130th session of the UN Human Rights Committee(12 October - 6 November 2020)
Shadow report submitted by
FIDH - International Federation for Human Rights
andCenter for Prisoners’ Rights
This shadow report is submitted by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) and theInternational Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) for the Human Rights Committee’s
review of the 7th periodic report of Japan. This report examines prison conditions andthe use of the death penalty in Japan in light of international human rights standards.
FIDH represents 192 human rights organizations from 117 countries and territories. It
takes action for the protection of victims of human rights violations, for the preventionof violations and to bring perpetrators to justice. Established in 1922, FIDH works for therespect of all the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: civil andpolitical rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
The Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) was established in March 1995 as the firstJapanese NGO specializing in prison reform. CPR’s goal is to reform Japanese prison
conditions in accordance with international human rights standards and to abolish thedeath penalty. CPR is an affiliate member of FIDH.

1

Table of contents
1.
2.
3.

Correctional facilities and the COVID-19 pandemic ............................................. 3
Treatment of transgender inmates ....................................................................... 5
Death penalty ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Abolition of the death penalty .......................................................................... 6
3.2 Measures Japan should take in relation to the death penalty ......................... 7
3.2.1 Reasonable advance notice of the scheduled date and time of execution.. 7
3.2.2 Solitary confinement.............................................................................. 8
3.2.3 Introduction of a mandatory appeal system .......................................... 12
3.2.4 Evidentiary use of confessions obtained though torture or ill-treatment . 12
3.2.5 Confidential communications with defense counsel ............................... 13
3.3 Introduction of a mandatory and effective system of review ........................ 15
3.4 Establishment of an independent mechanism to review the mental health ofdeath row inmates ..................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Inhumane method of execution ...................................................................... 16
4.
Treatment of prisoners........................................................................................ 174.1. Abuse of solitary confinement ........................................................................ 174.2. Solitary confinement and mental illness ......................................................... 20
4.3. Medical care in penitentiary institutions ........................................................ 21
4.4. Restrictions on access to the outside world ................................................... 24
4.5. De facto life imprisonment without possibility of parole............................... 26
5.
Compulsory labor in prisons ............................................................................... 29
Appendix: Disciplinary punishment against Fumiaki Hoshino, from February 1989 to
May 2018 ................................................................................................................ 30

2

Since the review of Japan’s sixth periodic report under the ICCPR in 2014, there has beenno progress in the implementation of most of the recommendations previously made by
the UN Human Rights Committee. This joint FIDH-CPR report details the government’s
failure to implement the committee’s recommendations with regard to conditions ofdetention and the use of the death penalty.
1.

Correctional facilities and the COVID-19 pandemic

1.1. Infections within places of detention
Following the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), on 7 April 2020, thegovernment declared a state of emergency in seven prefectures based on the Act on
Special Measures against Pandemic Influenza and Other Related Diseases. On 16 May, it
expanded the scope of the state of emergency to cover all 47 prefectures. The state of
emergency was lifted in the whole country on 25 May.
By the end of April 2020, 18 COVID-19 infection cases were reported in places ofdetention as follows:
Date

Facility

Number of

Response to the infection

infections
1

15 April 2020

Tsukigata Prison

One prison staff

The inmates who were
believed to have been incontact with infected staff
were placed in solitaryconfinement. Prison staff
who were believed to havebeen in contact with infectedstaff were placed in isolation
at home.

2

11 April 2020

Tokyo Detention

One inmate

House

Because the inmate reported
possible COVID-19
symptoms before being
detained, he was placed insolitary confinement

3

5-17 April 2020

Osaka Detention

Eight prison staff

House

Inmates who were in close
contact with the infectedstaff were placed in solitaryconfinement. Prison staff

3

who were in contact with
infected staff were placed inisolation at home.
48-18 April 2020

Shibuya Police

Seven detainees

Station

Police investigators and staff
were placed in isolation at
home. All detainees weretransferred to other facilities
and placed in solitaryconfinement. In mid- April, it
was announced that Shibuya
Police Detention House
would be temporarily closed.

5

13 April 2020

Otsuka Police

One police officer

Unknown

Station

The infection situation in places of detention is currently limited to a few cases. At
Shibuya Police Station, as many as seven detainees were infected with COVID-19, which
led to the facility’s temporary closure. In 2016, an outbreak of tuberculosis occurredamong 19 police staff, and resulted in the death of one detainee.
There are no physicians or other medical professionals in police detention facilities.
Medical care is not available for detainees other than medical check-ups by outside
physicians, which are usually conducted about twice a month. Medical care is notprovided in police detention facilities because the primary purpose of detention facilities
is to detain suspects during relatively short periods of time between their arrest and theissuance of a detention order. After a detention order is issued by a judge, suspects
should be promptly transferred to a correctional facility (detention house) where
medical care by doctors is available.
1.2. Restrictions to access to the outside world to prevent the spread of Infection
In early April, the Ministry of Justice announced that, as a general rule, it would not allow
visitors to meet with inmates at correctional facilities located in the prefectures coveredby the state of emergency, with the exception of defense counsel. As a result, many ofthese correctional facilities suspended general visitation altogether, regardless of thesituation in each place of detention. These restrictions were in place from 7 April, when
the state of emergency was declared, until 25 May, when the declaration of the state of
emergency was lifted. The Ministry of Justice did not provide alternative methods toreplace in-person visitation.
4

