realizing the rights (including judicial

15

The Basic Plan for Gender Equality, which provides for the measures under the Act, only states that various
measures will be promoted to improve the environment in which women with disabilities can live securely,
taking into consideration that they are likely to be in complicated and difficult situations (Fourth Basic Planfor Gender Equality, Field Eight, 2: b [7] of Specific efforts to improve the environment in which elderly
persons, persons with disabilities and foreign nationals, etc., can live securely).
16
Refer to Report 1, Article 6-1, footnote 16 and Data, Article 6-a.

12

remedy of rights).
[3]

Take measures such as employment support, etc., to resolve theincome disparities of women with disabilities and achieve financial
independence.

5(b)Measures for Ensuring Capability Development, Advancement and Empowermentof Autonomous(1)(Article 6)

Current Status
Although the Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities requires that measures

for independence and social participation of persons with disabilities must be
established and implemented according to gender, etc., no measures considering
women and girls with disabilities have been introduced.
(2)

Proposals
In order to ensure that women and girls with disabilities enjoy human rights

and fundamental freedoms, introduce measures for the purpose of developing its
capabilities, advance its knowledge and empower its autonomous of women andgirls with disabilities.
6(a)Mainstreaming of the Rights of Children with Disabilities (Article 7)(1)

Current Status
As a result that early detection and early rehabilitation of disabilities havebeen promoted through medical checkups of infants under the Maternal and Child
Health Act, children with disabilities are under measures exclusively for children
with disabilities, segregated from general measures to support child raising as
children in the local community17.
Segregation from other children in the local community through such earlyrehabilitation has resulted in a situation where children with disabilities are pushed
to enroll in special needs education schools and are segregated from other children

17

There are real situations where, while at preschool and after-school facilities for children, children withdisabilities have opportunities to be raised with children without disabilities, as a result that early detection andearly rehabilitation of disabilities have been promoted, in most cases, children with disabilities are undermeasures exclusively for children with disabilities, such as commuting to child development support and afterschool day service, admission to facilities for children with disabilities, etc., and children with disabilities aresegregated from the local community.

13

in the local community in place of regular elementary schools at the time ofenrollment in elementary education.
Under such circumstances, in order for children with disabilities to be raisedin the local community, it is required that they must be able to use such generalchildcare measures as preschools and after-school facilities for children. For that
purpose, in addition to a provision of reasonable accommodation, support
according to the characteristics of disabilities is essential and it is also necessary
to transition children from facilities to the local community.
(2)

Proposals[1]

In order for children with disabilities to be able to use generalchildcare measures, such as preschools and after-school facilities forchildren, in addition to a provision of reasonable accommodation, measures
must be taken accompanied by budgetary measures to provide support
according to the characteristics of disabilities (for after-school facilities forchildren, for example, modification of staffing standard of child support
staffs at after-school facilities and development of training programs forstaffs to learn to support children with disabilities).

[2]

Do not require children with disabilities to enter facilities by reason of
their having disabilities and if it becomes unavoidable to have children withdisabilities enter facilities, require establishment of an “independence
support plan” and adopt effective measures enabling transition to life in thelocal community.

6(b)Right to Express their Views (Article 7)(1)

Current Status
On February 1, 2019, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted

Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Japanand indicated that it was an urgent and important issue that the right of children to
express their views was not respected in Japan18.
18

The Committee on the Rights of the Child indicated in Concluding observations on the combined fourth andfifth periodic reports of Japan, “III. Main areas of concern and recommendations,” that respect for the viewsof the child is one of the areas with respect to which urgent measures must be implemented and indicated “theCommittee remains seriously concerned that the right of children to express their views freely in all matters

14

In the Child Welfare Act that provides for welfare services of admission orcommutation of children with disabilities younger than 18 years of age 19 , it isprovided that providers of commutation or admission services shall respect theviews of children with disabilities and their guardians as much as possible, butthere is no provision to ensure right of children to express their views or measures
for supporting expression of their views20.
In the field of education, the School Education Act, Enforcement Order only
provides that the views of parents/guardians shall be heard when children are to beenrolled in special-needs support schools when determining enrollment in schools
in elementary and secondary education, but with respect to the views of children,
opportunities and the right to express their views are not guaranteed. In the field of
medical care, there is no provision to ensure the right of children with disabilities
to express their views21.
(2)

Proposals
Include in the related laws the right of children with disabilities to express

their views in each field of welfare, education and medical care and adopt
measures for supporting expression of their views.
7(a)Measures to Combat Negative Stereotypes and Prejudices (Article 8)(1)

Current Status
From 1949 to 1996, under the former Eugenic Protection Law, roughly 16,500

affecting them is not respected (Paragraph 21)” and “recommends that the State party provide an environmentthat enables the child to exercise her or his right to be heard and actively promote meaningful and empowered
participation of all children in the family, schools, alternative care and health and medical settings, judicial andadministrative proceedings concerning them and the local community, and on all relevant issues, including
environmental matters (Paragraph 22).”
19
The Comprehensive Support Act that provides welfare services for children with disabilities, in principal,of 18 years or older, requires providers of welfare services to provide “accommodation to assisting Persons
with Disabilities, etc., to express their wishes” and in 2017, the Government indicated the “Guidelines for
Support for Decision Making in Use of Disability Welfare Services, etc.” However, support in decision-makingof children with disabilities younger than 18 years of age is limited to cases where services under the Act are
exceptionally allowed.
20
In most cases of children with disabilities who have difficulty in expressing their views, the views ofparents/guardians are regarded as the views of children.
21
In the area of medical care, the Medical Care Act provides that, in the delivery of medical care, a physician,dentist, pharmacist, nurse or other medical care professional shall give appropriate explanations and endeavor
to foster understanding in the recipients of medical care, but in case of children who are determined not to havethe ability to provide consent, no provision exists for not only informed consent but also rights to express theirviews.

15

forced sterilizations of persons with disabilities were performed without theconsent of those undergoing the surgeries, causing serious human rights violations.
It is reported that a former staff member of a support facility for persons withdisabilities, who was arrested as a suspect in the murder and injury of many persons
with disabilities on July 26, 2016, professed, “persons with disabilities must die”
and carried out his heinous act. Discriminatory thoughts and behavior toward
persons with disabilities existed in the past and persist today as demonstrated byeugenic thoughts and attacks and the financial burden on social welfare costs
derived from such thoughts. Dispelling and overcoming these situations are one of
the most compelling issues today.
Nevertheless, the report of a review team22 established by the Government
upon occurrence of the above-mentioned murder and injury case did not lead to a
specific analysis or review, although it listed the above issue as one of the items.
Human rights education and human rights awareness-raising measures against
eugenic thoughts and prejudice against persons with disabilities have notsufficiently been developed23.
(2)

Proposals
In order to dispel eugenic thoughts and prejudice against persons withdisabilities, formulate plans for human rights education and human rights
awareness-raising and take measures on a continuous basis.
8(a)Measures to Ensure Accessibility (Article 9)(1)

Current Status[1]

The Barrier-free Law provides only the obligation to endeavor to comply
with Barrier-free Standards (Accessibility Standards) imposed on existing

22“Report ~ Recommendations of Recurrence Prevention Measures” by the Examination and Recurrence
Prevention Measures Review Team on the Case at the Support Facility for Disabled Persons in Sagamihara
City (December 8, 2016)23
In the “Annual Report of 2016 on Policies concerning Human Rights Education and Human Rights
Awareness-Raising” provided for in the Act on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Human Rights
Awareness-Raising, Article 8, only reported that based on the above case, “a commemorative symposium washeld under the theme of ‘Reconsider what is a truly cohabitation society’ to deepen discussions on theimportance of respect for all lives and dignity and prepared a video program using Government public
information,” however, the above case was never mentioned in the Annual Report of 2017 and 2018 thereafter,
which demonstrates that specific human rights education and human rights awareness-raising measures todispel eugenic thoughts and prejudice toward persons with disabilities have not progressed.

16

public facilities and buildings.
[2]

In the Barrier-free Law and the Discrimination Elimination Act, there is
no provision for progressive obligation with respect to accessibility.

[3]

Buildings and public transportation facilities, on which the obligation tocomply with Barrier-free Standards is imposed at the time of new construction
or improvement, are limited to large-scale facilities or those which are usedby many people.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Impose obligation to comply with Barrier-free Standards on existing
public facilities upon establishment of a legislative deadline.

[2]

Establish a provision for progressive obligation with respect toaccessibility in the Barrier-free Law and the Discrimination Elimination
Act.

[3]

On buildings used by an unspecified number of people or mainly byelderly persons or persons with disabilities, etc., impose an obligation tocomply with Barrier-free Standards regardless of floor space and thenumber of users.

9(a)Measures to Ensure Compliance with the CRPD on Laws for Assisted Death(Article 10)(1)

Current Status[1]

Under Article 202 of the Penal Code, aid to commit suicide and kill atother’s request are severely punished. Accordingly, in Japan, euthanasia andassisting death are not permitted.

[2]Regarding discontinuation of “terminal phase” of treatment, etc., theGovernment established “Guidelines” in 2007 and amended them in March2018 to emphasize the importance of the “possibility that the wishes of aperson may change and the person’s desired way of life should be discussed
on a daily basis.”[3]

On the other hand, movement for legislation of “Death with Dignity Act”
to relieve liability of doctors who discontinued treatment by bipartisan

17members of the Diet has been ongoing since around 200524.
[4]

In October 2019, litigation was brought by a bereaved family against apublic hospital in Fussa City, Tokyo, claiming that “the patient died due todiscontinuation of treatment against the wishes of the patient requesting
withdrawal of discontinuation of treatment by artificial dialysis” in August
2018.

