The Rights of Minorities in Japan:
The Japanese Government’s Four Periodic Reports to
the United Nations Human Rights Committee for
the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
Rosa María Cortés Gómez
Introduction
The present report is based on the study I conducted from 1993
to 2005 on the rights of minorities in Japan. After twelve yearsof research, I was able to complete my doctoral thesis on “LASMINORÍAS EN JAPÓN ─ UNA APROXIMACIÓN HISTÓRICA YCULTURAL” (Minority Groups in Japan: A Historical and Cultural
Approach) Among other sources consulted, United Nations documents played an important role in contributing to the objectivityof the investigation. The four periodic reports submitted by theJapanese government to the United Nations Human Rights Committee(hereafter UNHRC)of the Ofﬁce of the United Nations HighCommissioner concerning the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
were consulted and thoroughly studied. However, the present paper
will focus on the first three reports, which offer a detailed pictureof the current situation regarding human rights in general and therights of minority groups in particular as the Japanese government
views them. In addition to the periodic reports, the counter reports
of non-governmental organizations and other groups that were also
submitted to the UNHRC to “correct” the Japanese government view
will be also examined to help understand the actual situation of thehuman rights of minorities in Japan. The Fourth Periodic Report will
to be examined in the next issue of the Sophia Junior College FacultyȖ¡¡1¡¡ȖBulletin as Part II of this paper. Part II will be based on the threeprevious UNHRC reports and will give an overall view so that thereader will be able to understand the failures and successes of the
struggle for a better society in Japan ─ a Japan where the minorities themselves continue to strive to be recognized as full members
on equal footing with the rest of the population.

The Declaration of Human Rights and the Treatment of
Minorities
For a better understanding of the aim of this paper, it isconvenient to mention here that in this study the concept of therights of minorities is based on the Declaration of Human Rights andother covenants and documents related to the safeguarding of thoserights issued by the United Nations Organization(hereafter UNO)
All UNO member states are not only committed to implementing
the criteria in the declaration and covenants but also must submit
periodic reports to the UNO Human Rights Committee on how thecovenants are observed in their countries. This study deals only withthe reports concerning the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(hereafter CCPR).
The proposals and observations given by the committee evaluating the periodic reports are the key to understanding this study.
They not only offer objectivity and clarification about the issues
presented by the government but also point out problems that arefound in the report. The committee ﬁnally gives advice and proposes
solutions for the unresolved issues, ﬁxing the goals to be reached in
the following years before the next periodic report is submitted. The
realization of the goals that the committee has set must be givenȖ¡¡2¡¡Ȗpriority in order to fulﬁll the requirements of the covenant that thestate party, in this case Japan, has signed.

Reports on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Japan, having signed and ratified the UNO International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has already submitted four
periodic reports about the progress achieved regarding the civil
and political rights of the citizens in its territory since it signed theCovenant. The four submitted reports are the following:
1. Initial State Party Report, October 24, 1980.1
2. The Second Periodic Report, December 12, 1987.2
3. The Third Periodic Report, December 16, 1991.3
4. The Fourth Periodic Report, June 6, 1997.4

These documents reflect the situation of minorities in Japan thathave been segregated or discriminated against to a minor or major
extent.
The UNO, considered by all countries to be a “moral authority,”
constitutes today what is called the “world conscience” with its
repertory of declarations, guidelines, principles, and legislation that
promote human rights for all, thus inﬂuencing directly or indirectly
the laws and constitutions of most countries in the world. Withinthat framework, two principal issues have been selected for thisstudy, namely, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights ofminority groups. These two principles are examined in light of thefollowing documents, on which the present study is based and fromwhich it derived its inspiration:Ȗ¡¡3¡¡Ȗ

Charter of the United Nations (1945)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (1976)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
Its Facultative Protocol (1976)
Minority Rights (1992)

In light of these documents, the status of the rights of minorities
in Japan will be analyzed to see how Japan has been influenced
by the moral authority of the UNO to change its policies and makeprogress in recognizing that segregation and discrimination shouldbe eradicated from its society.

Minority Rights and Discrimination
Overview of Minority Rights and Discrimination
The acknowledgment that each person must be respected andrecognized as an individual endowed with inalienable rights represents the essence and core of UNO doctrines. Likewise, to afﬁrm thateach human being must be considered an individual person to whom
equality of treatment is due by law, as well as by different political,
administrative, and legislative organizations whatever his or her
condition regarding sex, race, nationality, and social condition mightbe, is the basic element that underlines all the activities of the UNO,
and therefore constitutes also the basis for the acknowledgment of
the rights of minority groups. To say, however, that the human peson is the subject of all the fundamental rights may not be so clearly
understood nor agreed to by some countries where the individual
does not count unless integrated into a group. In such situations, theȖ¡¡4¡¡Ȗperson only counts in relation to the group from which the individualis granted all the rights that the community enjoys. Outside thegroup, the individual is alienated and loses all the rights “granted”
to the person belonging to it: the person is for the group, not viceversa. This concept is the root of many frictions and conﬂicts in theinternational sphere where the rights of individuals and persons
belonging to minority groups within a community are at risk andneed to be safeguarded.
Bearing in mind that there are differences in the treatment of
the individual regarding human rights, it will be convenient for us toreview here some of the UNO statements declaring that the centerand basis of human rights is the individual person:
We...determined to reafﬁrm faith in fundamental humanrights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, inthe equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small, and to practice tolerance and live together inpeace with one another as good neighbors...5 [Charter of
the United Nations]

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal andinalienable rights of all members of the human family is
the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.6[Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Preamble]