Recommendations(i) In the event of a virus outbreak within places of detention, consider the release ofdetainees by making flexible use of the revocation of detention and the parole system
to prevent further infections.
(ii) Consider the release of suspects held in police detention facilities that are unable
to provide detainees with adequate medical assistance.
(iii) Abolish the “Daiyo Kangoku” [substitute prison] system.
(iv) Ensure that alternative channels of communications between prisoners and theoutside world, such as phone calls or video calls, are available when general visitationrights are prohibited or temporarily suspended.
2. Treatment of transgender inmates
List of Issues Prior to Reporting (LoIPR), para. 7(d)1Please address reports that transgender prisoners have been mistreated in detention
facilities.
In its seventh periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee, the government ofJapan claimed there was “no unfair treatment” of transgender prisoners in the country’s
correctional facilities. 2 However, this statement is contradicted by discriminatory
practices against transgender prisoners, which are in direct application of the Ministryof Justice’s notification issued in June 2011.3 According to the notification, transgenderprisoners are required to change their sex on their family registers in order to be
admitted to a facility of their self-identified sex. However, in Japan, transgender persons
are currently required to have no gonads or a permanent lack of gonadal function inorder to change their gender on the family register – a requirement that presupposes
the individual undergoes surgery. Many transgender persons do not want, or are unable
to, undergo surgery and end up retaining their gender on the family register unchanged.
Transgender prisoners who have not changed their family registration are forced to live
in a group with a gender that differs from their self-identified sex.
Transgender prisoners are more likely to have their privacy rights violated than otherprisoners because of their gender on the family register. They are placed in solitaryconfinement and are monitored by surveillance camera. In accordance with the Ministry1

Human Rights Committee, List of issues prior to submission of the seventh periodic report of Japan, 11 December
2017, UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/QPR/7
2
Human Rights Committee, Seventh periodic report submitted by Japan under article 40 of the Covenant pursuant to
the optional reporting procedure, due in 2018, 28 April 2020, UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/7, para.43
3
Ministry of Justice notification 1,June 2011; https://documents.gid.jp/moj/moj2015100101.pdf

5

of Justice’s notice, transgender prisoners are housed in a single room in an area withcorridor surveillance cameras, or cells with surveillance cameras, if necessary.
In addition, transgender prisoners are unable to receive hormone therapy. The Ministryof Justice’s notice states that hormone therapy is outside the scope of medical measures
to be taken by the state, because it is a highly specialized field and its failure would notcause immediate and irreparable harm during the incarceration. In a case in which a
prisoner who had been receiving hormone therapy prior to his imprisonment soughtdamages against the government for mental health problems caused by the failure ofhormone therapy in prison, the government argued that the hormone therapy was for"cosmetic purposes.” The district court did not admit the request in line with thegovernment’s argument.
The Complementary Neuropsychiatric Association submitted to the Ministry of Justice arequest of medical care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) inmates, where
it states that interruption or delay of hormone treatment could harm the inmates’
mental and physical health.
Recommendations(i) Treat transgender prisoners taking into full consideration their opinions andspecialists’ views, regardless of their gender on the family register.
(ii) Provide adequate healthcare including hormone therapy for transgender prisoners.
3. Death penalty
3.1. Abolition of the death penalty
LoIPR, para. 11(a)Clarify whether measures are being planned or taken towards the abolition of thedeath penalty and accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Pending
abolition, have steps been taken to ensure that the death penalty can be imposed only
for the most serious crimes, as prescribed in article 6(2) of the Covenant, i.e., only tocrimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing.
Since the review of the sixth periodic report of Japan in 2104, the government has
carried out executions every year. Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 31 death row
inmates were executed, including 15 death row inmates who were seeking retrial [Seetable below]. Among those inmates, Yoshihiro Inoue, a former senior member of the
Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult who was executed on 6 July 2020, was seeking retrial with
defense counsel being appointed. The Tokyo High Court held the second scheduling6

meeting to consider his retrial request three days before his execution. At the meeting,the prosecutor promised to disclose new evidence to the defense counsel, but theproceedings were never completed because of the execution.

