List of Issues for Japan
Japan National Group of Mentally Disabled
People (JNGMDP) Parallel Report

September, 2019Japan National Group of Mentally Disabled People
2-39-3, Chuo, Nakano-ku, Tokyo, 164-0011, Japan
E-mail Jngmdp1974@gmail.com
Tel +81-080-6004-6848

1

General Remarks
1. About Us
The Japan National Group of Mentally Disabled People (JNGMDP) was established in
May 1974, and is national group of persons with psychosocial disabilities. We arerepresentative organization of persons with psychosocial disabilities in Japan.
2. Domestic Consensus Building
The JNGMDP held public hearings six times in Aomori, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka andKumamoto, and heard opinions of persons with psychosocial disabilities, their families
and mental health professionals in Japan to prepare this parallel report.
3. Collaboration with Other Organizations Which Submitted the Parallel Reports
The JNGMDP collaborate with the Japan Disability Forum (JDF), and the Japan
Federation of Bar Associations through the JDF to prepare the parallel reports. This
parallel report deal with issues which have strong impact on persons with psychosocial
disabilities and are not enough dealt with in the parallel report of JDF.
The JNGMDP sent written request dated May 2019 for collaboration to the Advocacy
Center of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities (Kizuna), who are also going to submit
the parallel reports. The Advocacy Center of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities(Kizuna) replied as they would not collaborate with us.
4. Involvement in the Japan’s Initial State Party Report
Information in the Japan’s Initial State Party Report is different from perception of the
JNGMDP.
Japanese government did not hear JNGMDP’s opinion in the process of preparing theState Party Report. Only organizations which are member of the Cabinet OfficeCommission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities got opportunity to provide theiropinions. However, the Cabinet Office Commission on Policy for Persons with Disabilities
does not have a member who is recommended by organization which represents opinionsof persons with psychosocial disabilities. So, it was impossible for us to monitor the State
Party Report.
JNGMDP voluntarily submitted argument for amendment to the State Party Report,
but the government did not reflect any arguments from us.
5. Arbitrary Interpretation by Japanese Government
2

The biggest problem in the State Party Report is that interpretation of article 12 and
14 of the CRPD deviate from standards of international human rights law. The Japanese
government defines legal capacity in paragraph 2 of Article 12 as legal standing, andstates that legal capacity does not include legal agency. This interpretation violates theParagraph 12 of the General Comment No.1.
The government interprets Article 14 as that it prohibits deprivation of liberty based
only on disability. According to the government’s interpretation, involuntary
hospitalization system and activity restrictions provided for in the Mental Health Law,
which are applied based not only on the fact and that a person has a psychosocial
disability but also on additional conditions that necessity of medical treatment andprotection or possibility of self-harm and harming others etc., and forced hospitalization
provided for in the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act do not violate the Article 14.
This insistence violates Paragraph 7 and 20 of the Guidelines on Article 14.
6. Optional Protocol
The Japanese government has not ratified the optional protocol of the CRPD.
Articles 4 General Obligations
1. Issues
Participation of persons with psychosocial disabilities who recommended byorganization which represents opinion of persons with psychosocial disabilities in policy
making has not improved enough. There are no assessment mechanisms forparticipation of persons with disabilities in policy making.
Examination Organization