[5]

Compared with the choice to discontinue treatment, the patient’s
willingness to continue treatment is not respected in the medical field, and it
can be said that the person with a disability cannot be substantially guaranteed
the right to continue living while receiving medical support25.

(2)

Proposals
In light of the fact that Article 10 of the CRPD reaffirms the inherent rightof every human being, it is essential to implement discussions among the public
in order to consider the appropriateness of legislation of euthanasia and deathwith dignity and the Government should prepare a legal system ensuring thatrights and rights to life of persons with disabilities and patients are guaranteed.
That is, (i) enact legislation guaranteeing the rights of patients, including
the right to receive proper medical treatment and the principle of informed
consent to ensure the system and environment that truly realize medical care forpatients; and (ii) in the welfare legal system, etc., for persons with disabilities,
take measures for enhancing public care and support system that enables people
to live a secure home life while receiving public support, including medical care,
etc.
9(b)

Cases of Death due to Forced Hospitalization or Physical or Chemical Restraint of
Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities (Article 10)

24

The JFBA published on August 23, 2007, “Opinions on the Summary of the Bill for Discontinuation, etc.,
of Life Extension Measures in the Near-death Condition (Draft)” and on April 4, 2012, “Statement on the Billfor the Respect of the Wishes of Patients in Medical Treatment at the Terminal Phase (Provisional)” to oppose
the legislation.
25
The majority of ALS patients who were forced to choose not to use an artificial respirator because they areconcerned about their family, etc., died within several years (choice of self-death forced by society), whichindicates the reality of not guaranteeing the right to life of persons with disabilities and with intractable diseases
due to an inadequate welfare system for persons with disabilities, including public long-term care system, etc.

18

(1)

Current Status
Only the number of people who died during hospitalization, including

voluntary hospitalization, is published as official statistics26, but over the last 5
years alone, more than 1,800 persons have died each year in psychiatric hospitals.
The Government has not maintained statistics on the number of deaths during
or immediately after physical or chemical restraint and even when the Government
tried to investigate the current status of physical or chemical restraint, cooperationfrom hospitals could not be obtained. This is due to a system in Japan in which theauthority to restrain a person is given to private individuals without control andsupervision, which itself is a problem. According to reports, out of the cases where
the persons were restrained before death, there have been at least 47 cases whichwere determined to have “causal relationships” or “being unable to deny causal
relationships” with restraint as a result of judicial autopsy, which is just the tip of
the iceberg27.
(2)

Proposals
For persons with psychosocial disabilities who died in a hospital and during

or after physical or chemical restraint, investigate each situation at the time ofdeath (hospitalization form, mental and physical health condition, behavior andevents immediately before death, etc.) and the cause of death in addition to thenumber of cases and publish all results.
10(a) Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Normative Framework for
Disasters (Article 11)(1)

Current Status
As the normative framework for disaster countermeasures for persons withdisabilities, the Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities requires that disastercountermeasures shall correspond to gender, age and condition of disability andliving condition of persons with disabilities and provides for a mechanism in which
the Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities shall monitor disastercountermeasures included in the Basic Programme for Persons with Disabilities.
26

The nation should be aware of the number of deaths during forced hospitalization by use of cross-statistics.
In addition to the footnote 73, indicated in Report 1, Article 15-1 (1)[3], article from the Yomiuri Shimbun
September 1, 2019.
27

19

However, the Basic Act on Disaster Management which is the most basic act
on disaster countermeasures in Japan, does not require close consultations withorganizations of persons with disabilities or active involvement of organizations of
persons with disabilities in any of establishment, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of disaster countermeasures and opportunities for direct participation indisaster countermeasures by organizations of persons with disabilities are notguaranteed28.
In addition, the Act does not include any provision of reasonableaccommodation required to equally provide persons with disabilities with publicdisaster support, including a provision of evacuation shelters and temporary
housing offered for the general public, and in fact, because reasonableaccommodation was not provided, such unreasonable results occurred as persons
with disabilities were excluded from the use of evacuation shelters and emergency
temporary housing.
As for evacuation shelters, although there are welfare evacuation shelters,
they do not function effectively29.
As a measure exclusively for disabilities, the Act obligates municipalities toprepare a list of persons with disabilities and elderly persons who need support forevacuation, but establishment of an individual evacuation guide plan (IndividualPlan) for individuals with use of this list, is not required. Therefore, although lists
are prepared by 97% of municipalities, only 14% of these completed establishmentof an Individual Plan.
(2)

Proposals[1]

At all levels of national and local government, legally guarantee
opportunities for direct participation by organizations of persons withdisabilities in each area of establishment, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of disaster countermeasures.

[2]

As for public support offered for general residents, obligate to provide
reasonable accommodation necessary for persons with disabilities in the28

Participation is at the discretion of national and local government.
Although welfare evacuation shelters exclusively for persons with disabilities and elderly persons are to beestablished, as the mechanism of selecting only persons with severe disabilities and elderly persons who cannot
live at general evacuation shelters does not function and also the capacity to accept them is limited, the welfare
evacuation shelters have not functioned effectively.
29

20

Basic Act on Disaster Management.
[3]

Include provisions requiring municipalities to improve regional
disaster prevention support system for disaster support, including
establishment of an individual evacuation guide plan (Individual Plan) in
the Basic Act on Disaster Management.

10(b) Provision of Accessible Information in Case of Disaster (Article 11)(1)

Current Status
Systematic mechanism is not prepared to provide all persons with disabilities

with (i) advance information related to disaster, (ii) emergency evacuation
information in case of disaster, (iii) damage information due to disaster and (iv)
information related to disaster support.
(2)

Proposals
Ensure the effective mechanism to provide all persons with disabilities with(i) advance information related to disaster, (ii) emergency evacuation
information in case of disaster, (iii) damage information due to disaster and (iv)
information related to disaster support.
10(c) Accessibility to Evacuation Shelters, etc. (Article 11)(1)

Current Status
At many elementary and junior high schools, which serve as evacuation

shelters, physical barriers still exist such as steps and non-installation ofwheelchair-accessible toilets and no reasonable accommodation is provided toremove such barriers in case of disaster. Newly built emergency temporary
housing, in which toilets and baths are not wheelchair-accessible is far from
inclusive support.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Take such effective measures as establishing guidelines and providing
training and field training in order to provide reasonable accommodation,
taking into consideration the characteristics of each disability, age, andgender so that persons with disabilities can also use evacuation shelters,
21

temporary housing and any other disaster support services.
[2]

Take effective measures with targets and deadlines for achievement inorder to make schools and other public facilities which serve as evacuation
shelters accessible.

[3]

Establish minimum design standards so that emergency temporary
housing provided after the occurrence of a disaster is built according to auniversal design and meets individual needs of persons with disabilities andelderly persons as necessary.

10(d) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Article 11)(1)

Current Status“Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction,” adopted after the Great

East Japan Earthquake as a lesson from that experience, requires inclusive disasterrisk reduction prevention measures that did not exclude persons with disabilities,
but it was not utilized in the disaster support in the Kumamoto Earthquake,Northern Kyushu Heavy Rain Disasters, West Japan Heavy Rain Disasters andHokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake, which occurred thereafter.
In particular, efforts for disaster risk reduction and prevention measures must
be inclusive and accessible, but as stated above, they are exclusive and difficult toaccess.
Participation of organizations of persons with disabilities in disastercountermeasures have not been promoted, except for a few cases.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Establish and take measures to make inclusive and accessible efforts
for disaster risk reduction and prevention measures indicated in the “Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.”[2]

The Government should involve organizations of persons withdisabilities

asstakeholders

inestablishment

andplanning

and

implementation of policies, plans and standards for disasters at all levels ofnational and local government.
10(e) Securement of Residence (Article 11)(1)

Current Status
22

When a residence is destroyed by a disaster, various support is required until
reconstruction of life, together with securement of a new residence.
In particular, as persons with disabilities are more vulnerable to disaster than
general residents and less resilient, evacuation shelters and temporary housing aftera disaster should be accessible, and in addition, welfare services before a disastershould be continuously provided after a disaster or should meet new needs due toa disaster. In fact, there are problems in operation, such as existing services being
interrupted and new services being refused.
Placement of volunteers has not been sufficiently provided for persons withdisabilities30.
As for securement of a new residence, many persons with disabilities wholack economic resources have no choice but to look for rented housing, however,there are many difficulties they face in doing so31.
(2)

Proposals[1]

The Government should thoroughly inform local governments andprivate sector businesses so that welfare services will be provided
seamlessly in disaster situations and be able to meet new needs flexibly.

[2]

In the placement of disaster volunteers conducted by Councils ofSocial Welfare, take effective measures to deliver support to persons withdisabilities at home.

[3]

Take measures to support financially the efforts of organizations of
persons with disabilities providing disaster support to the affected persons
with disabilities at home.

[4]

Take measures to effectively prohibit discrimination due to disabilities
that occurs in securement of residence.