Year

Executions

Inmates executed who
were seeking retrial

2014

3 0

2015

3 0

2016

3 0

2017

4 3

2018

15 11

2019

3 1

Recommendations(i) Ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and abolish the death penalty.
(ii) Halt executions of death row inmates until the death penalty is completely
abolished, and avoid executing inmates who have initiated retrial procedures.
3.2. Measures Japan should take in relation to the death penalty
3.2.1. Reasonable advance notice of the scheduled date and time of execution
LoIPR), para. 11(b)Report on whether measures have been taken to: (i) provide individuals on death row
and their families with reasonable advance notice of the scheduled date and time of
execution.
Through members of Parliament, CPR requested the government to disclose details
about the executions conducted in the past 10 years, including the date and time when
death row inmates were told about their executions. However, the Ministry of Justice
has refused to disclose such information.
Recommendation
Provide death row inmates and their families with reasonable advance notice of thescheduled date and time of execution.

7

3.2.2. Solitary confinement
LoIPR, para. 11(b)Report on whether measures have been taken to: (ii) refrain from imposing solitaryconfinement on death row prisoners, except in the most exceptional circumstances andfor strictly limited periods.
Death row inmates have continued to be placed in solitary confinement and their accessto the outside world is more severely restricted than that of other inmates. Prisoners areguaranteed their right to correspond, with two restrictions, namely: 1) correspondence
between death row inmates; and 2) correspondence that is likely to disrupt disciplineand order in the correctional institution or hinder appropriate correctional treatment.
However, in practice, correspondence with death row inmates is more tightly restricted.
They may correspond with their relatives, but correspondence with other individuals
outside of the prison is allowed at the discretion of the warden, and only when it meets
certain requirements listed in the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of
Inmates and Detainees (hereinafter the “2005 Prison Act”). 4 The reasons for thisdiscriminatory treatment against death row inmates are explained in a book written bya high-ranking official of Correction Bureau. The author argued that the reasons for the
restrictions on death row inmates’ correspondence are that: 1) restrictions are part ofthe sanction that accompanies the death sentence; 2) public opinion would not accept
that death row inmates can freely correspond; and 3) death row inmates could sufferfrom severe emotional distress due to access to the outside world.”5 As a result, deathrow inmates’ correspondence with supporters is tightly restricted and even letters fromtheir relatives and lawyers can be redacted. The following cases of callous andunnecessary restrictions document this pattern of violations.

4

Article 139(1) of the Prison Act states: “Wardens of penal institutions are to permit an inmate sentenced to death(except those classified as a detainee awaiting a judicial decision; hereinafter the same applies in this Division) to sendor receive letters under the following items except for when it is prohibited by the provisions of this Division, Article
148, paragraph (3), and the next Section:(i) letters the inmate sentenced to death sends to or receives from their relative;(ii) letters which the inmate sentenced to death sends and receives in order to carry out business of personal, legal,or occupationally-important concern, such as reconciliation of marital relations, pursuance of a lawsuit, or
maintaining a business;(iii) letters deemed to be instrumental in helping the inmate sentenced to death maintain peace of mind.
(2) Wardens of penal institutions may permit an inmate sentenced to death to send or receive letters other than those
set forth in the preceding paragraph when it is deemed that there are circumstances where the sending or receiving
is necessary for maintaining a good relationship with the addressee, or for any other reasons, and if it is deemed that
there is no risk of disrupting discipline and order in the penal institution.”
5
Hayashi, Kitamura, Natori, Commentary on 2005 Prison Act, 2017 [in Japanese]8(1) Refusal to mail a letter to a supporter[English Translation]
Hi, Yoko.
How are you? It is really hot, isn’t it?
Thank you very much for giving me the money. I received 300
yen on 26 May. Many thanks!! Please take care!!
28 May 2015
Dear Yoko,
Takeo Inokuma
A death row inmate in the Tokyo Detention House tried to send the above letter to asupporter in response to receiving JP¥ 300 from her, but the authorities in the facility
refused to mail it. Tokyo Detention House allows death row inmates to send thank you
letters at the warden’s discretion, when they receive money from those with whom theinmates do not have the right to correspond (i.e. non-relatives) as long as these letters
do not go beyond such purpose. The above letter was not sent because authorities
believed it deviated from the purpose of thanking a supporter. The death row inmate
filed a lawsuit against the government claiming that the authorities’ refusal to mail theletter was illegal, but both the Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo High Court rejected
the lawsuit.6

6

Tokyo District Court Judgment, 14 March 2019; Tokyo High Court Judgment, 18 March 2020.