Participation of persons
with psychosocial
disabilities

Cabinet Office Commission on Policy for Persons

member: 0

with Disabilities

witness: 0

Disability Section of the Social Security Council

member: 1 (notrecommended byrepresentative
organization)
witness: as needed

Disability Employment Section of the Labor

member: 0

Legislation Council

witness: 0
3

Review Conference on the Review, etc. of Medical

member: 0

Care Plans

witness: 0

Review Conference on the Future State etc. of

member: 2 (notMental Healthrecommended byrepresentative
organization)
witness: 1

Commission on Promotion of Utilization of the Adult

member: 0

Guardianship Systemwitness: 0

2. Suggested Questions* Does the government set target value and work on to implement it, in order to improveparticipation of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities in policy making?
3. Suggested Recommendations* Set target value for participation of persons with intellectual and psychosocial
disabilities in policy making, and undertake measures to achieve the target value.
Article 12 Equal Recognition before the Law
1. Issues(1) Restriction of legal capacity based on disability (paragraph 2 of Article 12)
The adult guardianship system is intended to uniformly limit the capacity to act on
ground of that the persons is considered to have insufficient or constant lack of capacity
to discern right and wrong due to psychosocial disability. The adult guardianship systemprovides three categories in the Civil Code. The categories include guardian categorythat establishes virtually comprehensive authority of representation, curator categorythat establishes partial authority of representation, and assistant category. The adultguardianship system in Japan does not provide authority of representation in marriage,
reproduction, childbirth, and medical consent, but provide authority of representation incontraction and disposition of property.
It is naturally inevitable for the adult guardianship system to violent paragraph 2 ofArticle 12 of the CRPD. However, the Japanese government interprets that legal capacity
at paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the CRPD as “capacity to hold rights” (paragraph 1 of
Article 3 of the Civil Code) and legal capacity does not include “capacity to act” (on and4

after Article 7 of the Civil Code). The government should consider abolishing the adultguardianship system, but the government refers to the governmental interpretation anddoes not start to consider revising legislation to reform and abolish the adultguardianship system.
In addition to the above, capacity to sue or be sued in civil case (Article 31 of the Codeof Civil Procedure) is also a system which limits legal capacity based on disability.
(2) Necessary support to exercise of legal capacity (paragraph 3 of Article 12)
The adult guardianship system cannot be considered to be necessary support to exercise
legal capacity. The Civil Code in Japan does not have a provision that guarantee accessto necessary support when exercising legal capacity. The State Party Report does not
mention the Guidelines for the Support for Decision Making Relating to the Provision of
Welfare Services for Persons with Disabilities (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare,
31 March 2017), and the Guideline for Clerical Work Adult Guardian etc. in Accord with
System to Support Decision Making (Association on Support Decision Making in Osaka,
March 2018). These guidelines cannot be considered to be necessary support to exercise
legal capacity. The Guidelines for the Support for Decision Making Relating to theProvision of Welfare Services for Persons with Disabilities does not assume support
based on will and preferences of person with disabilities but intervention based on thebest interest for person with disabilities. The Guideline for Clerical Work Adult
Guardian etc. in Accord with System to Support Decision Making causes contradict
situation that restrict legal capacity based on disability and intend to support decision
making at the same time.
(3) Prevention from abuse, and violence of privacy (paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 12)
The government asks organizations of adult guardian etc. to prevent their members
from abuse, instead of developing legal system for prevention from abuse. The Public
Interest Incorporated Association of Legal Support Adult Guardian Center is the biggest
organization composed of people who work as adult guardian etc. in Japan. The
Incorporated Association places members with an obligation to check passbooks of theiradult wards and report the information of passbook to the Incorporated Association, inorder to prevent members from misconduct.
Some adult guardians did not provide the information of passbook with the
Incorporated Association in 2017, because their adult wards refused to provide
information of the passbook. The Incorporated Association decided that the adultguardians violated their obligation of report, and expelled them from the Incorporated
5

Association. The adult guardians filed a lawsuit against the Incorporated Association,
insisting it did not violate the obligation not to report the private information based on
will and preference of the adult wards, and expel of the Incorporated Association should
be invalid. However, the adult guardians lost the suit (Tokyo High Court, (Ne) No. 3114
in 2018).
Therefore, it can be said that adult guardian etc. have no other choice other but touniformly provide information of adult wards with the Incorporated Association, even if
the adult wards refuses to open his or her information. This system is not based on will
and preference of persons with disabilities, and has also problems in terms of privacy
described in Article 22 of the CRPD.
2. Suggested Questions(1) Restriction of legal capacity based on disability (paragraph 2 of Article 12)* Are there any plans to change interpretation of legal capacity, and interpret legal
capacity as including capacity to act, to meet standards of international human rights
law?
* Are there any plans to start to consider abolishing laws which restrict capacity to act,
capacity to sue or be sued, and capacity to plead based on disability, such as the adultguardianship system?
(2) Necessary support to exercise of legal capacity (paragraph 3 of Article 12)* Are there any provisions which ensure to access to necessary support to exercise oflegal capacity in the Civil Code.
* Does the Guidelines for the Support for Decision Making Relating to the Provision of
Welfare Services for Persons with Disabilities (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,
31 March 2017) etc. allow intervention based on the best interest?
(3) Prevention from abuse and violence of privacy (paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 12)* Do organizations of adult guardian uniformly check a passbook of the adult ward evenwhen the check is not carried out based on adult ward’s will and preference, in order toprevent adult ward from being damaged his or her property such as being embezzled by
the adult guardian etc.?
3. Suggested Recommendations(1) Restriction of legal capacity based on disability (paragraph 2 of Article 12)* Change interpretation of legal capacity, and interpret legal capacity as including
capacity to act, to meet standards of international human rights law.
* Promptly start to consider abolishing laws which restrict capacity to act, capacity to
6