[5]

Take measures of financial support for facilities, equipment and30

For various support needs arising from destruction of housing, Councils of Social Welfare places generalvolunteers for general resident victims, but for victims with disabilities, in particular, persons with psychosocial,intellectual and developmental disabilities, Councils of Social Welfare rarely places general volunteers and inmany cases, persons with disabilities have been isolated in the region and could not dispose of debris and thedestroyed housing was left untouched. Therefore, organizations of persons with disabilities, etc., at the local
or national level had no choice but to address activities to support persons with disabilities at home without
funding.
31
In particular, persons with psychosocial disabilities were refused renting a room due to their psychosocial
disability and it was extremely difficult for them to find a new residence. There were few rooms for rent
accessible by persons with a physical disability and it was also very hard for them to pay remodeling costs.

23

repair, etc., required to make easier the use of residence by persons withdisabilities.
11(a) Repeal of the Laws restricting Rights to Equal Recognition before the Law andTransition to Supported Decision-Making (Article 12)(1)

Current Status[1]

On June 7, 2019, the “Act on Improvement of Related Laws to Optimize
the Measures for Restrictions on Rights of Adult Wards, etc.,” was enacted.
Under the Act, mechanisms establishing provisions, etc., which uniformly
exclude adult wards, etc., from qualifications, occupations and duties, etc.,(Disqualification Clause) were removed from about 180 laws. However, evenafter the enactment of the Act, as two-thirds of these laws establish an
individual examination provision that rights shall be restricted “where theperson is unable to perform duties properly due to mental and physicaldisorder,” there remains a risk of unduly restricting rights of persons withdisabilities.

[2]

Based on the Act to Optimize the Use of the Adult Guardianship Systemand the Basic Plan, for adult guardianship system, construction of a support
system to convert to a system focusing on supported decision-making has
been promoted. However, it remains only as an improvement in operation
based on the existing legal system, and the possibility of a fundamental
amendment of the law to shift to a system of substituted decision-making to asystem of supported decision-making was not mentioned.

11(b) Support for Exercising Legal Capacity (Article 12)(1)

Current Status
As many responses were given by professional guardians32 that they focus on

objective interest or make substitute decisions against the wishes of the person
when the person intends to make a decision different from the wishes of theirsurrounding people, supported decision-making by the person is insufficient. In
32

Responses to questionnaire surveys conducted by the JFBA. Refer to Report 1, Article 12-1 (1), footnote 39
and Data, Article 12-a. JFBA 58th Human Rights Protection Conference/Symposium, 2nd Sectional Group
Keynote Report “From ’Adult Guardianship System’ to ‘Supported Decision-Making System’” (Japan
Federation of Bar Associations, October 2015).

24

reality, activities of adult guardians are exclusively carried out in the direction ofmaintaining and managing the properties of the person 33 and it is up to
professional ethics and individual values of each adult guardian whether or not theguardian acts focusing on supported decision-making.
(2)

Proposals
Establish a series of frameworks in which persons with disabilities are able

to exercise their legal capacity equally, including amendment of laws so that
persons with disabilities can obtain support necessary to exercise their legal
capacity.
11(c) Awareness-raising (Article 12)(1)

Current Status
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare issued guidelines for supporters

to support decision-making by persons with dementia, providers of disability
welfare services, etc., and medical workers, etc., however, they have not been fully
disseminated.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Establish a supported decision-making system and conduct training byprefecture and municipality throughout Japan promptly and continuously
based on each of the decision-making support guidelines so that the system
can be developed.

[2]

In order to correct regional disparities, make a gradual effort topromote practices of decision-making support throughout Japan byestablishing a national scale organization to promote the supported
decision-making system in all locations throughout Japan, collecting andpublishing cases in which supported decision-making has been deployedbased on each of the decision-making support guidelines, developing
effective decision-making support tools, expanding subsidies to advanced

33

Some family courts in Japan prescribe the form of reporting activities of adult guardians or publish thestandards for calculation of compensation. However, the content of meetings with a ward by adult guardiansor the content or respect of the wishes expressed by a ward are not mentioned and there is a backgroundsituation that they are not fully considered as the subject of evaluation of activities of guardians.

25

organization and research institutions, adding compensation to service
providers, etc., practicing decision-making support, etc.
12(a) Provision of Individualized Support and Procedural Accommodation in Judicial
Proceedings (Article 13)(1)

Current Status[1]

In current procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure and Codeof Criminal Procedure, there is no provision which imposes legal obligation
to provide individualized support and procedural accommodation in civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings, upon determination of necessary
matters by individual for persons with disabilities34.
Therefore, when interrogation of witnesses is conducted via a sign
language interpreter in actual civil litigation, expenses for sign language
interpretation will be borne by the party as litigation expenses, whichconstitutes a barrier for persons with hearing disabilities to institutelitigation35.

[2]

Even where a person abandoned judicial proceedings or due process was
not guaranteed because physical accessibility of court buildings and judicial
and administrative facilities is inhibited, there is no provision specificallysecuring provision of procedural accommodation. Therefore, access for
persons with disabilities to use judicial proceedings is significantly
restricted36.

[3]

There is a provision in the current Code of Civil Procedure that may
restrict institution of litigation by reason of disabilities37, and also in the Code34
It is only provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 154, paragraph 1, “arrangements are made for aninterpreter to be present,” which does not require provision of procedural accommodation. In the Code of
Criminal Procedure, Article 176, it is provided, “If the court has a person who is unable to hear or speak makea statement, it may have an interpreter interpret said statement,” which does not require provision ofinterpretation.
While amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure has been currently promoted toward computerization of civil
litigation proceedings, etc., computerization should be implemented by universal design, and at the same time,
individualized procedural accommodation should be guaranteed.
35
When sign language interpretation is requested in application for interrogation of witnesses, advancepayment of interpretation expenses is required by courts.
36
At a prosecutors’ office, a wheelchair user was refused an interview with a lawyer due to a physical accessproblem. In such an event, there is no provision making such an act a reason for non-indictment or denying theadmissibility of evidence of the record of oral statements prepared thereafter.
37
It is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, “a minor or an adult ward may not perform any procedural act

26

of Criminal Procedure38, a person with a disability will continuously sufferfrom a disadvantage, including detention while a public trial has beensuspended for a long time because the person lacks litigation capacity due toa disability.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Provide a specific clause, in procedural laws such as the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure, to provide complete
procedural accommodation without the burden of a party with a disability,
including professional sign language interpretation, easy to read forms andBraille, etc. In particular, in computerization of judicial proceedings, etc.,
computerization should be implemented by universal design, and at the
same

time,

individualized

procedural

accommodation

shouldbeguaranteed.
[2]

Take measures to ensure provision of procedural accommodation,such as by providing provisions regarding exclusion from evidence whenprocedural accommodation was not provided in litigation procedure.

[3]

Take such measures as amending the Code of Civil Procedure so that
persons with severe intellectual or psychosocial disabilities are able toinstitute litigation as plaintiff without adult guardians.

[4]

Take such measures as amending the Code of Criminal Procedure so

except through a statutory agent” (Article 31). When a person, who is suspected of litigation capacity due tointellectual or psychosocial disabilities, is the accused, a special agent may be appointed by the court evenwhen there is no adult guardian (Article 35), however, there is no provision of special agents for a plaintiff.
Therefore, when there is no adult guardian for a person who is suspected of litigation capacity, a doubt is likely
to arise that such person may not institute litigation and accordingly, there are not a few cases where a personwith intellectual or psychosocial disabilities is reluctant to institute litigation. Due to the impact of the provisionof Article 35, a chilling effect arises, and this prevents persons with disabilities from instituting litigation.
38
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, “when the accused is in a state of insanity, the proceedings
shall be suspended while the accused is in such state, after hearing the opinions of the public prosecutor andthe counsel” (Article 314, paragraph 1). Therefore, when the accused is in a state of insanity, a public trial issuspended. When the accused is not expected to recover after the accused was in a state of insanity and a public
trial was suspended, a public prosecutor has the authority to withdraw prosecution (Article 257), however,there is no express provision for the court to dismiss prosecution when a public prosecutor does not withdraw
prosecution. Therefore, when a public prosecutor does not withdraw prosecution, there are many cases where
the accused remains the criminal accused until recovery from the state of insanity or death, while public trial
has been suspended for a long time, during which the person remains the criminal accused. We expect thedecision of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2016, which dismissed prosecution by applying Article 338
by analogy will be established as a precedent, but on the other hand, there is no movement toward amendmentof the Code of Criminal Procedure to specify that prosecution may be dismissed by a judgment when theaccused is not expected to recover from the state of insanity.