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertaketo guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present
Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any
kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political orȖ¡¡5¡¡Ȗother opinion, national or social origin, property, birth orother status... because all human beings are born free andequal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood.
ɉThe States Parties, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non - Self - Governing andTrust Territories, shall promote the realization of theright of self-determination, and shall respect that right,
in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of theUnited Nations.7

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.8

The Human Person as the Foundation of Equality in Defending
Human Rights
According to the UNO, the individual person is not only theaxis around which human rights rotate but also constitutes thefoundation on which the equality of the defense of those rights rests.
In the case of Japan, although the concept of equality is deep rooted
in its tradition and culture, equality is not considered inherent to theperson; rather, it is bestowed by the group to the individual according to the level or rank in which the person is situated in a verticallystratiﬁed society. At the same level of stratiﬁcation, all individuals
share the same kind of equality, but it does not mean that any person
can reclaim the essential equality that the UNO speaks of:
To ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and com-Ȗ¡¡6¡¡Ȗmercial matters for all Members of the United Nations
and their nationals ...9Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscienceand religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship andobservance.10

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right toequal pay for equal work.11

Education shall be directed to the full development of thehuman personality and to the strengthening of respectfor human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shallpromote understanding, tolerance and friendship among
all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further
the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance ofpeace.12

The State as Guarantor of the Rights of the Individuals Living in Its
Territory
As expressed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, the States Parties to the Covenant undertaketo guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will
be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property, birth, or other status.13 Developing countries, however,Ȗ¡¡7¡¡Ȗwith due regard to human rights and their national economy, may
determine to what extent they will guarantee the economic rights
recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.14

The Law as Protector of the Individual’s Right Against all Kinds ofDiscrimination
It is in the field of law where Japan is working to adapt its
legislation to the spirit and words of the UNO documents signed by
Japan concerning human rights. Due to the effort of many jurists
and lawyers in Japan, as well as the work of many NGOs, there has
been great progress in the task of eradicating all kinds of violationsof human rights in the country. The following texts, however, testify
to what extent there is a need to change habits and tendencies
among the Japanese people that go counter to the principles adopted
by the UNO:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence shall be prohibited by law.15

Every child shall have, without any discrimination as
to race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social
origin, property or birth, the right to such measures ofprotection as are required by his status as a minor, on thepart of his family, society and the State. Every child shallbe registered immediately after birth and shall have aname. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.16

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled with-Ȗ¡¡8¡¡Ȗ

out any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discriminationand guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race,color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.17“Person” as the Focus of Human Rights
It was only a few years ago that the Japanese government
recognized what has been obvious to many in Japan and abroad: theexistence of minority groups within Japanese society. Some of thesegroups are not newcomers. Their roots can be traced back more than
300 years, and the Ainu (Utari), for example, are considered thenative inhabitants of Japan. The ignorance or negation of this reality
shows an attitude worthy to be analyzed in detail. This analysis
will lead to a better understanding of the connection it has withthe atmosphere that makes possible the existence of what has beencalled “the apartheid of the minorities” in Japan. This atmosphere is
the reason for the need to promote reﬂection on what is required of
the UNO States Parties regarding the rights of minorities:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic
minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities
shall not be denied the right, in community with the othermembers of their group, to enjoy their own culture, toprofess and practice their own religion, or to use their own
language.18

States shall protect the existence and the national orȖ¡¡9¡¡Ȗethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage
conditions for the promotion of that identity. States shalladopt appropriate legislative and other measures toachieve those ends.
ɉPersons belonging to national or ethnic, religious andlinguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons
belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own
culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and touse their own language, in private and in public, freely
and without interference or any form of discrimination.
ɉPersons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic,
and public life.
ɉPersons belonging to minorities have the right toparticipate effectively in decisions on the national and,
where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority
to which they belong or the regions in which they live,
in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.
Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish
and maintain their own associations.
ɉPersons belonging to minorities have the right toestablish and maintain, without any discrimination, freeand peaceful contacts with other members of their groupand with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as
contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States towhom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or
linguistic ties.19

Ȗ¡¡10¡¡ȖIt will be impossible to list here all the UNO pronouncements
about the person as an individual possessing inalienable humanrights, as an individual having the right not to be discriminatedagainst, as an individual to be respected, and as an individual
who can enjoy human rights as a member of any minority group.
The selection of the texts mentioned above will be sufficient as auniversally accepted reference that can help clarify the concepts andissues with which this study is concerned.