sue or be sued, and capacity to plead based on disability, such as the adult guardianshipsystem.
(2) Necessary support to exercise of legal capacity (paragraph 3 of Article 12)* Revise the Civil Code to ensure to access to necessary support to exercise of legal
capacity, and prohibit intervention based on the best interest for person with disabilities
and establish provisions on support based on will and preference of persons withdisabilities.
(3) Prevention from abuse and violence of privacy (paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 12)* Prohibit all measures to prevent misconduct (including passbook check byorganizations of adult guardian) which are not based on will and preference of persons
with disabilities.
Article 14 Liberty and Security of Person
1. Issues
Admission systems provided for in the Mental Health Law include involuntary
hospitalization through administrative disposition (“Compulsory Hospitalization”

inArticle 29, and “Emergency Compulsory Hospitalization” in Article 29-2), involuntary
hospitalization through consent by family, etc. against the will of the person with a
psychosocial disability (“Hospitalization for Medical Care and Protection” in Article 33;“Emergency Hospitalization” in Article 33-7), and hospitalization according to the will of
the person with a psychosocial disability (“Voluntary Hospitalization” in Article 20). For
the voluntary hospitalization, although admission is voluntary, discharge is not. In thecase of involuntary hospitalization, compulsory transport without consent of person withpsychosocial disabilities from the home to the hospital is permitted under the transportsystem (Article 34). For inpatients of psychiatric hospitals, the Mental Health Law
allows activity restrictions based on psychosocial disability, such as physical restraint,
segregation, closed treatment and restriction on open treatment (Article 36 and 37). In
addition, the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act (Medical Treatment andSupervision Act is “Mentally Incompetent Persons Medical Care and Treatment Act” on thejapan government reports.) provides for the forced hospitalization of persons who havecommitted seriously criminal acts while they were mentally incompetent.
Forced hospitalizations provided for in the Mental Health Law are admission systems
which make person with psychosocial disabilities hospitalize without his or her consent
on additional conditions such as necessity of medical treatment and protection or7possibility of self-harm and harming others etc. Activity restrictions provided for in the
Mental Health Law are treatments ordered by psychiatrist based on psychosocial
disability, such as physical restraint, segregation, closed treatment and restriction on
open treatment etc. It is naturally inevitable for forced hospitalization and activity
restrictions provided for in the Mental Health Law to violate Article 14 of the CRPD.
However, the Japanese government interprets Article 14 as that it prohibits deprivationof liberty based only on disability, and forced hospitalization system provided for in the
Mental Health Law, which are applied based not only on the fact that a person has a
psychosocial disability but also on additional conditions such as necessity of medical
treatment and protection or possibility of self-harm and harming others, does not violate
the article 14 (Paragraph 105 of the State Party Report). In addition the government
answered in the Diet that “compulsory hospitalization, hospitalization for medical careand protection, as well as inpatient and outpatient treatments do not violate theprovisions of Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”(196th Diet Session (Ordinary Diet Session) Written Answer No. 63, April 17, 2018).
Although the government should consider abolishing forced hospitalization system andactivity restrictions provided for in the Mental Health Law and the Medical Treatment
and Supervision Act provides for the forced hospitalization, but the government refers to
the governmental interpretation and does not start to consider revising legislation toreform and abolish these practices.
The Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Special Rapporteurs on
the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physicaland Mental Health submitted “Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the rights ofpersons with disabilities and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to theenjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” (Reference:
OL JPN 4/2017, 9 January 2018) and questioned about forced hospitalization andactivity restrictions provided for in the Mental Health Law. The Japanese government
submitted the response letter (TK/UN/99, Geneva, 9 March 2018). The government’s
response is based on the interpretation that Article 14 of the CRPD prohibits deprivationof liberty based only on disability. The Working Group of Arbitrary Detention adopted
the two opinions (A/HRC/WGAD/2018/8, 23 May 2018, and A/HRC/WGAD/2018/70, 16
January 2019), which recognized forced hospitalization provided for in the Mental
Health Law as arbitrary detention, in 2018. However, the Japanese government
repeated similar answer again, and has not at all started to consider revising legislation
to reform and abolish forced hospitalization and activity restrictions based on disability.
82. Suggested Questions* Are there any plans to change the government’s interpretation that Article 14 of the
CRPD prohibits deprivation of liberty based only on disability, and interpret Article 14
as that it prohibits deprivation of liberty not only on disability but also on additional
condition, to meet standards of international human rights law?
* Will the government promptly start to consider abolishing forced hospitalization andactivity restrictions provided for in the Mental Health Law?
3. Suggested Recommendation* Change the government’s interpretation that Article 14 of the CRPD prohibits
deprivation of liberty based only on disability, and interpret Article 14 as that it prohibits
deprivation of liberty not only on disability but also on additional conditions, to meetstandards of international human rights law.
* Promptly start to consider abolishing forced hospitalization and activity restrictions
provided for in the Mental Health Law.
Article 15 Freedom from Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
1. Issues
The Medical Treatment and Supervision Act is a system that allow for forced medical
intervention based on judicial decisions to prevent re-offences of persons withpsychosocial disabilities who have been found not guilty by reason of mentally
incompetent or other reasons.
Yamanashi Prefectural Kita Hospital introduced a forced treatment review system in
its forensic psychiatric ward and conducts forced medication and modified
electroconvulsive therapy (m-ECT). Inpatients who indicate their will to refuse
treatments even after 72 hours after their admission are subject to forced treatments. In
such cases, the attending doctor is deemed to have applied for forced treatment(medication and m-ECT) and passed the review.
In addition, a forensic psychiatric facilities in Tokyo conduct forced cognitive behavioral
therapy known as “self-reflection programs” as medical intervention to prevent reoffences. This program requires, for example, an inpatient to place the mortuary tabletof the victim of their acts next to their bed and apologize every day.
The government did not respond to the statements regarding mental health care
(Paragraph 22) of the Concluding Observations by the Committee Against Torture9