27

that persons with disabilities shall not continuously, in criminal
proceedings, suffer from a disadvantage, including detention while a public
trial has been suspended for a long time because the person lacks litigation
capacity due to a disability.
12(b) Awareness-raising Activities for those who are involved in the Judicial System(Article 13)(1)

Current Status
Training provided for judges, public prosecutors, staff of judicial and law

enforcement departments cannot be regarded as sufficient. In particular, training israrely provided for legal apprentices on characteristics of disabilities andawareness-raising. It can be provided as optional training, but now only a few
apprentices attend.
(2)

Proposals
Implement awareness-raising activities on a regular basis, including

training programs for understanding of disabilities, for lawyers, court staff,
judges, public prosecutors and law enforcement officials, including police andprison officers, etc.39
12(c) Ensuring Access to Justice by Persons with Psychosocial or Intellectual Disabilities
who are suspected of Criminal Acts (Article 13)(1)

Current Status
The current Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide that persons withdisabilities are able to obtain access to justice without discrimination on an equalbasis with others, and judicial organizations are not included even in the
Discrimination Elimination Act40.
39

In addition to prison officers, including legal instructors and classification technical officials.
In the Discrimination Elimination Act, as definitions of “administrative organ, etc.,” under Article 2(Definitions), item (iii), it is provided, “a state administrative organ, an incorporated administrative agency,
etc., a local public entity (excluding enterprises managing a local public entity subject to the application of theprovisions of Chapter III of the Local Public Enterprise Act (Act No. 292 of 1952); hereinafter the same applies
in paragraph (7), Article 10, and Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Supplementary Provisions) and a local
incorporated administrative agency,” but courts are not included therein. Therefore, the provisions ofprohibition of disparate and unfair discriminatory treatment against persons with disabilities and obligation toprovide reasonable accommodation under the Discrimination Elimination Act, Article 7 shall not directly be
4028

There is the provision of access to justice in the Basic Act for Persons with
Disabilities41, however, the Article only provides for the means of communication,out of procedural accommodation, and there is no law concretizing the Article.
(2)

Proposals
In criminal cases, take specific measures, including amendment of the laws

in order to ensure opportunities for persons with disabilities, who have difficultyin communication due to psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, to accessjustice on an equal basis with others.
13(a) Repealing of laws permitting forced hospitalization (Article 14)(1)

Current Status
Involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health and Welfare Act, Article

29, hospitalization for medical care and protection under the Act, Article 33 andhospitalization under the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act are systems
allowing forced hospitalization of persons in condition of psychosocial
disabilities42, but no measures have been taken to repeal them.
Also, the Mental Health and Welfare Act, Article 37 is a law that allows
restrictions on activities of hospitalized persons, but no measures have been taken
to repeal it.
13(b) Increase in the Number of Hospitalizations of Persons with Intellectual or
Psychosocial Disabilities and Indefinite Hospitalization (Article 14)(1)

Current Status
As for the forced hospitalization system named “medical care and protection”,

which account for more than 40% of patients hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals,
the amendment of 2013 of the Act resulted in easing the requirements for forced
applied to courts.
41“The national government and local public entities must provide accommodation to securing a means ofcommunication in accordance with the characteristics of individual persons with disabilities, provide training
for relevant officers, and take other necessary measures so that persons with disabilities are able to smoothly
exercise their rights in cases where a person with a disability has become subject to procedures relating to acriminal case or a protection case for a juvenile or has become subject to equivalent procedures, or in cases
where he or she has become a party or some other relevant person in the proceedings of a civil case, domestic
relations case, or administrative case at a court.” (Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities, Article 29)
42
Refer to Report 1, Article 14, 1 (1).

29hospitalization43.After the amendment, the number of hospitalization for “medicalcare and protection” temporarily decreased, but in recent years it is getting
increased again. Although there is a public service aimed for discharge from a
hospital, the budget is inadequate and it has been utilized in few cases. It cannot be
said that effective measures for reducing the number of hospitalizations have beentaken at all.
After the reduction policy of medical treatment fee for hospitalization of morethan 3 months was introduced to constrain the hospitalization period, 64% of
patients were discharged from a hospital in 3 months from hospitalization.
However, 20% of them returned to a hospital within 3 months from discharge and
36% returned to a hospital within 1 year, which demonstrates that the mechanism
is not a fundamental solution44. In addition, there are a considerable number ofhospital discharges due to death on a yearly basis45.
Measures to end indefinite hospitalization have not functioned and nomeasures have been taken for abolition of hospitalization for medical care andprotection in line with the purpose of the CRPD.
(2)

Proposals
Reduce the number of hospitalizations of persons with intellectual or

psychosocial disabilities and enhance medical and welfare services in thecommunity to end indefinite hospitalization.
14(a) Measures to abolish Forced Medical Treatment (Article 15)(1)

Current Status
There are some cases in which forced electroconvulsive therapy and forced

medication are provided for persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities,
not in compliance with laws46. Also, physical and chemical restraints, including
isolation and other non-consensual, humiliating and degrading practices, are often
43

For involuntary hospitalization for medical care and protection, “consent of the family, etc.,” is required,
which means the scope of persons who may give consent has basically expanded to family members from
guardians, although the requirements for consent by heads of municipalities have become stricter.
44
Mental Health and Welfare Data 201745
According to Mental Health and Welfare Data 2012 and 2013, among the group of persons who are over 65
years old and hospitalized for more than 5 years, about one-third of them die in hospitals on a yearly basis.
46
Refer to Report 1, Article 17-1 (1) [2].

30

used and there is no reliable means of examination by a third-party institution47.
No measures have been taken to abolish these practices.
14(b) Independent Monitoring System to Investigate Violations of Rights (Article 15)(1)

Current Status
The Psychiatric Review Board, which is supposed to review procedures forrequest for hospital discharge and for improvement of treatment under the Mental
Health and Welfare Act, has its secretariat positioned in the administrative entity(Prefecture), whose independence is not ensured. As for discharge andimprovement of treatment, the main mechanism of review is triggered if it isrequested by patients, and investigation authority for violation of rights cannot be
exercised ex officio and no appeal system is established against the decision of theBoard 48 . The Board is also supposed to review reports of hospitalization for“medical care and protection” and periodic disease condition reports, but more than
99% of these are approved as they are 49 , which cannot be considered to be
performing the function of a Review Board.
(2)

Proposals
Make the Psychiatric Review Board a third-party institution independent

from national and local government, reconsider the composition of the members,
place members on duty at all times, establish an appeal system, reliably appoint
a representative for a patient claiming violation of rights, and formulate a statebudget for that purpose.
15

Measures for Investigation of Forced Sterilization Cases, Statute of Limitation and
the Content of Compensation by the Lump-sum Money Payment Act (Article 15)

47

Refer to Report 1, Article 15-1 (1) [3].
As stated in Report 1, Article 15-2 (1), we cannot say that the Psychiatric Review Board has been fully
functioning, and in addition, there are only 3,706 cases of request for hospital discharge in a year throughout
Japan, including multiple requests for one person, and only 1.9% of all patients who are newly subject to forced
hospitalization and only 2.8% of patients subject to forced hospitalization as of June 30 used the review system(Report on Public Health Administration and Services in 2018 and Mental Health and Welfare Reference Data
2018). There is concern about whether the existence of the system is properly informed to patients and whether
all requests from patients are accepted. The monitoring system to investigate violations of rights without
waiting for requests by patients is required, however, the current Psychiatric Review Board has no such
authority.
49
Report on Public Health Administration and Services
48

31

(1)

Current Status[1]

In order to investigate forced sterilization cases carried out under theformer Eugenic Protection Law, investigation of the status of retention ofrelated materials was conducted50. However, a fact-finding investigation of
the actual situations of individual victims was not conducted based on theabove investigation results51.

[2]

The Sendai District Court dismissed the claims of women who brought
litigation seeking compensation from the national government by reason ofelapse of the statute of limitation 52 although the court admitted that theformer Eugenic Protection Law was unconstitutional.

[3]

Amount to be paid under the “Act on the Provision of Lump-sum
Compensation to Persons Who Received Eugenic Surgery, under the Former
Eugenic Protection Law” (hereinafter referred to as “Lump-sum Money
Payment Act”) is uniformly ¥3,200,00053.

(2)

Proposals

50

Results of Investigation of Status of Retention of Materials related to the former Eugenic Protection Law at
Prefectures and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_01166.html
Results of Investigation of Status of Retention of Personal Records related to Eugenic Surgeries at Medical
Institutions, Welfare Facilities and Municipalities other than Municipalities where the Public Health Office islocated: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_02047.html
51
Although the Government recognizes some of the surviving victims as a result of the above investigation,
the Government did not take measures to directly call for application of lump-sum money.
52
In the precedents of the Supreme Court, a 20 year limitation period provided in relation to rights to a claim
for damages under tort in the latter paragraph of the Civil Code, Article 724 are interpreted as the statute oflimitations, and as the provision of statute of limitations is provided for promptly fixing the legal relationshipunder tort, the period of 20 years has been uniformly determined as the survival period of a right to file a claim
in order to fix the legal relationship upon elapse of a certain period of time, regardless of the recognition of
victims. Judgment of the Sendai District Court rejected the argument of plaintiff claiming not to apply theprovision of the statute of limitations to this case because uniform application of the statute of limitations tothis case would completely deny recovery of damages caused by human rights violation by the national
government and thus lacks rationality and necessity as the means to achieve the objective of the system ofstatute of limitations (Judgment of the Sendai District Court as of May 28, 2019, Hanrei Jiho No. 2413-2414,
p. 3).
53
The number of applications accepted for the period from April 24, 2019 to November 3, 2019 after
enforcement of the Act was 709 cases, out of which, the number of the approved cases at the end of November
2019 was 274 cases (male: 72 persons, female: 202 persons).
In addition, the nature of the payment is not indemnification or compensation but lump-sum money, whichmeans the national government has not formally admit their responsibility causing such violation of humanrights. The period for application is as short as 5 years, and persons covered by the Act are limited to living
persons. Individual notification is not given and only a summary of the Act is posted on the website, whichmeans information provided under the Act is insufficient to make it easier for persons with disabilities to use.
Application for lump-sum money requires submission of medical certificates, which also makes the application
process difficult to access.