9

(2) Redaction of a letter from a relative[English Translation]
Dear Father,
I am writing a matter which I think it necessary only.
<…Blacked out…>
Thank you.
7 September 2013.
(A Letter from <Name of a death row inmate)

A death row inmate in the Tokyo Detention House received the above letter from his
daughter, but most of the content was redacted. The inmate took legal action against
the government claiming the unlawfulness of the redaction. In response, thegovernment claimed that the redacted parts included a message from another deathrow inmate and that by mailing the letter without deletion would impair the disciplineof the correctional institution. Both the Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo High Court
accepted the government’s argument and ruled that the redaction of the letter was
lawful.7

7Tokyo District Court Judgment, 14 March 2019; Tokyo High Court Judgment, 18 March 2020.

10

(3) Redaction against a letter from a lawyer[English Translation]
Dear Mr. Takeo Inokuma,
It has been long time since I last contacted you.
The whole world is in chaos due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Does all continue to go well for you?
I am writing to you to ask some questions, today.
<…Blacked out…>
The infectious disease is going around. Please keep
safe.
Noriko Furuta, Attorney at law

A death row inmate received the above letter from his lawyer for the retrial, and mostof its content was redacted. In the redacted parts, the lawyer explained that she hadreceived a letter from another death row inmate, who worried about the well-being of
the letter’s recipient. The death row inmate is preparing legal action against the
government believing the redaction is unlawful.
Recommendations(i) Revise relevant laws to refrain from imposing solitary confinement on death row
prisoners, except in the most exceptional circumstances and for strictly limited periods.
(ii) Guarantee the right to access to the outside world for death row inmates as muchas it is guaranteed for other prisoners.
(iii) Prohibit any censorship or interruption against correspondence with lawyers.

113L2.3. Introduction of a mandatory appeal system
LoIPR, para. 11(b)Report on whether measures have been taken to: (iii) strengthen legal safeguards
against wrongful conviction in capital cases.
Japan does not have a mandatory appeal system for capital cases. While defendants whoare sentenced to death or life are not allowed to waive their right to appeal, they can
withdraw their appeal after submitting it to the court. As a result, the current systemdoes not provide the necessary legal safeguards against wrongful convictions in capitalcases, as some defendants withdraw their appeals. There has been a number of cases inwhich defendants withdrew their appeal after being sentenced to death at the first
instance trial, even though their defense counsel submitted an appeal. For example, in
the Ikeda Elementary School case (Osaka District Court Judgment, 23 August 2003), theNara girl’s murder case (Nara District Court Judgment, 26 September 2006), and theTuchiura stabbing rampage case (Mito District Court Judgment, 18 December 2009), thedeath sentences became final after the defendants withdrew their appeals.
Recently, Koji Yamada, who was sentenced to death for murdering two junior high school
students,8 withdrew his appeal in desperation after a quarrel with a prison guard. His
defense counsel claimed that the withdrawal was invalid, and, as of July 2020, the Osaka
High Court was considering the matter. Satoshi Uematsu, who was sentenced to death
for a stabbing rampage in 2016, withdrew his appeal after his defense counsel appealed.
His defense counsel claimed the appeal withdrawal was invalid and, as of July, theYokohama District Court was considering the matter.
Recommendation
Introduce mandatory appeal system for death penalty sentences in order tostrengthen legal safeguards against wrongful conviction in capital cases.
3.2.4. Evidentiary use of confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment
LoIPR, para. 11(b)Report on whether measures have been taken to: (iv) guarantee that confessions
obtained by torture or ill-treatment are not admissible as evidence in capital cases.
Despite a system of mandatory video/audio recording of interrogations currently being
8

Osaka District Court Judgment, 19 December 2018.

12

implemented, the scope of such practice remains limited to major criminal cases. No
effective legal safeguards have been put in place to avoid evidentiary use of confessions
obtained through torture. A defense counsel does not generally have access to all theevidence and there remains a risk that confessions under torture or ill-treatment would
be used as evidence.
For example, Iwao Hakamada reported he was interrogated for an average of 12 hours a
day for 23 days, not allowed to go to the toilet during interrogation session, and deprived
from sleeping in the detention facility in Shimizu Police Station. As a result of thistreatment, Mr. Hakamada gave a confession that led to him being sentenced to death.
His conviction became final on 12 December 1980. Mr. Hakamada’s torture allegations
came to light in October 2015, when audiotapes of interrogations stored in the Shizuoka
prefectural police department were found. Such ill-treatment could have been
prevented if the defense counsel had been allowed to attend interrogations. The court
would have declared the confession produced by the torture inadmissible, if anadequate disclosure system had been available. As a result of the discovery of new
evidence, on 27 March 2014, the Shizuoka District Court decided to begin a retrial in the
Hakamada case, and Mr. Hakamada was eventually released 33 years after his death
sentence was upheld.
Recommendation
Take appropriate measures to allow defense counsel to be present during
interrogations and to have access to all the evidence in order to guarantee that
confessions obtained by torture or ill-treatment are not admissible as evidence incapital cases.
3.2.5. Confidential communications with defense counsel
LoIPR, para. 11(b)Report on whether measures have been taken to: (v) guarantee the strict
confidentiality of all meetings between death row inmates and their lawyers.
Since the Supreme Court Judgement issued on 10 December 2013,9 in most cases prison
guards do not monitor meetings between death row inmates and their lawyers regarding
their retrial. However, they often monitor death row inmates’ meetings with theirlawyers regarding their treatment within the correctional facilities, and the courts
approve of such practice. In addition, interference with correspondence between death9

Supreme Court Judgment, 10 December 2013, Minshu 67 1761.