regarding Japan’s second periodic report (55th session (from May 6 to 31, 2013) of theCommittee).
2. Suggested Questions* Has the government prepared considerations for the abolishment of the Medical
Treatment and Supervision Act?
* Has the government prepared specific and effective measures to prohibit forced
treatment (drug administration and m-ECT) and provide remedies for people who
received forced treatment?
* What kinds of specific and effective measures have been taken in responding to thestatements regarding mental health care (Paragraph 22) of the Concluding Observations
by the Committee Against Torture regarding Japan’s second periodic report, taking
ratification of the CRPD into account?
3. Suggested Recommendation* The government should start considerations for the abolishment of the Medical
Treatment and Supervision Act.
* Establish specific and effective measures to prohibit forced treatment (drugadministration and m-ECT) and provide remedies for people who received forced
treatment.
* Establish specific and effective measures based on the CRPD regarding the mattersstated regarding mental health care (Paragraph 22) of the Concluding Observations by
the Committee against Torture regarding Japan’s second periodic report.
Article 16 Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse
1. Issues(1) Applicable scope of reporting obligations under the Persons with Disabilities Abuse
Prevention Act
The State Party Report (Paragraph 110) reports on the Persons with Disabilities Abuse
Prevention Act. We commend the fact that a consultation system was establishedthrough the enactment of this law and it has become possible to ascertain theimplementation of training and how many times they have been conducted. However,
the applicable scope of the reporting obligations under the Persons with Disabilities
Abuse Prevention Act is limited to only families, welfare facilities and workplaces. The
reporting obligations do not cover schools, nurseries, hospitals, public agencies and other10

similar institutions. Regarding this fact, the Human Rights Committee questioned theJapanese government in Paragraph 15 of the List of Issues (November 14, 2017;
CCPR/C/JPN/QPR/7) with respect to the status of the establishing of laws to coverpsychiatric hospital under the reporting obligations. The Ishigooka Hospital incident
was an incident that a hospitalized person with a psychosocial disabilities was kicked
and assaulted in other ways by several hospital employees and died in January 2012. Ifother hospital employees had been obligated to report this as an incident of abuse, theworst-case scenario could have been avoided. In addition to mentioned above, there aremany cases of human rights violations resulting in abuse deaths of patients in
psychiatric hospitals.
Year of