32

Reconsider the content and the process of application under the Lump-sum
Money Payment Act so that adequate compensation shall be paid to all persons
with disabilities who were victims of the former Eugenic Protection Law, andamend the Act to make the application process accessible to persons withdisabilities.
16(a) Protection from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse (Article 16)(1)

Current Status[1]

Schools, nursery schools, etc., medical institutions and criminal
detention facilities, etc.,54 are exempt from reporting obligations under the
Abuse Prevention Act55.

[2]

Under the Abuse Prevention Act, statistical surveys of abuse of persons
with disabilities have been conducted and many cases have beenreported.

The Abuse Prevention Act, however, has not established a specialized
investigation and remedial institutions and as the Act delegates investigationof abuse and protective measures to municipalities and prefectures, there are
more than just a few cases in which prompt protection and sufficient remedy
could not be provided56.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Amend the Abuse Prevention Act to include schools, nursery schools,
etc., medical institutions and criminal detention facilities, etc., 57 as thetargets of reporting obligations.

[2]

Take legal measures to establish an independent third-party
monitoring institution of abuse of persons with disabilities.

16(b) Violence against Women and girls with Disabilities (Article 16)(1)

Current Status

54

Including juvenile classification homes and juvenile training schools.
Refer to Report 1, Article 7 and Article 16-1.
According to the Abuse Prevention Act, while the Government is supposed to review the appropriateness, etc.,of the system of prevention, etc., of abuse of persons with disabilities at schools, nursery schools, etc. medical
institutions and public agencies, etc., and implement necessary actions in 3 years from the enforcement of the
Act (enforced as of October 1, 2012) (Supplementary Provision, Article 2), such measures have not been taken
at the present time.
56
Refer to Report 1, Article 16-2.
57
Including juvenile classification homes and juvenile training schools.
55

33

There is no official statistical survey of sexual victimization and sexual
violence against women and girls with disabilities. According to a fact-finding
investigation conducted by a private organization, however, 35% of the
respondents experienced sexual victimization and a large number of instances ofabuse by guardians have been reported.
In particular, women and girls with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities
tend to become targets of sexual victimization, and remedy for whom is insufficientdue to characteristics specific to such disabilities as difficult to seek

promptrelief58.
(2)

Proposals
In order to prevent sexual victimization and sexual violence against womenand girls with disabilities, clarify the current status by a fact-finding
investigation of victimization and take necessary measures. Provide sexual
education, including reporting method, etc., in case of sexual victimization.
Furthermore, take appropriate measures to remedy victimization, including
judicial remedy59,
17

Legal and Practical Measures to Abolish Forced Sterilization (Article 17)(1)

Current Status
In 1996, eugenic surgery provisions under the former Eugenic Protection Law

were eliminated. By the amendment, forced sterilization of persons withdisabilities was legally abolished. As no measures to abolish forced sterilization
were, however, taken in practice60, even after the former Eugenic Protection Law
was changed to the Maternal Health Act, sterilization surgery was in fact conducted

58

Refer to Report 1, Article 6-2.
Under the Supplementary Provisions, Article 9 of the Act Partially Amending the Penal Code (Act No.72 of2017), “Fact-finding Investigation Working Group for Review of Measures related to Sexual Crimes” wasestablished to contribute to review of measures corresponding to the reality, etc., of sexual crime cases, taking
into consideration the current situations of sexual crimes, aiming at 3 years after enforcement of the Act.
On September 24, 2019, hearings from the family members of persons with disabilities who suffered fromsexual crimes on the matters they experienced in criminal proceedings, etc., and hearings from organizations,etc., involved in awareness-raising activities about sexual violence against persons with disabilities on thenecessity of accommodation based on actual circumstances of sexual violence against persons with disabilities
and actual circumstances of disabilities were conducted.
60
In the litigation over state liability under the former Eugenic Protection Law, the Government admitted thatit did not take any measures after abolishment of the former Eugenic Protection Law.
59

34

against the wishes of persons with disabilities61.
On April 24, 2019, the Lump-sum Money Payment Act was enacted,
promulgated and enforced, however, the content is insufficient62. As the scope of
the Act is limited to sterilization surgery, etc., conducted under the former Eugenic
Protection Law 63 , it does not cover sterilization surgery, etc., conducted after
enforcement of the Maternal Health Act in 1996.
(2)

Proposals
Take appropriate measures to abolish forced sterilization of persons withdisabilities in practice, and apologize to persons with disabilities who wereforced to undergo sterilization surgery against their wishes regardless of the timeof surgery as well as take appropriate measures, including compensation
legislation, etc.
18

Refusal of Entry into the Country Based on Disability (Article 18)(1)

Current Status
Regarding entry of foreign nationals to Japan, under the Immigration Control

and Refugee Recognition Act, persons with psychosocial disabilities who meet therequirements of the laws may be refused entry64.
In addition, there is a dominant Japanese interpretation as well as precedentthat it is natural not to guarantee foreign nationals freedom of entry under thecurrent international customs law, and it is assumed under international law that61

A man with a psychosocial disability residing in Iwate Prefecture was forced to undergo sterilization surgery
due to his disabilities 7 years after the former Eugenic Protection Law was changed to the Maternal Protection
Act (Kahoku Shimpo, January 23, 2018).
62
Eligibility is limited to persons who underwent eugenic surgery and do not include spouses. Artificial
abortion is not covered either. Amount of payment is small. Procedures for filing claims are not easy for persons
with disabilities to use.
63
In addition to those who underwent eugenic surgery under the former Eugenic Protection Law, including“those who underwent sterilization surgery or radiation in Japan (except for the cases it is apparent that persons
who underwent sterilization surgery or radiation only by any of the reasons set forth below)” during the period
between September 11, 1948 to September 25, 1996. “a. Protection of maternity; b. treatment of uterus cancer
or any other disease or injury; c. the person does not desire to have a child; d. other than that set forth in c., theperson desires to undergo sterilization surgery or radiation” (Lump-sum Money Payment Act, Article 2,paragraph 2, item 5)
64
Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, Article 5, paragraph 1, item 2 provides, “a person who,
due to a mental disability, is constantly unable to understand right from wrong or whose capacity for such
understanding is significantly lacking, and is not accompanied by those persons provided for by Ministry ofJustice Order to assist him or her in engaging in activities in Japan” is denied permission to land on Japan.

35

refusal of entry of foreign nationals who may cause harm to the safety and welfareof the state is vested in the sovereign right of the state and refusal of entry into thecountry is determined at the discretion of the state.
However, on the other hand, ratification of the CRPD, which prohibits in allareas discrimination on the basis of disability, can be interpreted as acceptance byJapan of not discriminating against persons with disabilities with respect to thepolicy for entry of foreign nationals into Japan. In addition, the provision limits
refusal of entry to cases where a person with a disability is not accompanied by anattendant, but necessity of attendants is not only limited to persons withpsychosocial disabilities, and therefore, it seems that such limited refusal lacks
reasonability65. It seems that fear of psychosocial disabilities with regard to harmto the safety and security of the state or welfare of the people is the underlying
provision. However, it is rooted in prejudice against psychosocial disabilities66.
(2)

Proposals
Repeal Article 5, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Immigration Control andRefugee Recognition Act that authorizes refusal of entry into Japan due to “amental disability” regarding entry of foreign nationals.
19(a) Current Status of Deinstitutionalization (Article 19)(1)

Current Status[1]

About 152,700 persons with disabilities are living in institutions67. Morethan 278,000 persons with psychosocial disabilities are hospitalized in
psychiatric hospitals68.

[2]

192,625 persons with disabilities are using personal support (careservices) in their homes in the community under the disability welfare system

65

Looking at the provision that require the accompaniment of an assistant, it seems that the necessity of careis the basis for the provision. However, accompaniment of an assistant is not a condition for persons withsevere disabilities who need care at all times.
66
It seems unlikely that there is objective data that persons with disabilities cause greater harm to security andwelfare than other foreign nationals without disabilities. Even if a problem arises, it seems that the principle ofequality would be met by application of domestic laws to address such a problem, in a similar manner to otherforeign nationals without disabilities.
67“Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, June 2019, Status of Use of Welfare Service, etc., for Persons
with Disabilities”
68
Survey of patients by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2017)36

(as of June 2019).
However, as the expense for care services paid by the Government is set
at a low level69, it is very rare that constant care services are provided for
persons with severe disabilities who essentially need daily support and not a
few cases have been disputed before the courts.
There are only a limited number of welfare services which can be usedby persons with psychosocial disabilities who are hospitalized in psychiatrichospitals.
[3]

In addition, the Government prohibits use of care services during work,commutation to workplaces and schools 70 . Therefore, many persons withdisabilities have had to abandon employment although they are willing to
work.

[4]

There is a law requiring a person with a disability to use long-term careinsurance when the person reaches 65 years of age71 and elderly persons withdisabilities find it difficult to use the disability welfare system, resulting inmany human rights violation cases72.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Take specific measures to transform institutions into community life
support centers, etc.

[2]

Increase budget and develop personnel specifically to realize 24-hour
personal assistant systems.

[3]

Revise the system so that persons with disabilities to enable the use ofcare-givers (support staffs) under the disability welfare system during work,commutation to workplaces and schools.