13

row inmates and their lawyers has continued. Authorities in correctional facilities often
censor lawyers’ letters regardless of their content.
For example, in a case in which a lawyer provided legal advice to a death row inmate by
mail, Tokyo Detention House authorities opened the envelope and redacted parts of thelegal advice. The death row inmate had asked for legal advice regarding the authorities’
redaction of some of his letters, and the lawyer responded that the redaction was illegal,
citing the message redacted by the authority.
The Japanese government explains the regulations on censorship of death row inmates’
correspondence as follows:“As for the letters sent or received between an
inmate sentenced to death and a lawyer who isrequested to represent such an inmate in a civil
lawsuit concerning the treatment that such an
inmate received, [..] letters are only examined within
the limit necessary for ascertaining that they are such
letters as specified above, unless there arereasonable grounds to suspect that the content
represents a breach of discipline and order in thecorrectional institution.”
Nevertheless, authorities in correctional facilities
routinely open and examine correspondence sent todeath row inmates. In the above case, a transparent
envelope was used as shown [See photo], and theletter was titled “Mail regarding legal action against
Tokyo Detention House (Mail falling under article
127(2)(iii)): 10 Do Not Open” at the top of theenvelope, it was obvious that the envelope contained
10

Article 127(1) When it is deemed necessary for maintaining discipline and order in the penal institution or for theadequate conducting of correctional treatment for a sentenced person, or for any other reasons, wardens of penal
institutions may have a designated staff member examine the letters the sentenced person sends and receives.
(2)With regard to the letters set out under the following items, designated staff members are to examine them to theextent necessary for ascertaining that the letters fall under any of the following items; provided, however, concerning
the letters set forth in item (iii), this does not apply where there are special circumstances in which it is deemed likely
to disrupt discipline and order in the penal institution: […] (iii) letters a sentenced person sends to or receives from anattorney (including a legal professional corporation, hereinafter the same applies in this Subsection) who conducts
the duty prescribed in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Attorney Act with regard to the measures taken by wardens ofpenal institutions toward the sentenced person, or any other treatment the sentenced person received.

14

no prohibited items and that the sender was a lawyer who provided legal advice
regarding the treatment of the death row inmate. The death row inmate filed a lawsuit
against the government, claiming the unlawfulness of the redaction, but both the Tokyo
District Court and the Tokyo High Court rejected his lawsuit and stated that theauthorities could not ascertain that the letter fell under the categories ofcorrespondence permitted by law, even if the title of the letter was printed at the top.
With regard to the redaction, the inmate claimed that redacted parts constituted legal
advice and the reduction would therefore infringe on his right to fair trial. However, thetwo courts rejected his argument and stated that the lawyer’s citation of messages thatthe authorities had redacted in the past would impair the discipline of the correctional
institution.11
Recommendations(i) Guarantee the strict confidentiality of all meetings between death row inmates andtheir lawyers.
(ii) Prohibit censorship and interference with correspondence between lawyers anddeath row inmates.
3.3. Introduction of a mandatory and effective system of review
LoIPR, para.11(c)Clarify whether a mandatory and effective system of review has been established incapital cases and the conditions under which requests for retrial or pardon have asuspensive effect.
In a case in which a death row inmate sought a court ruling to affirm that the government
should refrain from carrying out executions during retrial proceedings, the Osaka District
Court rejected the inmate’s petition. The court stated that once convictions become final
in an independent and impartial court, executions carried out during the retrial
proceedings do not violate Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right toa fair trial. The court argued that Article 6(4) of ICCPR does not provide the death row
inmates’ right to retrial, and that executions during retrial do not breach Articles 6(1)and 7 of the ICCPR.12 The number of inmates executed while they were seeking retrial
is reported above [See Chapter 3.1].
Recommendations
11
12

Tokyo District Court Judgment on 24 October 2017, Tokyo High Court Judgment on 13 June 2018.
Osaka District Court Judgment, 20 February 2020.