Hospital nameMain details

Utsunomiya

Patients were beaten to death by hospital

Hospitalstaff. The hospital director and staff abusedoccurrence
1984

patients, had patients engage in forced labor,
diagnoses by unqualified staff, illegal
autopsies. Hundreds of patients were missing.
1985

Umayabashi

A nurse beat a patient, fracturing his skull

Hospital
Otaki Hospital

Sudden deaths of hospitalized patients, illegal
autopsies, etc.

1992

Kawano Kasuya

Two patients died due to electric shocks

Hospital
1993

1995

1997
2002
2003

Yamatogawa

A male patient was assaulted in the hospital

Hospitaland died under suspicious circumstances

Minatogawa

A male patient was assaulted by someone andHospital

seriously injured

Minagawa

A male patient was chocked on liquid foodMemorial

while restrained to his bed and died of

Hospitalsuffocation

Yamamoto

A female patient was killed by two staff

Hospitalmembers

WakauraA male patient was beaten to death by a

Hospitalnurse’s aide

Sanseikai

A patient with chronic heart disease was
11

2008

Hospital

given electric shock therapy. The patient died.

Kaizuka Chuo

A patient under restraint died.

Hospital
2012
2017

Ishigooka

A patient was assaulted and injured in a

Hospitalsegregation and died two years later.

Yamato HospitalA patient under restraint died.

(2) Advocate
Advocate, who visits psychiatric hospital and contact with inpatient, has been seemed
to be effective measure to prevent abuse from happening in psychiatric hospital. However,enactment of the advocate still stays consideration stage. Training for the advocate
became an option in the project by budget in 2018 FY, but it has still not enforced.
2. Suggested Questions(1) Applicable scope of reporting obligations under the Persons with Disabilities Abuse
Prevention Act* Why are schools, nurseries, hospitals and public agencies excluded not included asorganizations for which reporting obligations for abuse of persons with disabilities are
imposed?
* What kinds of preparations are being made by the government to amend the Persons
with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act based on the revision provisions?
(2) Advocate* Has the government enacted advocate, who visits psychiatric hospital regularly andprotects the rights of inpatients, as an effective measure to prevent abuse fromhappening in psychiatric hospital.
3. Suggested Recommendation(1) Applicable scope of reporting obligations under the Persons with Disabilities Abuse
Prevention Act* The Committee recommends that all institutions, such as schools, nurseries, hospitals
and public agencies, be included in the scheme for reporting obligation under the Persons
with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act.
* The Committee recommends that the government accelerate procedures foramendment of the law by reflecting the opinions of organizations of persons withdisabilities, who are persons concerned with medical and educational institutions thatare not included in current informer protection provisions.
12(2) Advocate* The Committee recommends to enact advocate, who visits psychiatric hospital
regularly and protects the rights of inpatients, as an effective measure to prevent abusefrom happening in psychiatric hospital.
Article 17 Protecting the Integrity of the Person
1. Issues
A man with psychosocial disabilities in Iwate was forcibly hospitalized with consent by
his family in 2001. He repeated his request to discharge during his stay in a psychiatrichospital for two years. One day, he was forced by his family to agree to have operation tolose his fertility in exchange for his discharge from the psychiatric hospital. He rejected
to have the operation, but he was forcibly underwent sterilization. Like this case, persons
with disabilities still are forced to undergo sterilization or abortion even after
transitioning to the Maternal Protection Law in 1996.
It is reported that the number of sterilizations based on eugenic reasons under theformer Eugenic Protection Law was about 25,000. The number of forced sterilizations
without consent of the persons themselves alone is about 16,500 for roughly 50 years
from 1949 until 1996 (according to material from the Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare). In 1998, the UN Human Rights Committee regrettably pointed out that “therights of people who were subject to forced sterilizations to receive compensation are notstipulated” and recommended taking “necessary legal measures.” The Japanese
government received another recommendation from the Human Rights Committee in2014 and was recommended by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women in 2016 to conduct investigations and research on forced sterilizations,take legal measures, provide compensation for victims and recover their rights.
On April 24, 2019, the Act on the Provision of Lump-sum Compensation to Persons Who
Received Eugenic Surgery, etc. under the Former Eugenic Protection Law was enacted.
However, the subjects of the limp-sum compensation are limited to persons who wasunderwent sterilization based on eugenic reasons under the former Eugenic Protection
Law until 1996. So, persons like the man in Iwate became out of the subjects of the limpsum compensation. It is a serious problem that persons who suffer similar damage
become out of the subjects of the limp-sum compensation
2. Suggested Questions* Has the government planned to expand coverage etc. of relief subjects of the Act on the13