[4]

Abolish the principle of priority of long-term care insurance toguarantee rights to use the disability welfare system regardless of age of
persons with disabilities.

69

National Treasury Burden Standards, “Standards for the Amount of Burden of Disability Welfare Service
Expenses, etc., specified by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare” (Notification No. 530 as of September
29, 2006 of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare).
70
Notification No. 523 as of September 29, 2006 of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
71
Comprehensive Support Act, Article 7 “Principle of Priority of Long-term Care Insurance”
72
Judgment of Hiroshima High Court, Okayama Branch as of December 13, 201837

19(b) Strategies for Deinstitutionalization and Allocation of Resources (Article 19)(1)

Current Status[1]

Allocation of budgets related to disabilities in Japan is about 1% of GDP,
which is low compared to other countries73.

[2]

Out of the budget for persons with psychosocial disabilities, medical
costs account for about 97% and expenses for community life support are only
3%.

[3]

Many persons do not have support system involved with supporters
outsideofhospital

includingfamilymembersdue

tolong-term

hospitalizations at psychiatric hospitals. Because if there is no supporters
outside of hospital, the person cannot be discharged from a hospital and manyare “discharged” only after death. The Government seems not to take any
action to improve the support system.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Increase the allocation of budgets related to disabilities to 4% of GDP
of Japan.

[2]

Develop a specific plan for reducing beds of psychiatric hospitals.

[3]

Abolish unnecessary long-term hospitalizations in psychiatrichospitals and take specific measures for transition to community lives.
Provide persons with psychosocial disabilities who are hospitalized formore than one year (more than 200,000 persons) with individualized
support necessary to live in the community.

[4]

As for allocation of budgets for persons with psychosocial disabilities,
transfer to those centering on social welfare services from hospitalizationand medical costs.

20

Personal Mobility Support (Article 20)(1)

Current Status[1]

Under the Comprehensive Support Act, accompanying support (Article

73

Refer to Report 1, Article 19-2 (1) [1] and Data, Article 19-a. “Positioning of Japanese Policies for
Persons with Disabilities in terms of International Comparison - Considering International Comparative
Study and Comparison of Cost Statistics - Yukiko Katsumata,” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,“National Institute of Population and Social Security Research” the Quarterly of Social Security Research
2008, (Autumn 2008), p. 145.

38

5, paragraph 4) is supposed to be provided for persons with visual disabilities
considering each person’s needs and situation, however, there are restrictions
on the circumstances and the amount of payment. For example, it does not
apply to commutation to workplaces and schools and the upper limit is 50
hours per month. Despite the role of the accompanying support ofguaranteeing accessibility to information to persons with visual disabilities,
the above-mentioned restrictions limit guaranteeing accessibility to
information to persons with visual disabilities.
[2]

As community life support services under the Comprehensive Support
Act, Article 77, paragraph 1, item 8, mobility support services are supposed
to be provided on each municipality’s responsibility, but some municipalities
have not provided such services74. As of March 2011, probably about half ofthe municipalities throughout Japan have not provided such services. In
addition, similar to accompanying support, there are restrictions on thecircumstances and the amount of payment.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Take measures to cause local governments not to restrictcircumstances and the amount of payment of the accompanying support.

[2]

Take measures to ensure mobility support services in all regions andabolish the restrictions on circumstances and the amount of payment.

21(a) Promotion of Use of Sign Language (Article 21)(1)

Current Status
On March 3, 2016, all assemblies of local governments in Japan adopted

statements of opinions requesting to enact Sign Language Law and submitted themto the Diet and the Government. On June 14, 2019, four opposition parties andparliamentary groups submitted to the House of Representatives a sign language
bill and an information communication bill, but any decisions still have not been
made.

74

“Survey of Differences among Communities in Community Life Support Services” (March 2011, NPO
Corporation, Kanagawa Welfare Association for Persons with Visual Disabilities)
http://npo-kanagawa.org/houkoku2011.html

39

(2)

Proposals
Enact a Sign Language Law that provides for specific guarantee of rights

related to sign language.
21(b) Provision of Braille and Other Communication Means (Article 21)(1)

Current Status[1]

Regarding books, etc., on June 21, 2019, the “Act on the Promotion of
Improvement of Reading Environment of Persons with Visual Disabilities,etc.” (Reading Barrier-free Act) was enacted. However, the Act has a strong
characteristic of philosophical law, and in addition to the fact that specificmeasures to be taken by the administration were not provided, the obligationof publishers to provide persons with disabilities and support organizations
with electronic data, which was requested by organizations of persons withdisabilities, was not included. Therefore, there are serious concerns about theeffectiveness of the Act.

[2]

Under the Comprehensive Support Act, the scope of the communication
support services75 is limited and there are local public entities which do notprovide the services or those which provide fee-based services76.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Enact a law on information accessibility and establish standards withlegal force thereunder.

[2]

Expand the scope of communication support services, uniformly
impose obligations on all local public entities in Japan and provide support
services that do not require users to pay for the services.

75

This refers to the “system of dispatching and developing persons who provide communication support.”
Under the former Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities Act (the former act of the Comprehensive
Support Act) only stated dispatch or development of persons who provide “sign language interpretation, etc.”
Under the Comprehensive Support Act, “refers to support communication between persons with disabilities
and persons without disabilities include not only sign language interpretation and summary writing for persons
with hearing disabilities but also touching sign language and finger Braille for persons with visual and hearing
disabilities, substitute reading and writing for persons with visual difficulties, communication with persons
with intellectual and developmental disabilities and communication by communication boards for persons withsevere disabilities” and using the expression of “communication support,” the concept was made to be widelyinterpreted.” (Partial citation from the website of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare)
76
Refer to Report 1, Article 21-2.

40

21(c) TV Broadcasting (Article 21)(1)

Current Status
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications established in February

2018 “Guidelines for Information Accessibility in Broadcasting,” in which thelevel of numerical targets of closed-captioned and audio description broadcasts wasincreased and the numerical targets for sign language broadcasting were
established, however, these targets merely encourage voluntary efforts of eachbroadcasting operator and the implementation ratio remains at a low level as of
2018.
(2)

Proposals
Enact a law that obligates broadcasting operators to provide sign language

broadcasts, teletext broadcasts and audio description.
21(d) Information Provision via the Internet (Article 21)(1)

Current Status
In Japan, in accordance with the standards of W3C Consortium, the Japan

Industrial Standards (JIS) provide guidelines for making Web use easier for
persons with disabilities including visual disabilities and elderly persons 77 .
However, these are merely guidelines and lack any enforcement force. As a result,
there are many websites to which persons with visual disabilities cannot access orare extremely difficult to access, because they overemphasize images orincorporate complicated systems to move images on a screen.
(2)

Proposals
Enact a law that imposes an obligation of accessibility for persons withdisabilities on websites operated by the Government, independent administrative
organs, local governments, local independent administrative organs, business
operators (all business operators included in “business operators” under the
Discrimination Elimination Act whether for profit or nonprofit, or sole
proprietors).

77

It is JIS X 8341-3:2016 ‘Guidelines for Accommodation Design for Elderly Persons and Persons with
Disabilities, etc. - Devices, Software and Services in Information Communication - Part 3: Web Content’41

23(a) Elimination of Discriminatory Provisions against Persons with Disabilities inLegislation, such as the Civil Code on all Matters related to Family Life, Marriage
and Divorce (Article 23)(1)

Current Status
In the case of divorce, the Civil Code, Article 770, paragraph 1, item 4

provides for severe mental illness with no prospect of recovery as a cause fordivorce.

The wording; a cause for divorce, demonstrates an aspect of

discrimination against persons with psychosocial disabilities.
(2)

Proposals
Take measures, for example, to eliminate promptly the above cause fordivorce from the Civil Code, Article 770 since defining mental illness as a cause
for divorce conflicts with the CRPD.
23(b) Family Separation due to Disability (Article 23)(1)

Current Status
The “Community life support services” stated in the State Party Report areservices for overall daily life and social life, which are not specialized for childcare
support for persons with disabilities. In addition, this does not function sufficiently
to provide childcare support and environment improvement where persons withdisabilities can become pregnant and give birth and raise children securely
regardless of the existence of disabilities78.
(2)

Proposals
In order to make childcare support for persons with disabilities effective,

conduct a survey on what kinds of support are necessary for childcare for persons
with disabilities, and based on the survey results, take measures for legislating
childcare support and environmental improvement for persons with disabilities

78

In June 2011, in connection with a child continuing education at a technical school, in order to attend an
explanation meeting for guardians at an open campus held outside of Takamatsu City, where the guardian was
residing, the guardian requested dispatch of a sign language assistant, but dispatch of a sign language assistant
was refused by Takamatsu City as attendance at an explanation meeting for guardians which was held outsideof the City and at the open campus was not considered important, and litigation was instituted against thedecision of the City. Refer to Report 1, Article 24-1.

42

to allow them to become pregnant, give birth and raise children securely without
regional disparities.
24(a) Inclusive Education (Article 24)(1)

Current Status[1]

For school selection, it was decided to respect the opinions of thechildren and parents/guardians as much as possible, but occasionally, there
are cases where a special needs education school is selected against theopinions of the children and parents/guardians79.
Segregated education against the opinions of the children andparents/guardians should be limited to unavoidable cases such as life and bodyof the child would be endangered without segregation.