15

(i) Establish a mandatory and effective system of review of capital cases.
(ii) Amend related laws to allow for the suspension of executions in capital cases during
retrial or amnesty proceedings.
3.4. Establishment of an independent mechanism to review the mental health ofdeath row inmates
LoIPR, para.11(d)Respond to reports alleging that persons with serious psychosocial and intellectual
disabilities continue to be subjected to the death penalty, and clarify whether the State
party has introduced an independent mechanism to review the mental health of deathrow inmates.
Executions against inmates with suspected mental illnesses remain rampant. On 18 June
2018, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) recommended that the Ministerof Justice suspend executions against eight inmates who were suspected to be mentallyinsane. The JFBA has not revealed the inmates’ names, but Chizuo Matsumoto (Shoko
Asahara), a founder of the Japanese doomsday cult group Aum Shinrikyo, was said to be
included. Nevertheless, the government executed seven Aum members, including Mr.
Matsumoto, on 6 July 2018.
Recommendation
Introduce an independent mechanism to review the mental health of death row
inmates.
3.5. Inhumane method of execution
LoIPR, para.11(e)Clarify whether any review of the current method of execution has been undertaken to
ensure that it is not contrary to article 7.
It remains impossible to determine how long executions take in Japan. Despite a request
by CPR to the Ministry of Justice to disclose the duration of each execution over the past
10 years, the Ministry failed to provide such information. The Japanese government has
blacked out all the important parts of execution documents whenever it has been asked
to disclose them. However, newly found official documents concerning executions showthat hanging could cause acute physical and mental suffering. These documents, which
cover 102 executions conducted from 3 July 1947 to 20 March 1951, show the time16required to execute prisoners by hanging in 79 of 102 cases ranged from 10 minutes and
45 seconds to 22 minutes. Since the Prison Act provides that the guard should not loosen
the rope until five minutes after the prisoner is pronounced dead, these figures mean
that, on average, inmates were hanged for more than 19 minutes. This would suggestthat it would be almost impossible to execute inmates by hanging in a humane manner.
These figures also reveal the possibility that the execution by hanging might be botched,depending on physical constitution, resistance, and arrangements of executions.
Recommendation
Disclose the necessary details concerning executions, including the beginning andending times of executions.
4.

Treatment of prisoners

4.1. Abuse of solitary confinement
LoIPR, para.17
Please report on the regulations governing the use of solitary confinement of prisoners
and on measures taken to ensure that solitary confinement is imposed as a measureof last resort, that it is proportionate to the offence committed and that it is applied
for as short a time as possible.
(1) Solitary confinement
To this day, a significant number of prisoners who do not meet the requirements for“isolation” stipulated by the Prison Act are designated as falling under “Category 4”, oneof the four categories of restrictions established by an order of the Ministry of Justice.
Category 4 restrictions can be described as solitary confinement. As of 10 October 2019,
the total number of prisoners who were designated as falling under Category 4 incorrectional institutions nationwide was 894 (2.1%), while only four prisoners wereisolated under the Prison Act. The table below shows the periods of solitary confinementof prisoners who have been placed under solitary confinement under Category 4 formore than 10 years.

17

Prisoners in solitary confinement for more than 10 years
Date of research

Nov. 10,2000

July 10,2001

Oct. 1,2002

Nov. 1,2005

April 10,2008

April 10,2012

April 10,2016

137y00m37y08m38y11m42y00m52y03m49y08m

54y00m2

36y07m37y03m38y05m

41y06m43y00m47y00m34y03m3

35y06m35y07m36y07m39y08m39y01m30y06m32y08mPeriod of4

34y11m35y05m29y01m38y07m35y10m30y04m31y03yIsolation

534y09m27y10m24y00m27y01m

26y06m27y10m27y10my=year6

27y10m22y10m23y07m26y08m26y05m27y04m24y05mm=month7

22y06m22y04m22y10m26y00m25y06m23y10m24y03m822y02m21y07m22y04m25y05m23y11m22y05m24y00m921y05m21y01m22y02m25y00m23y05m21y11m23y09m10

20y11m21y00m21y01m24y10m20y05m20y05m23y09m≧30ｙ

1120y05m19y10m21y00m23y11m20y01m20y01m19y11m20y-29y11m

12

20y04m19y09m21y00m23y11m16y05m19y11m19y00m10y-19y11m

13

19y04m19y09m20y10m23y06m16y02m16y07m

16y06m14

19y03m19y07m20y09m21y07m16y00m15y09m16y00m15

19y01m

19y06m18y10m20y03m15y11m15y02m15y01m16

18y11m17y07m18y06m

19y08m15y09m13y03m14y04m17

18y10m17y03m16y01m18y05m13y01m12y07m13y08m18

17y00m15y10m15y09m17y01m12y08m11y07m13y07m19

16y07m14y10m13y10m16y01m12y06m11y02m12y10m20

15y02m14y07m13y10m15y09m11y11m10y05m12y09m21

14y05m12y10m13y00m15y03m11y09m10y03m12y07m22

14y02m12y07m12y02m15y02m11y03m23

13y11m11y09m12y01m14y01m12y04m24

12y02m11y00m

11y06m13y07m12y03m25

11y11m10y10m11y00m13y05m12y01m26

11y01m10y05m

10y06m13y04m11y11m27

10y04m10y04m13y04m

11y08m28

10y02m10y04m13y01m11y04m29

10y03m

10y06m11y01m30

10y00m10y00m10y07m12y05m31

10y02m32

10y01mNo. of prisoners

28

26

30

30

22

21

These data are based on surveys conducted by Diet members on seven different locations between 2000 and 2020