Provision of Lump-sum Compensation to Persons Who Received Eugenic Surgery, etc.
under the Former Eugenic Protection Law?
3. Suggested Recommendations* Expand coverage etc. of relief subjects of the Act on the Provision of Lump-sum
Compensation to Persons Who Received Eugenic Surgery, etc. under the Former Eugenic
Protection Law.
Article 19 Living Independently and Being Included in the Community
1. Issues
The average number of days spent in psychiatric hospitals in Japan is 250.5 days, much
longer than the average 15.6 days spent in general hospitals (excluding cases oftuberculosis and psychosocial disease) (source: Hospital Report - June 2018 Estimate by
the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare). In addition, when looking at the number ofpatients by length of admission, about 60% of patients were hospitalized for one year or
longer, while about 20% of patients were hospitalized for ten years or longer (excerpts
from 2017 630 Survey). In Japan, there are about 350,000 beds in psychiatric hospitals,
accounting for 25% of the total number of 1,250,000 hospital beds.
The Vision for Reforming Mental Health Care and Welfare was formulated in 2005.The
Vision indicated that there are about 72,000 socially hospitalized patients who can bedischarged if there is a support for them, and aimed to transit them from hospital tocommunity in ten years. However, actually less than 20,000 patients achieved hospitalto-community transition in ten years, and the cause of this failure has not been examined.
Before the examination, the government decided new aim of hospital-to-community
transition in the 5th Welfare Service Plan. In the aim of the government, in the formulafor calculating the amount of infrastructure development for persons with psychosocial
disabilities (an indicator for the supply of social resources to achieve the hospital-tocommunity transition target value) it is deemed that a group of about 70% of long-term
inpatients do not have to be discharged as they have medical care needs known as “severe
and chronic.” This means that the severe disabilities are used as a reason to not include
them in the calculation for hospital-to-community transition target value and justifies
placing them in facilities (hospitals) at the policy level. In addition, use of home-visit carefor persons with severe disabilities to support living in community is low number,because subject of the home-visit care is limited only to persons with profoundpsychosocial disabilities.
14

Because the aim of government is not practicable, hospital-to-community transition
have not sufficiently achieved. The government is trying to adopt the Residential Facility
Converted from Hospital and change only signboard from hospital to residential facility,
in order to conceal this fact and pretend to statistically succeed in hospital-to-community
transition
2. Suggested Question* Has the government formulated any effective hospital-to-community transition orcommunity settlement strategies, including the reduction of hospital beds, in order tosupport all persons with disabilities hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals live in theircommunity?
3. Suggested Recommendation* Promptly change political aim of hospital-to-community transition, and propose
effective and deliberative measures to reduce hospital beds.
Article 32 International Cooperation
1. Issues
Measures in partnership with “civil society, in particular organizations of persons withdisabilities” specified in the text of the CRPD regarding technical cooperation by theJapanese government is insufficient. Especially, the government does not at all provide
budgetary support to organizations of persons with psychosocial disabilities which are
involved in international cooperation.
2. Suggested Questions* Has the government provided budgetary support to organizations of persons withpsychosocial disabilities which are involved in international cooperation?
3. Suggested Recommendation* Provide budgetary support to organizations of persons with psychosocial disabilities
which are involved in international cooperation.

15