[2]

Human and technical measures for transition to inclusive education havenot been taken.
School education expenses per child at a special needs education schoolare 7.7 times of a regular elementary school and 6.7 times of a regular juniorhigh school80.

(2)Proposals[1]

Explicitly provide in relevant laws that inclusive education shall be
the principle.

[2]

Explicitly provide in relevant laws that opinions of the children andparents/guardians must be respected to the maximum extent in school
selection.

[3]

Allocate a budget of an equivalent amount as the budget per childenrolled at special needs education schools to children with disabilities
enrolled at regular schools.

[4]

Allocate a budget to promote inclusive education81.

79
The case which was subject to litigation is the Yokohama District Court (Admin. U) No. 58 of 2018. In thiscase, Kanagawa Prefecture argues that the decision of enrollment at a special needs education school wasappropriate although it admitted it was against the opinions of the parents/guardians.
80
Statistics of 2018 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/10/28/1406445_000.pdf p. 6 (10)81
General Comment No. 4, paragraph 69

43

24(b) Individualized Support, Reasonable Accommodation, Systematic Training of
Teaching and Non-teaching Personnel (Article 24)(1)

Current Status[1]

There are budgetary measures for special needs education assistants andbudgetary measures for nursing staff for children and students in need of
medical care, however, measures vary depending on each community andbudgets are insufficient.
Securement of personnel and budgeting for reasonable accommodation
for children and students with disabilities enrolled at regular schools are
insufficient82.

[2]

There are no measures for preventing denial of reasonableaccommodation.

[3]

While compulsory education is limited to junior high schools in Japan,
for entering high schools, as reasonable accommodation for conducting andevaluating entrance examinations are insufficient, entering high schools
which is upper secondary education is hindered83 84.

[4]No training on high-quality inclusive education was provided forteaching and non-teaching staff85.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Explicitly provide in relevant laws that reasonable accommodationmeans modification and adjustments in learning content, evaluation
methods and school life in individual cases on the premise of integrationand not “special needs support” under segregated education.

[2]

Legislate processes of determining the procedure for requesting82

There are many cases where reasonable accommodation was not provided, such as children must be
accompanied by a parent when parents chose to have their children enroll regular schools or students withdisabilities were treated uniformly with other students.
83
According to State Party Report, Statistics 26, it seems that nearly 90% of students go to high school, but
this is the rate of entering special needs high schools from special needs junior high schools.
84
As shown in State Party Report, Statistics 22, “Number of special needs education schools, number ofenrolled students and number of teaching and non-teaching staff - Total of national, public and private-,”indicating that the number of students enrolled at junior high schools doubled at high schools, there arecircumstances in which students graduated from regular junior high schools abandoned entering high schools
and had to select special needs high school because they could not receive reasonable accommodation.
85
State Party Report, Paragraph 161 states that sign language and Braille are included in training, but notraining is provided on how students and children using sign language and Braille learn with other children andstudents learning at regular schools.

44reasonable accommodation and content of reasonable accommodation inschool education.
[3]

Provide reasonable accommodation for the method of conducting
entrance examinations of regular high schools and evaluations thereof.
Provide statistics on enrollment destinations of students with disabilities
enrolled at regular junior high schools.

[4]

Ensure opportunities of systematic training and sufficient voluntarytraining on high-quality inclusive education for teaching and non-teaching
staff.

24(c) School Dropout Rates of Students with Disabilities (Article 24)(1)

Current Status
There are no statistics available on the school dropout rates of students withdisabilities.
(2)

Proposals
Provide statistics (including cross-tabulation by age and gender) of cases

where children and students with disabilities dropped out at all levels of
education.
25(a) Compliance with the CRPD on Laws and Regulations (in particular,
Intractable/Rare Disease Act) concerning Medical Care and Health Services for
Persons with Disabilities (Article 25)(1)

Current Status[1]

The Intractable/Rare Disease Act is an act concerning use of medical careand health services essential for life of patients with intractable diseases. In
the provisions of purpose and basic philosophy of the Intractable/Rare Disease
Act, however, it is not affirmed that patients with intractable diseases haverights to enjoy medical care and health services.

[2]

Measures for medical care and health services under the Intractable/Rare
Disease Act are generally taken by Prefectures. Therefore, there are many
local public entities which provide patients with intractable diseases with suchconsultation support as information provision and life support only in thecapital of a Prefecture and patients with intractable diseases cannot use
45

services near the community where they live.
[3]

Intractable diseases covered by medical cost subsidies are limited underthe Intractable/Rare Disease Act to the eligible diseases designated by theGovernment and there are many patients who cannot receive medical care as
they do not fall under the above requirements and they are required to bearhigh medical costs.

[4]

Before enforcement of the Intractable/Rare Disease Act, all patients werequalified to medical cost subsidies if they fall under the eligible diseases
designated by the Government. Under the Intractable/Rare Disease Act,however, a patient with an eligible disease, who was not recognized asmeeting the “criteria of severity classification” determined by the Government
by disease, is excluded from public subsidies for medical costs. Therefore,
after the complete enforcement of the Intractable/Rare Disease Act, somepatients with intractable diseases could not receive subsidies for medical
costs86, and they had to largely reduce the number of medical consultations87.

[5]

Under the “Psychiatry Exception”88, at private psychiatric hospitals, theassignment of doctors is one-third of that of ordinary departments, andassignment of nurses is two-thirds of that of ordinary departments 89 . The
shortage of personnel is a factor in increasing seclusion and/or restraint andhindering support for hospital discharge.

[6]

At psychiatric hospitals, informed consent is not sufficiently obtained
and many patients are not informed of the content of medical treatment. Thereis no mechanism to obtain valid consent (including informed ascent) of thepatient.

86
While the number of certified patients for a specific disease system (former system) was 717,000 persons
as of December 2017 when transitional measures were terminated, the number of certified patients was 570,000
persons as of January 2018 when the Intractable/Rare Disease Act was fully enforced and transitional measures
were terminated, which shows that about 150,000 persons were excluded from coverage due to lack of an
application or denial of certification. (Data for National Health Service Central Division Managers Meeting asof February 12, 2019, prepared by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health Service Bureau,
Intractable/Rare Disease Control Division)
87
Average number of hospital visits for half a year of patients with intractable diseases who were not certified
before and after full enforcement of the Intractable/Rare Disease Act significantly decreased to 3.57 times from5.36 times (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Study Group on Support System for Patients with
Intractable Diseases, “Study on Comprehensive Support System for Patients with Intractable Diseases”
Conclusive and Shared Study Report, 13 Fact-finding Investigation of Actual Living Conditions of Patientswith Intractable Diseases)
88
Medical Care Act, Enforcement Regulations, Article 19 and related notifications are referred to as“Psychiatry Exception.” Refer to Report 1, Article 25, footnote 144.
89
Refer to Report 1, Article 25-1.

46

(2)

Proposals[1]

Explicitly provide in the basic philosophy of the Intractable/Rare
Disease Act that patients with intractable diseases have the right to enjoy
medical care at the highest level achievable free of charge or at anaffordable cost.

[2]

Make available health services under the Intractable/Rare Disease Act
for patients with intractable diseases (including consultation support forpatients with intractable diseases) in municipalities accessible by patientswith intractable diseases.

[3]

Develop a system so that any patient with an intractable and chronic
disease in need of medical care to live will not abandon consultations dueto the high cost instead of a measure of the Government designating thenames of diseases the medical cost burden of which is reduced.

[4]

Abolish the severity classification standards provided for in the
Intractable/Rare Disease Act and make health services available for all
patients with intractable and chronic diseases in need of medical care freeof charge or at affordable expenses.

[5]

Abolish unequal standards for allocation of medical staff applied to
private psychiatric hospitals and realize the same allocation level as
ordinary departments.

[6]

Develop a system in medical care for persons with psychosocial
disabilities to obtain valid consent (including informed assent) of the person(including training of doctors for capacity to consent and making consensus
with patients, advocate system for medical practice).

25(b) Scope of Health Services and Accessibility, etc. (Article 25)(1)

Current Status[1]

For persons who are covered by the Intractable/Rare Disease Act, public
subsidies are provided for medical costs to be borne under the National Health
Insurance System and the upper limit of monthly self-pay burden of persons
according to their income is established. The monthly self-pay burden isestablished also for persons with almost no income who are exempted frommunicipal tax, which means the amount is not affordable.
47

[2]

Persons covered by the Intractable/Rare Disease Act must perform
renewal procedures on a yearly basis, however, the procedures are very
complicated and it is difficult for patients with intractable diseases to use90.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Restructure the upper limit of monthly self-pay burden under medical
cost subsidies for the designated intractable diseases at an affordable
amount, based on income and living conditions of patients with intractablediseases and the characteristics of health services directly connected to life
support. In particular, reconsider the burden of low-income households
which are exempted from municipal and prefectural taxes.

[2]

Regarding renewal procedures for the designated intractable disease,fundamental review should be conducted, including frequency of renewal,
more efficient procedure documents and consultation support forprocedures so that patients with an intractable disease will not refrain fromusing the system due to complicated procedures.