The Civil and Political Rights Periodic Reports
After examining the periodic reports regarding the safeguardingof civil and political rights submitted by all States Parties to the
Human Rights Committee, the committee comments and points out
in the Concluding Observations the most important issues that must
be addressed in the future and gives recommendations to the government on how these problems might be solved before the next report
is submitted.
The committee made these remarks after the Initial Reportof November 14, 1980, thanking the government of Japan for
submitting its report on time and in conformity with its reporting
obligations. They noted, however, that the report was too brief, waslimited to questions relating to the legal framework, and was lacking
in information about actual practices in the country. In particular, it
asked whether any of the long traditions of the country had affected
the implementation of the rights provided for by the Covenant. They
asked whether the Covenant had been translated into Japanese;whether the text was easily obtainable; whether police and prison
personnel and civil servants were apprised of the Covenant during
their training and of the obligations it imposed on the state; andȖ¡¡11¡¡Ȗwhat measures were being taken to publicize the contents of theCovenant and make the general public aware of the rights conferredby it, especially as far as minorities and women were concerned.
Commenting on a phrase that appears several times in the Japanese Constitution stating that the exercise of human rights in Japan
can be restricted on the grounds of “public welfare,” members of thecommittee pointed out that this phrase was not in accordance with
the Covenant because “public welfare” was not one of the grounds tojustify discrimination. They requested explanations on the concept of“public welfare” as well as a few examples of its application where it
affected the freedom of the individual.
Commenting also on Article 2 of the Covenant, the members
noted that whereas this article stressed the obligation of states
parties to ensure to all individuals the rights recognized in theCovenant without distinction of any kind certain articles of theJapanese Constitution referred alternately to the “people,” “persons,”
or “nationals,” and it was asked whether the difference in terminology was one of substance or incorrect translation. In this connection,reference was made to a disadvantaged social group in Japan
called the Burakumin , which was known to have suffered fromdiscrimination based on certain traditions, and it was asked whether
persons belonging to that group were still discriminated against in
regard to marriage and the education of children, to what extent the
government was responsible for that discrimination, and what the
government was doing to remedy it.20
ɉConsidering all the issues one by one, the committee pointed out
practices that were not in accordance with the Covenant, designatingthem as problems to be remedied before submission of the next periodic report. In the last paragraph of the Concluding Observations,Ȗ¡¡12¡¡Ȗthe Japanese representative, addressing the committee’s concerns,
explains thus:
Replying to questions raised under article 27 of theCovenant the representative stated that “minority”
meant a group of nationals who ethnically, religiously or
culturally differed from most other nationals and could beclearly differentiated from them from a historical, socialand cultural point of view; that the Ainus, who were more
properly called “Utari people,” were Japanese nationals
and treated equally with other Japanese ; that the
Koreans who had been living in Japan for a long periodof time were not considered minorities but aliens and, assuch, did not have the right to vote or stand for election to
public office. The representative gave a detailed accountof the treatment of Koreans residing in Japan and thevarious rights and privileges enjoyed or not yet enjoyedby them, and stated that he was not in possession of dataon the number of Koreans living in Japan in communities
with their own particular characteristics but that an
answer would be submitted in writing at a later date.21

These assertions at the end of the Initial Report to the Human
Rights Committee by the Japanese state representative do notcorrespond to reality, especially in reference to not having data about
the number of Koreans. Since the enactment of the Alien Registration Law (ARL No.125) in 1952, all foreigners, mostly Koreans andTaiwanese, were deprived of Japanese nationality, were required
to register with the government, and suffered from authoritarianȖ¡¡13¡¡Ȗcontrol, both individually and collectively. Moreover and even more
surprising are the repeated assertions in subsequent periodic reportsthat the government lacks data about foreigners living in Japan andother concerns dealt with in the Initial Report.
Thus, in the Second Periodic Report submitted on March 24,
1988 the committee again stated the following concerns in theConcluding Observations. (1) Regarding foreigners, members of thecommittee asked whether there were, in Japan, any special factors
and difficulties concerning the effective of enjoyment by minoritiesof their rights under the Covenant and, in particular, what the situation was in regard to Koreans, Chinese, the Utari people and the
Dowa people. (2) In his reply, the representative of Japan provided
ﬁgures concerning the composition of the groups of persons referred
to in the question and stated that in Japan no one was denied theright to enjoy his own culture, to practice his own religion, or touse his own language. (3) The members of the committee expressedsatisfaction with the thorough, constructive and fruitful dialogue,
which had taken place between the representatives of Japan and thecommittee. They noted with appreciation that the report had alreadybeen publicly discussed in Japan and that many non-governmentalorganizations and groups had been involved. In their opinion, that
demonstrated the keen interest in human rights matters that existed
in Japan. They noted that many elements of traditional law existed
in Japanese society; they had the impression that in the current
state of affairs, Japanese legislation was an amalgam of various
legal concepts and was expected to evolve further. Hence, it was
sometimes difﬁcult to determine with certainty whether some provisions of the legislation were compatible with the Covenant. They
noted that some improvements in the Japanese legal system fromȖ¡¡14¡¡Ȗthe point of view of human rights could already be seen, in particularwith regard to the ban on war propaganda, the human rights ofmental patients, the management of penitentiary establishments
and the use of police cells for holding persons awaiting trial in custody. They also referred to the comments made in the course of theconsideration of the report concerning the difficulties in obtaining
naturalization in Japan, allegations of maltreatment of prisoners,
the application of the death penalty, and certain forms of discrimination against certain ethnic groups and certain communities of theJapanese population as well as against women and aliens. The
members expressed the view that the measures needed to deal with
the questions raised related to both legislation and practice, and theyexpressed the hope that the Japanese Government would consider
the committee’s comments. (4) In the conclusion of consideration of
the Second Periodic Report, the chairman also thanked the Japanesedelegation for its contribution to a fruitful dialogue with the Committee and expressed the hope that all questions left in abeyance at thecurrent session would be dealt with in Japan’s next periodic report.22
Thus, Japan being told that “...all questions left in abeyanceat the current session would be dealt with in Japan’s next periodic
report,” the Japanese government was urged to make progress in
improving the status of minorities who had been marginalized anddiscriminated against. Years later, in 1992, the Third Periodic Report
was submitted.

The Third Periodic Report on Civil and Political Rights (1992)
When Japan submitted the Third Periodic Report to the Human
Rights Committee, several non-governmental organizations working
for the rights of minorities in Japan also submitted the results ofȖ¡¡15¡¡Ȗa survey to the committee. This document was meant to help thecommittee in its discussion with the Japanese delegation on the various issues presented in the report. The survey played an importantrole by clarifying the status of minority rights in Japan from aperspective different from the one depicted by the government. The
committee took into consideration this difference in its Concluding
Observations in its recommendation to the Japanese government tolisten more earnestly to minority demands for their full rights.23 The
principal issues are pointed out below.