18

32

(2) Abusive confinement in protection cells
The Prison Act allows for the confinement ofinmates in protection cells only in cases inwhich inmates shout or make noise despitea prison officer’s order to cease doing so,
and when such confinement is “particularly
necessary” (Article 79 (1)(ii)).

Above is a picture of the Nepali man
under confinement in a protection cell inadetention

facility.

Correctional

institutions have similar protection cells.

However, despite such restrictions, abusive
confinement in protection cells has
frequently occurred. There have also beencases in which inmates were confined toprotection cells due to their protests against
the treatment in the facilities.

For example, a Nepali man was arrested at Shinjuku Police Station on charges of
embezzlement of lost property in March 2017 for having possessed a credit card insomeone else’s name, which he had picked up on the street. He tried to leave thedetention room without obeying a detention staff member who had instructed him to
return his futon to a storage room – an instruction that he did not comprehend because
he could not understand Japanese. An argument ensued and eventually four detention
officers confined him to a protection cell for being insubordinate. In addition, after
placing him in a protection cell, about 15 staff members surrounded him and put
restraining devices on him (handcuffs affixed to the waist belt, along with restraining
devices around his knees and ankles). He laid in the protection cell restrained by thedevices for two hours. Then, the handcuffs were removed and replaced with handcuffs
used for escorting, and he was transferred to the public prosecutor's office. One of thehandcuffs was removed during the interrogation at the public prosecutor’s office, andthe man died of traumatic shock caused by muscle crush syndrome.13
The Supreme Court has taken a stance that seemingly authorizes abusive confinementin protection cells. In a Supreme Court Judgment issued on 25 October 2018, Justice
Masayuki Ikegami stated the following opinion: “The requirement of ‘when suchconfinement is particularly necessary’ is not limited to cases where the mental state of
the inmate is extremely unstable. Even if the inmate shouts intentionally as an act of
13 Business Insider, 16 police staff seized a man by bounding his hand and foot. A Nepalese man died during

interrogation by prosecutor, 29 March 2019; https://www.businessinsider.jp/post-188176 [in Japanese]19

protest and is capable of controlling himself/herself according to circumstances, it isreasonable to understand that confinement in protection cells is permitted if the[situation concerns an] inmate falling under any of the categories from (a) to (c) [ofArticle 79(1) of the Prison Act]14 and if such measure is highly necessary to maintaindiscipline and order in the correctional institution.” According to this opinion, eveninmates who protests against their treatment can be confined to protection cells.
Confinement in protection cells is far from being used “only in exceptional cases as a lastresort”, as prescribed by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners(Mandela Rules, Rule 45(1)).
Recommendations(i) Repeal current legislation that allows the warden to put inmates in protection cells
when they protest against the authorities.
(ii) Introduce thorough training programs for prison staff so that solitary confinement
is only used as a measure of last resort.
4.2. Solitary confinement and mental illness
LoIPR, para.17
Please comment on the reports of prolonged solitary confinement and the increase in
the number of prisoners placed in solitary confinement for more than 10 years,
including prisoners with mental disabilities.
The Japanese government reported that the number of prisoners in solitary confinement
for more than 10 years based on Category 4 was 21 in 2012 and 32 in 2016. The Ministryof Justice rejected a request submitted by CPR to disclose the number of inmates who
were exempted from work duties due to mental and behavioral impairments, among the53 who had been placed in solitary confinement. They Ministry claimed that suchstatistics were not available.