27(a) Transition to Open Labor Market (Article 27)(1)

Current Status
Only about 4.3% of users successfully transition to regular employment

among users of the employment support. Wages (labor charge) of persons withdisabilities who work under welfare employment remain at about 5~25% of theaverage monthly wages of all regular workers. In addition, labor protection laws,
including the Labor Standards Act, do not apply to the users of support forcontinuous employment Type B. Furthermore, these users of support forcontinuous employment must pay to the facilities the self-burden portion of service
use fees.
No clear-cut statistics exist for the status of employment of women withdisabilities and the proportion of non-regular employees among workers withdisabilities, and actual situation is not recognized.
90

Since there are a large number of materials for renewal procedures which are complicated, it is difficult
even for ordinary adults with reasonable judgment ability to complete the renewal procedures. In addition, as
there is no consultation organization to give advice on renewal procedures, patients with intractable diseases
must generally collect documents for renewal on their own and bring them to the office of contact of theprefecture far from the community of patients with intractable diseases.

48

(2)

Proposals[1]

Implement wage increases, guaranteed income and application oflabor related laws for persons with disabilities engaged in welfare
employment. For wage increases and guaranteed income, improve thepublic assistance system, including subsidies.

[2]

Implement policies to promote transition from welfare employment toregular employment, including equal pay for equal value of work and fulltime employment.

27(b) Provision of Reasonable Accommodation and Support, Discrimination on the Basisof Disabilities in Employment (Article 27)(1)

Current Status[1]

In the Employment Promotion Act, Article 36-6, it is provided that the
Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare may give advice, guidance orrecommendations to business owners if it is deemed necessary in relation to
enforcement of provisions prohibiting discrimination and provisions
obligating reasonable accommodation. Status of implementation of such
recommendations, etc., however, has not been disclosed.
In the Act, procedures for mediation of disputes such as nondiscrimination, etc., are provided (Article 74-7), however, the status of use
has not been disclosed.

[2]

The low employee retention rate of workers with disabilities indicatesthat individualized support for employed workers with disabilities, including
those who became disabled during employment, is insufficient91.

[3]

Support for commutation is not sufficiently provided as only a small
amount of assistance is given by an independent administrative agency
entrusted by the Government 92 . As there are many cases where such a
condition as “those who can commute by themselves” is made a condition forrecruitment of local governments, employment of persons with disabilities ishindered.

[4]
91
92

In

case

of

discrimination

Refer to Report 1, Article 27-3.
Refer to Report 1, Article 27-5.

49

and

non-provisionofreasonableaccommodation in employment, it is interpreted that the current Employment
Promotion Act does not have any effect in private law, such as directly
obligating correction of discrimination and reasonable accommodation, which
are insufficient as remedial measures.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Implement policies to improve the retention rate of persons withdisabilities, including those who became disabled during employment byenhancing individualized support for them.

[2]

Take measures for supporting commutation of persons withdisabilities

andensureperformanceofprovisions

prohibiting

discrimination for commutation so that such a condition as “those who cancommute by themselves” is not made a condition for recruitment.
27(c) Awareness-raising of Employers (Article 27)(1)

Current Status[1]

According to a fact-finding investigation, awareness of employers about
employment of persons with disabilities is not high93.

[2]

The employment rate of persons with disabilities is not sufficient both in
the private and public sectors. As a result of revelation of overstatement of
employment rate, after mass employment, the actual employment rate by theGovernment is 2.31% (statutory employment rate is 2.5%) and 2.05% in
private sector businesses (statutory employment rate is 2.2%), which showsthat awareness-raising for promotion of employment of persons withdisabilities is insufficient both in the private and public sectors.

(2)

Proposals
Implement policies to promote satisfaction of the statutory employment rate

provided for in the Employment Promotion Act both in the private and public
sectors and raise awareness of employers about employment of persons with

93

Percentage of business owners who responded he/she “wants to actively employ” and “wants to employ, if
certain administrative support is provided” persons with disabilities only remained at 34.1% for persons withphysical disabilities and 19.9% for persons with mental disabilities. (2018 Fact-finding Investigation of
Employment of Persons with Disabilities)

50

disabilities.
28(a) Housing Issues (Article 28)(1)

Current Status[1]

In many cases, public housing prohibits residence of “those who requirecare at all times94.”
There are some cases persons are refused, by reason of disability95 , to[2]

rent private housing96.
(2)

Proposals[1]

Abolish unfair restrictions on residence in public housing, such as“those who require care at all times.”[2]

Take effective measures to eliminate refusal of residence in private
housing by reason of disability.

28(b) Guaranteed Income (Article 28)(1)

Current Status
In Japan, there are about 9,370,000 persons with disabilities97, but only

[1]

2,680,000 persons receive disability pension benefits98, which means that over
70% of persons with disabilities do not receive pension benefits. This isbecause requirements for benefits are unfairly strict99 100.
[2]

The great majority of persons with disabilities living together with theirparents cannot receive welfare benefits101.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Reform the system so that all persons with disabilities who need

94

Refer to Report 1, Article 28-1.
“Because of the fear of fire,” “because of the worry about a solitary death,” etc.
96
Refer to Report 1, Article 28-2.
97
White Paper on Persons with Disabilities 2018
98
Statistics Information of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Overview of Welfare Pension
Insurance/National Pension Service” 2017, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Pension Bureau,
December 201899
Refer to “Disability Pension Practice Handbook for Lawyers” (Published by JFBA, Rights of Elderly
Persons and Persons with Disabilities Support Center, March 2018)100
Refer to Report 1, Article 28-3.
101
Refer to Report 1, Article 28-4.
95

51

guaranteed income are able to receive basic disability pensions.
[2]

Reform the system so that, even if a person with a disability lives
together with his/her family, the person can receive welfare benefits
according to the nature of the disability of the person at the option of theperson, in which operation of permitting separation of the household fromthe family with income and assets should generally be applied.

28(c) Social Protection and Support for Persons with Intellectual or Psychosocial
Disabilities after their Deinstitutionalization (Article 28)(1)

Current Status
In 2018, “ Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities” System wasestablished, in which social workers regularly visit in rotation homes of persons
with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, etc., who transitioned to independent
living.
The direction of establishment of the system should be evaluated, however, it
is rare that persons with severe intellectual or psychosocial disabilities are provided
with use of human support system at home at all times102.
(2)

Proposals
Significantly increase financial assistance of the Government to local

governments so that persons with severe intellectual or psychosocial disabilities
can use visiting care for persons with severe disabilities at all times.
29

Guarantee of Opportunities to Vote and Accessibility to Information (Article 29)(1)

Current Status[1]

Guarantee of Opportunities to Votei. Only persons with severe physical disabilities are permitted to vote by
mail or by other means, and implementation of electronic voting has
hardly progressed103.
ii. Voting by proxy may not be possible due to the fact that the method of
confirming wishes is not unified, etc. There are such problems under the

102
103

“Visiting Care for Persons with Severe Disabilities” System under the Comprehensive Support Act.
Refer to Report 1, Article 29-1.

52

proxy voting system as blank voting cannot be made and voters withdisabilities cannot select an assistant (CRPD, Article 29 (a) (iii)), etc.104
iii. No measures have been taken to ensure opportunities to vote for womenwith disabilities in particular.
[2]

Accessibility to Informationi. Sign language interpreters and/or closed caption are added only to someelection broadcasts, etc.105
ii. There are regional differences in accessibility to information of election
bulletins and at local elections, they are not sufficiently guaranteed106.

(2)

Proposals[1]

Guarantee of Opportunities to Votei.

Regarding the scope of voting by mail, etc., amend the Act to include
persons with visual disabilities, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial
disabilities and those with less severe physical disabilities, etc.

ii.

Amend the Act to introduce an electronic voting system for all voting
in general, including national elections in Japan.

iii. Take specific measures to provide reasonable accommodation atpolling stations throughout Japan.
iv. Amend the Act so that a person selected by a person with a disability
will be permitted to assist in voting by proxy.
v.

Take specific measures to fully guarantee opportunities to vote for,in particular, women with disabilities.

[2]

Accessibility to Informationi.

Amend the Act to add sign language interpreters and/or closed
captions to all election broadcasts of the Diet elections.

ii.

Amend the Act, etc., so that, if published, election bulletins are
published with the full text in Braille, voice or expanded text
versions, whether national or local elections.

C

Specific Obligations (Article 31 – 33)

104

Refer to Report 1, Article 29-1.
Refer to Report 1, Article 29-2.
106
Refer to Report 1, Article 29-2.
105

53

33

Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities (Article 33)(1)

Current Status
The Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities is not an organization

which is able to perform duties with an independent monitoring mechanism as
required by the CRPD, Article 33, paragraph 2 because it does not have authority
to protect (remedy) and the authority to monitor is limited to monitoring of thestatus of implementation of the Basic Programme for Persons with Disabilities, andmembers are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Commission does not havean independent secretariat.
Furthermore, multiple persons with disabilities, who are members oforganizations of persons with disabilities are appointed as members, however,there is no provision obligating appointment of a certain number of persons fromamong persons with disabilities.
34

Human Rights Monitoring Mechanism in Accordance with the Paris Principles(Article 33)(1)

Current Status
Neither the activities of human rights protection organizations of the Ministryof Justice nor the above Commission on Policies for Persons with Disabilities,
which are positioned by the State Party as a framework to protect implementationof the CRPD, has the function and the independence required by the Paris
Principles107.
(2)

Proposals
Establish with a sense of urgency an independent monitoring mechanism inaccordance with the Paris Principles to promote, protect and monitor
implementation of the CRPD.

107

Refer to Report 1, Article 33.

54