Unequal Treatment of Foreigners in Comparison to Nationals
Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution states, “All people shallhave the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome
and cultured living and, that in all spheres of life, the State shall use
its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare andsecurity, and of public health.”24 In practice, this does not apply tothe majority of foreigners. The Supreme Court has judged that “thetreatment of aliens residing in Japan in the social security policies
may be determined with political consideration by the state, unless
it exist in any treaty concerned therewith.” It holds that “the state isallowed to prioritize its own nationals over aliens residing in Japanin providing welfare support under ﬁnancial constraint.”25
The Ofﬁce of Foreign Affairs has also declared the following:...among[the Constitution’s] various freedoms and rights,
some are guaranteed to aliens and some are not. Thosethat are not, include the right to suffrage (Article 15), theright to social welfare and public health[beneﬁts] (Article25), the right to receive education (Article 26), and theȖ¡¡16¡¡Ȗright to work (Article 27) By their nature, these rights
inherently belong to Japanese nationals and, as such, do
not extend to aliens. It is considered, however, that theremaining freedoms and rights in the Constitution are
guaranteed to aliens as well (e.g. from Articles 28, 29, and
31 to Articles 40, etc.) Basically, even if the fundamental
freedoms and rights of aliens are guaranteed, it is considered permissible to treat aliens differently from Japanesenationals should there be some reasonable purpose indoing so.26

It must be added here that regarding education (Article 26 of
the Constitution), the Japanese government has never admitted
positively the right to ethnic education to non-nationals in Japanese
territory since the 1965 ministerial directive.27 However, in spiteof this policy enacted and applied, the Japanese government does
not report this administrative practice and legal decisions; on thecontrary, it maintains that “fundamentally there is no difference
between the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and thoseguaranteed by this Covenant though there might be purely semantic
differences.”28

Different Treatment of Foreigners According to the Residence Status
GrantedClassifying foreigners according to different categories ofresidence would not necessarily constitute discrimination in relation
to their fundamental rights and freedoms. In Japan, however, there
is an inconsistency difﬁcult to understand when looking at the illogical consequences of the regulations that divide foreigners into fourȖ¡¡17¡¡Ȗcategories with arbitrariness in their treatment:1.‫ޓ‬Permanent Residents with the category special/general,
granted in 1991 to 638,034 people (94.5 percent Koreans and9 percent Chinese)
2.‫ޓ‬Residents for more of one year, including 365,583 people
belonging to different nationalities and also including Koreans and Chinese (Taiwan) not included in the ﬁrst group.
According to the 1992 registration law, only this group is

obliged to register their ﬁngerprints .
3.‫ޓ‬Residents for less than a year, including 217, 274 peopleof different nationalities to whom neither national healthinsurance nor medical treatment in case of emergency isgranted4.‫ޓ‬Residents with irregular status, an estimated 292,791
people in 1992 including mostly people from Thailand,
Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Iran. These people are
not granted marriage and child protection rights.

The Japanese government has not yet clariﬁed which fundamental
rights are to be applied equally to all foreigners and which are not.
Regarding the reason of not applying to foreigners all the rights
stipulated in the Covenant, the Japanese government gives two
reasons. First, the principle that determines the immigration control
system, namely, that foreigners can only reside in Japan if they are
granted permission from the state and that their fundamental status
is different from that of the Japanese nationals. Second is the principle of “public security.” With respect to the latter point, however,the Human Rights Committee, on the occasion of the Second Periodic

Ȗ¡¡18¡¡ȖReport, had already pointed out to the Japanese delegation that it
is not allowed to restrict the specified human rights for reasons of“public security” in matters concerning the right to reside in the
country.29

The Problems Resulting from the Alien Registration Law
Since it came into effect in January 1993, the law that has
replaced the previous one generates more complications because of
the division of foreigners into categories based on status of residency.
This means a different and arbitrary treatment depending on the
category.
First, the unequal treatment of nationals and foreigners
regarding the socially discriminatory control of the past still persists.
Foreigners are always required to carry an identification card andare severely penalized for failure not to comply with this regulation.
Nationals are not subject to this treatment.
Second, this law has also introduced unequal treatment among
foreigners. It divides them into different categories not existing
before, leading to different and arbitrary treatment of foreigners
with respect to their fundamental rights. Furthermore, it requiresthat some foreigners register their ﬁngerprints, whereas others are
not subject to do so. The government contradicts itself in its previous
policy of fingerprinting all foreigners claiming that it was equal
treatment for all. The government has not explained so far the reasons for introducing these changes regarding the different treatment
among foreigners.
Third, without resolving the problem that underlines thesechanges, the situation worsens in other aspects. (1) All the differentȖ¡¡19¡¡Ȗcategories of foreigners are obliged to register every five years. (2)The smallest infraction of the law is severely penalized. The disproportionate punishment for small infractions contradicts the content
of the Covenant on Civil and Political rights that Japan has signed.
(3) It is against the Covenant not to allow the renewal of a residence
permit to those who refuse to have their fingerprints or signatureregistered in objection to a law that they consider discriminatory as
a matter of conscience. (4) Even for the ﬁrst category of foreigners,
the new system of registration worsens the situation. Every five
years they have to provide detailed information about their families,
thus infringing on the right to one’s own privacy and the privacy of
one’s family, in effect submitting to tighter control than before.
In regard to these provisions, the Japanese government claims
that other countries follow similar ones, but the government does
not recognize that it is only in Japan where these measures are
extremely detailed, unnecessarily strict, and reach an exaggerated
level of control extending even to the descendants of the second,
third, and later generations of foreigners holding permanent resident
status. Even the smallest infractions are dealt with as if they weresevere criminal offences. Thus, contrary to the claim of the Japanese
government, the committee report continues, such restrictions haveno parallel in other advanced democracies.30
Finally, it is also pointed out that since foreigner residents are
identiﬁed under ﬁscal control measures (e.g., tax laws) like Japanesenationals, why is it not possible to verify their identity with the same
methods that are used to identify the Japanese? Why is it only theforeigners who must suffer so much discrimination and be severely
punished for such minor and common infractions of administrative
control? Japan has sufficiently sophisticated technological meansȖ¡¡20¡¡Ȗto be able to collect information about all nationals and foreigners
entering and leaving Japan. Therefore, it is difﬁcult to understand
why the new registration law is so full of discriminatory measuresinappropriate for a technologically advanced society and world
economic leader like Japan.

The Meaning of the Third Periodic Report
The Third Periodic Report on the safeguarding of civil andpolitical rights in Japan presents, among other realities, the status
of discrimination against foreigners and other minority groups inthe country. It is questionable whether the Japanese governmentis totally convinced of the success of the 1992 Alien Registration
Law and to what extent it can be considered a just document inaccordance with the human rights recognized in the Charter of theUnited Nations and other documents enacted by the internationalorganization. If the Japanese government were totally convincedthat the previous Alien Registration Law was just, no changes would
have been necessary. However, having promulgated a new one is asign that something was wrong with the old law.
The changes introduced in the 1992 Alien Registration Law,however, are not sufﬁcient. The changes are superﬁcial. Nothing haschanged substantially. In Japan, many persons from minority groups
and some Japanese citizens fight to end discriminatory treatment
against foreigners. Many voices asking that human rights prevail
are strongly and frequently heard. These voices are signs that many
Japanese are willing to end the so-called sakoku , national isolation
or exclusion of foreigners, a discriminatory practice towards nonnationals and minority groups.

Ȗ¡¡21¡¡Ȗ

The Concluding Observations from the Human Rights
Committee to the Japanese Third Periodic Report
General Remarks
In the introduction to its remarks, the committee commends thegovernment of Japan on its excellent report, which was preparedin accordance with the committee’s guidelines for the presentationof state party reports and submitted on schedule. The committee
appreciates in particular the participation in its consideration of
the report of a competent delegation from the government of Japan,
which consisted of experts in various ﬁelds related to the protectionof human rights. The committee appreciates that the governmentof Japan gave wide publicity to its report, thus enabling a great
number of non-governmental organizations to become aware of thecontents of the report and to make known their particular concerns.
In addition, some of them were present during the committee’s
consideration of the report.31

Concerns of the Committee
The committee, however, notes that the government of Japansometimes experiences difﬁculties in taking measures to implement
the Covenant owing to various social factors, such as the traditional
concept of the different roles of the sexes, the unique relationship between individuals and the group they belong to, and the unconscious
particularities owing to the homogeneity of the population.32 Theprincipal subjects of concern are discussed below.
First, it is not clear that the Covenant would prevail in the caseof conﬂict with domestic legislation and that its terms are not fullyȖ¡¡22¡¡Ȗsubsumed in the Japanese Constitution. Furthermore, it is also not
clear whether the ‘“public welfare” limitation of Articles 12 and 13of the Constitution would be applied in a particular situation in
conformity with the Covenant.
The committee also expresses concern about the continued
existence in Japan of certain discriminatory practices againstsocial groups, such as Korean permanent residents, members of the

Buraku communities, and persons belonging to the Ainu minority.
The requirement that it is a penal offence for alien permanent
residents not to carry documentation at all times, while this does not
apply to Japanese nationals, is not consistent with the Covenant.
Moreover, persons of Korean and Taiwanese origin who served in theJapanese Army and who no longer possess Japanese nationality are
discriminated against in respect to their pensions.
In addition, the committee expresses concern about other discriminatory practices that appear to persist in Japan against womenwith regard to remuneration in employment and notes that de facto
problems of discrimination more generally continue to exist. The
situation regarding mentally ill persons has signiﬁcantly improved,
but problems continue regarding access to employment.
In particular, the committee is concerned about the discriminatory legal provisions concerning children born out of wedlock. Speciﬁcally, provisions and practices regarding birth registration forms
and the Family Registry are contrary to Articles 17 and 24 of theCovenant. Furthermore, discrimination in the right of such children
to inherit property and assets is not consistent with Article 26 of theCovenant.33
The number and nature of crimes punishable by the death penalty under the Japanese penal code disturb the committee as well.

Ȗ¡¡23¡¡Ȗ

The committee recalls that the terms of the Covenant tend towards
the abolition of the death penalty and that those states that havenot already abolished the death penalty are bound to apply it only
for the most serious crimes. In addition, there are matters of concern
relating to conditions of detainees. In particular, the committee ﬁnds
that the undue restrictions on visits and correspondence, and thefailure of notification of executions to the family are incompatible
with the Covenant.
The committee is concerned that the guarantees contained in
Articles 9, 10 and 14 are not fully complied with. Speciﬁcally, theycite the following: (1) pre-trial detention takes place in cases where
the conduct of the investigation does not require it; (2) detention is
not promptly and effectively brought under judicial control but isleft under the control of the police; (3) most of the time interrogation
does not take place in the presence of the detainee’s counsel andrules regulating the length of interrogation do not exit ; (4) the
substitute prison system (daiyo kangoku ) is not under the control
of an authority separate from the police; and (5) the legal representatives of the defendant do not have access to all relevant material in
the police record to enable them to prepare their defense.34
Another important concern of the committee is the exclusion of
Koreans from the government’s concept of minorities. This exclusion
is not justiﬁed by the Covenant, which does not limit the concept ofminority to those who are nationals of the state concerned.35

Suggestions and Recommendations
The committee further recommends that the Japanese legislation concerning children born out of wedlock be amended and that
discriminatory provisions contained therein be removed to bring itȖ¡¡24¡¡Ȗin line with the provisions of Articles 2, 24 and 26 of the Covenant.
All discriminatory laws and practices still existing in Japan shouldbe abolished in conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 26 of the Covenant.
and the government of Japan should make an effort to influence
public opinion in this respect.
The committee further recommends that Japan take measures
towards the abolition of the death penalty. In the meantime, thedeath penalty should be limited to the most serious crimes, theconditions of death row detainees should be reconsidered, andpreventive measures of control against any kind of ill treatment ofdetainees should be further improved.
With a view to guaranteeing the full application of Articles 9,
10 and 14 of the Covenant, the committee recommends that pre-trial
procedures and the operation of the substitute prison system (daiyo

kangoku ) should be made compatible with all requirements of theCovenant and, in particular, that all the guarantees relating to thefacilities for the preparation of the defense should be observed. The
document is dated November 5, 1993.

Conclusion
Having read these final observations written in Japan’s Third
Periodic Report, it is remarkable to notice the clear tendency of theJapanese government to maintain the ambiguous line between what
the Constitution proclaims and what the Covenant deﬁnes. Wishingapparently to safeguard the two, the scales, however, drop on theside of the Constitution whenever a difficulty or conflict appears
between the two. However, the committee insists that the Covenantmust prevail and that the internal laws of the country must be
adapted to it.

Ȗ¡¡25¡¡Ȗ

The committee reiterates that the Japanese government
continues to assert that “public welfare” is the reason to maintainthe status quo, whether of the Constitution, legislation related to it,
or of certain persistent discriminatory practices within the country
without defining the term with objective criteria. This “publicwelfare” is sometimes synonymous with what the majority thinks,
whether it is in conformity with the Covenant or not. The committee
further notes that the tendency in Japan to deﬁne the norm of goodand evil according to what the majority backs, ignoring what isestablished in the Covenant and in international legislation, is aprevailing mentality in Japanese tradition and history.
Grasping well this mentality, the committee strongly recommends that the Japanese government implement a policy to create
an understanding among the Japanese people of the supremacy ofthe human rights recognized in the Covenant, whether these rights
are popular among the public or not. The Japanese people must
make efforts to reach the “highest” understanding of them and toopen their minds to the perspective offered in the Covenant. To adapt
universal law to Japanese public opinion would reﬂect a narrow andwrong mentality. The Japanese people need to be educated to acquire
an international mentality without losing their unique and traditional heritage, provided that maintaining traditional values does
not mean an unjustiﬁed rejection of the human rights mentioned in
the Covenant.
The Fourth Periodic Report, submitted to the Human Rights
Committee in 1998 will be the object of study in a separate article,
and the results will be analyzed as the second part of this study.

Ȗ¡¡26¡¡ȖÂäìïðøíæåèîæïõ
I would like to thank Melvin R. Andrade for his assistance with theEnglish version of this paper.

End Notes
1.

Initial State Party Report, CCPR/C/10/Add.1 (November 141980).

2.

Second Periodic Report, CCPR/C/42/ Add.4 (March 24, 1988)+Corr.1 (April 28, 1988) +Corr.2 (March 13, 1988).

3.

Third Periodic Report, CCPR/C/70/Add.1 (March 30, 1992) +Corr.1 (September 30, 1993) +Corr.2 (October 20, 1993).

4.

Fourth Periodic Report, CCPR/C/115/Add.3 (October 1, 1997)+Corr.1 (October 2, 1998).

5.

Cf. “Charter of the United Nations” (CUN), Preamble; “Pacto
Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Politicos”, (PIDCP) Artículo
3.

6.

“Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos” (DUDH),
Preámbulo.

7.

Cf. “CUN”, Art. 1, n. 3; Art. 13, n. 1; Art. 62, n. 2; Art. 76 c,“DUDH”, Arts. 1, 2 y 3 ; “Pacto Internacional de Derechos
Económicos, Sociales y Culturales” (PIDESC), Art. 2.

8.

Cf. “CUN”, Art. 2, no 1

9.

Ibid. Art. 76 d.

10. Cf. “DUDH”, Arts. 18 y 19; “PIDCP” Art. 18, no 1.
11. Cf. “DUDH”, Art 23, no 2.
12. Cf. “DUDH”, Art 26, no 2; “PIDESC”, Art. 13, no 1.
13. Cf. “PIDCP” Art. 2, no 1.
14. Cf. “PIDESC”, Art. 2, no 2 y 3, Arts. 3 y 4.
15. Ibid. Art. 20, no 2.

Ȗ¡¡27¡¡Ȗ

16.

Ibid. Art. 24, no 1 y 3; “PIDESC”, Art. 10, no 3.

17. Cf. “PIDCP” Art. 26. Ibid. Art. 20, no 2. Ibid. Art. 24, no 1 y 3;
“PIDESC”, Art. 10, no 3. Cf. “PIDCP” Art. 26.
18.

Ibid. Art. 27; “Declaración de los Derechos de las Minorías,”Arts. 1-5.

19.

Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Art. 1, 2.

20. CCPR Initial Report, No. 55, 56, 58.
21. Cf. CCPR A/37/40 (1982) Concluding Observations; para. 91.
22. Concluding Observations A/43/40; paras. 630-633.
23.

CCPR/C/70/Add.l and Corr.1 and 2 “Comments of the Human
Rights Committee” at its 1280th meeting (forty-ninth session)on November 1993, Cfr. Anexo.

24. The Constitution of Japan, Art. 25
25.

Cf. the sentence of Shiomi case, Mar. 2, 1989, in OIKUMENE,
Suggested Questionnaire for the Discussion of the Japanese
Government’s Third Report on the ICCPR to the Human Rights
Committee, Tokyo 1993, p.18, nota 3.

26. Ibid. p. 42.
27.

Ibid. p. 19, note 4, Ministerial Directive of Deputy-Minister of
Education, Dec. 26, 1965.

28. CCPR/C/70/Add. 1, para.12
29.

CCPR/C/SR. 827, para.38, El-Shafei; para.53 Kunieda; Japan;
CCPR/C/SR. paras.26,61 Higgins; para.60, Kunieda, Japan

30. Ibid. p. 24.
31. Concluding Observations, CCPR/C/79/Add. 28, No. 2-3
32. Ibid. No. 4.
33. Ibid. No. 8-11.
34. Ibid. 12-13

Ȗ¡¡28¡¡Ȗ

35.

Ibid. 15

36. Ibid. 17-19

Bibliography
1¯¡Öïêõæå¡Ïâõêðïô¡Ðóèâïêûâõêðï¡Åðäöîæïõô
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) A/37/40 (1982)
Concluding Observations.
-. A/43/40 (1988). Concluding Observations.
-. C/10/Add.1 (November 14, 1980). Initial State Party Report.
-. C/42/Add.4 (March 24, 1988) +Corr.1 (April 28, 1988) +Corr.2(March 13, 1988). Second Periodic Report.
- .C/70/Add.1 (March 30, 1992) + Corr.1 (September 30, 1993)+Corr.2 (October 20, 1993). Third Periodic Report.
-. C/115/Add.3 (October 1, 1997) +Corr.1 (October 2, 1998). Fourth
Periodic Report.
-. C/70/Add.l and Corr.1 and 2. Comments of the Human Rights
Committee at its 1280th meeting (forty - ninth session) in
November 1993.
Charter of the United Nations. Signed on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on
International Organization and came into force on 24 October
1945.
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Adopted by General
Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18 December 1992.
Declaración universal de derechos humanos. Adoptada y proclamada
por la Resolucición de la Asamblea General 217 A (iii) del 10
de diciembre de 1948.
Pacto internacional de derechos civiles y políticos. Adoptado y abiertoȖ¡¡29¡¡Ȗa la ﬁrma, ratiﬁcación y adhesión por la Asamblea General ensu resolución 2200 A (XXI), de 16 de diciembre de 1966.
Pacto internacional de derechos económicos, sociales y culturales.
Adoptado y abierto a la firma, ratificación y adhesión por
la Asamblea General su resolución 2200 A (XXI), de 16 dediciembre de 1966.

2¯¡Èæïæóâí¡Øðóìô
Abe, H., Shindo, M., and Kawato, S. The Government and Politics ofJapan . Translated by J. W. White. Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press, 1994.
Aida, Y. Nihon no Fūdo to Bunka . [Clima y Cultura de Japón]. Tokyo:
Kadokawa Shoten, 1972.
“Ampo.” Japan-Asia Quarterly Review ed. Voices from the Japanese

Women’s Movement . New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1996.
Ando, N. ed. Japan and International Law: Past, Present and Fu-

ture, On Behalf of the Japanese Association of International
Law . The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International,
1999.
Apter, D. E., and Sawa, N. Against the State: Politics and Social

Protest in Japan . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 1984.
Azuchi, S. Shirarezaru Keimusho no Okite [Las reglas de prisiones
que deben conocerse]. Tokyo: Nihon Bungeisha, 1998.
Bachelor, J. Ainu Life and Love: Echoes of a Departing Race. Tokyo:
Kyobunkan. Reprinted by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New
York, 1971.
Befu, H. Hegemony of Homogeneity: An Anthropological Analysis of

Nihonjinron . Melbourne: Trans Paciﬁc Press, 2001.

Ȗ¡¡30¡¡Ȗ

Bernstein, G. L. ed. Recreating Japanese Women 1600-1945 . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991.
Bersma, R. P. Titia, The First Western Woman in Japan . Amsterdam:
Hotei, 2002.

Bibliography on the Constitution of Japan, 1945-1995 . Tokyo :Nichigai Associates, 1996
Bird, I. L. Unbeaten Tracks in Japan: An Account of Travels in theInterior Including Visits to the Aborigines of Yezo and the
Shrines of Nikko . Bristol: Ganesha, 1997.
Brzostowki, E. Ante El Grito do los Marginados: Un nuevo desafío

Japonés . Pamplona: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1985.
Buraku Liberation Research Institute, ed. The Road To A Discrimi -nation -Free Future: The World Anti-Discrimination Struggle
and the Buraku Liberation Movement . Buraku Liberation
Research Institute., Osaka, Japan, 1983.
Clark, G. Nihonjin: Yunikusa no Gensen. [The Japanese Tribe: Origin of a Nation’s Uniqueness]. Translated by M. Muramatsu.
Tokyo: Saimaru Shuppankai, 1997.
Coleman, R., and Haley, J. O. eds. An Index to Japanese Law: A

Bibliography of Western Language Materials, 1867-1973 . Tokyo:
Japanese American Society for Legal Studies, 1975. [Law inJapan: An Annual special issue, 1975].

Concise Guide to the United Nations , A . Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1995.
Dale, P. N. The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness . Croom Helm and Nissan Institute for Japanese Studies. London: Routledge Kegan& Paul, 1986.
De Rosario, L. Nippon Slaves . London: Janus Publishing Company,
1995.

Ȗ¡¡31¡¡ȖDe Vos, G. A. Japan’s Invisible Race: Caste in Culture and Personal-

ity . Revised edition by G. A. De Vos and H. Wagatsuma.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
. Japan’s Minorities: Burakumin, Koreans and Ainu. Revised
edition by G. A. De Vos and W. A. Wetherall. London: Minority
Rights Group, 1974.
 . Social Cohesion and Alienation: Minorities in the UnitedStates and Japan . Westview Press, 1992.
Deai-no Ie [A House for Meeting Friends]. Homuresu ni Naritaku

Nai . [I Don’t Want to be Homeless]. Kobe: Epic, 1996.
Dictionary of Japanese Terms , A . Tokyo: Tokyo Bijutsu, 1990.
Dore, R. P. Japan, Internationalism and the U. N . London: Routledge, 1997.
Douglass, M., and Roberts, G. S. eds. Japan and Global Migration:

Foreign Workers and the Advent of a Multicultural Society .
London: Routledge, 2000.
Ebashi, T., and Tanaka, H. eds. Rainichi Gaikokujin Jinken

Hakusho. [Libro Blanco de los Derechos de los Extranjeros en
Japón]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten, 1997.
Eisenstadt, S. N. Japanese Civilization : A Comparative View .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Ezaki, Y., and Moriguchi, H. Zainichi Gaikokujin [Foreign People
Living in Japan]. Tokyo: Shobunsha, 1988.
Feldman, E. A. The Ritual of Rights in Japan: Law, Society and

Health Policy, Institute for Law and Society . Cambridge :Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hata, H., and Nakagawa, G. Constitutional Law of Japan . The
Hague: Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1997.
Hayashi, C. and Kuroda, Y. Japanese Culture in ComparativeȖ¡¡32¡¡Ȗ

Perspective . Praeger, 1997.
Hicks, G. Japan’s Hidden Apartheid: The Korean Minority and theJapanese . Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
Hilger, I. M. Together with the Ainu: A Vanishing People. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1971.
Honda, K. Harukor: An Ainu Woman’s Tale. Translated by K. Selden.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Horitsu Fujo Kyokai, ed. Living with the Japanese Law: A Guide

to Foreigners in Japan , 2nd. edition. Tokyo: Japan Legal Aid
Association, 1991.
Huber, K. R. Women in Japanese Society: An Annotated Bibliographyof Selected English Language Materials . Westport: Greenwood
Press, Westport, 1992.

Human Rights and the Meaning of the International Year of theFormer Occupants and Its Problems . Osaka : Han - sabetsu
Kokusai Undo Nihon Iinkai [Japanese Committee of theInternational Movement of Anti-discrimination], 1992.
Inokuchi, H. The Finger -printing Rejection Movement Reconsidered,Japanese Society Volume 1 . Tsukuba: The Japanese Society
Research Institute, 1996.
Iwasawa, Y. International Law, Human Rights, and Japanese Law:

The Impact of International Law on Japanese law , Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998.
Kanagawa Jinken Sentā [Human Rights Center in Kanagawa] ed.

Jinken bukkuretto: No.1 Taminzoku, Tabunka, Kyosei. [Multiracial, Multicultural coexistence]. Yokohama : Kanagawa
Jinken Senta, 1994.
. Jinken Handobukku . [A Handbook of Human Rights]. Yokohama: Kanagawa Jinken Senta Yokohama, 1993.

Ȗ¡¡33¡¡ȖKanagawa Shimbun Sha Shakai-bu, Nihon no naka no Gaikokujin:

Hitosashi yubi no jiyū o motomete [Foreigners in Japan: Let
the Index Finger Free]. Yokohama: Kanagawa Shimbun Sha
Shuppan Kyoku, 1985.
Lee, C., and De Vos, G. A. Koreans in Japan: Ethnic Conflict andAccomodation. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.
Lie, J. Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University
Press, 2001.
McNelly, T. The Origins of Japan’s Democratic Constitution . Lanham: University Press of America, 2000.
Nihon Bengoshi Rengo Kai, [Japan Federation of Bar Associations].

Alternative Report to the Fourth Periodic Report.Tokyo :Kouchi Shobo,1998. [A report on the application and practicein Japan of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.]. Nihon no Jinken: Nichibenren Counter Report [A report on
the application and practice in Japan of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. Tokyo: Kouchi Shobo,
1993.
 . Abolish “Daiyo -Kangoku” ─ Japan Police Custody System

Now. Revised edition . Tokyo: Japan Federation of Bar Associations, 1993.
. Prisons in Japan: The human rights situation in Japanese

Prisons . Tokyo: Japan Federation of Bar Associations, 1993.
Oikoumene. Suggested Questionnaire for the Discussion of theJapanese Government’s Third Report on the ICCPR to the
Human Rights Committee . Tokyo, 1993.
Sakaiya, T. What is Japan? Contradictions and Transformations .
Translated by S. Karpa. New York: Kodansha International,Ȗ¡¡34¡¡Ȗ

1993.
Sirota, G. B. Celebrating Women’s Rights in the Japanese Constitu -tion, Women’s Journal No. 14, 1998 , A Journal for the International Exchange of Gender Studies, English Supplement
Number 14, 1998.
Stevens, C. S. On the Margins of Japanese Society: Volunteers andthe Welfare of the Urban Underclass . London : Routledge,
1997.
Summary of Statistics on Aliens in Japan in 1984, Hōmushō Hōmu
Sōgō kenkyūjo [The Ministry of Justice Comprehensive
Research Institute]. Tokyo.
Teraki, N. Hisabetsuburaku no Kigen: Kinse seiji kigensetsu no

saisei [Origen de la Dicriminacion Buraku]. Tokyo: Akashi
Shoten, 1996.
Weiner, M. ed. Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity .
London: Routledge, 1997.

Ȗ¡¡35¡¡Ȗ