14

Article 79(1) of the Prison Act states: “When an inmate falls under any of the following items, prison officers may
confine them in a protection cell by order of wardens of penal institutions:[…](a) cases where the inmate shouts or is noisy, against a prison officer's order to cease doing so;(b) cases where the inmate is likely to inflict injury on others;(c) cases where the inmate is likely to damage or defile facilities, equipment, or any other property belonging to thepenal institution
[…]”

20

Recommendation
Disclose the number of prisoners with mental disabilities who have been placed insolitary confinement for more than 10 years.
4.3. Medical care in penitentiary institutions
LoIPR, para.17
Please elaborate on steps taken to improve health care in prisons and report on theimpact of the Act on Special Provisions for the Subsidiary Work and Working Hours ofCorrectional Medical Officers of 2015 in addressing the chronic shortage of medical
staff in penitentiary institutions.
4.3.1. Number of doctors and medical conditions
Since the enactment of the the Act on Special Provisions for the Subsidiary Work andWorking Hours of Correctional Medical Officers in 2015, there have been more doctors
in prisons. However, a serious shortage of medical personnel remains. There are 187
prison doctors in 177 prisons – 19 fewer than the target number of 206 required by the
Act - and, as of 1 February 2020, four prisons did not have full-time doctors.
In 2017, the East Japan Adult Correctional Medical Center opened, which was expected
to provide specialized medical care for adult inmates. Yet, inmates do not have access toadequate medical care, since the center does not cover all the medical care and someprisons may refuse to transfer inmates to the center because of lack of staff or to avoid
the trouble of transferring inmates. Many prisoners complain of not having access to
medical care when they claim to be ill. In July 2020, an inmate who was in a medical
priority facility reported that during his incarceration, he was diagnosed with colorectal
cancer and underwent further endoscopic examinations, which revealed multiple polyps.
However, the prison authorities did not provide further tests, including those todetermine if the polyps were malignant.
For medical treatment that prisons do not provide, the authorities may allow inmates toreceive treatment inside the facilities from outside doctors.15 Nonetheless, only about
10 doctors a year are appointed, and the field in which doctors can be appointed are
15

Article 63(1) of the Act on Special Provisions for the Subsidiary Work and Working Hours of Correctional Medical
Officers states: “When an inmate who has sustained an injury or is suffering from a disease applies to designate adoctor who is not the staff of the penal institution to receive a medical treatment, if such claim is deemed appropriate
for the inmate's medical care in light of circumstances such as the type and degree of the injury or disease, and as thefact that the inmate had been visiting the doctor on a regular basis for medical treatments prior to their commitment
to the penal institution, then wardens of penal institutions may permit the inmate to receive medical treatment inside
the penal institution at their own expense.”21

limited to dental care, psychiatric care, and a few other areas [See table below]. In a casein which the family of a deceased inmate sought compensation against the government
claiming a prison doctor failed to diagnose his cancer, which delayed adequate treatment,a settlement was reached between the government and the family in July 2018 and thegovernment paid compensation to the family.
Appointed doctors from 2012 to 201916
Year

Appointed

Medical fielddoctors
2012

10

Dental implants, compartment syndrome, neck and back pain

2013

9

Dental care, dental implants, rehabilitation training, gender
identity disorder

2014

7

Dental care, dental implants, gender identity disorder,
aftermath of accidents

2015

6

Dental care, dental Implants, gender identity disorder

2016

6

Dental care, aftermath of accidents

2017

7

Dental care, dental implants, psychiatric care

2018

11

Dental care, dental implants, psychiatric care

2019

9

Dental care, dental implants, psychiatric care

4.3.2. Decrease in the number of compassionate releases
Prosecutors may suspend a sentence so that inmates would be compassionately
released and have access to medical care outside prisons. Prosecutors used to suspend
the sentences, if prisoners became seriously ill. Then, these prisoners would be released
and admitted to a hospital to spend time with family and others during the terminal
stages of their illnesses. Around 60 inmates a year were compassionately released
between 2008 and 2010, but, since then, the number of compassionate release has been
sharply decreasing, with 18 released in 2018 [See table below]. This statistic suggeststhat the requirements for granting compassionate release may have become more
stringent in recent years, even if the Japanese government attribute the decline incompassionate release to improvements of medical care. The government has not madepublic information concerning the grounds for each compassionate release.

16

Minister of Justice’s reply to inquiries of a Diet member in June 2020.

22

Compassionate releases and inmate mortality
Inmate mortality

17

Year

Compassionate release

Number of inmates at the end of year

2018

18

243

44,186

2017

19

228

46,702

2016

26

256

49,027

2015

29

230

51,175

2014

33

298

52,860

2013

21

285

55,316

2012

29

273

58,726

2011

26

259

61,102

2010

54

342

63,845

2009

60

330

65,951

2008

67

347

67,6724.3.3. Adverse effects of the prison healthcare under the management of the Ministryof Justice
Many problems with prison healthcare derive from the fact that the Ministry of Justice,and not the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLV), has jurisdiction over medicalcare in prison. Japan has a national health insurance system managed by the MHLV, but
this is not available for prison healthcare since the Ministry of Justice is responsible forthe medical treatment of prisoners.
Prison medical budgets are limited and prisoners are compelled to bear their medical
costs when they appoint doctors from outside of the prisons. It has also not beenpossible to secure sufficient doctors and an adequate level of medical care in prisons.
Furthermore, since the doctors and other medical staff are also employees of the
Ministry of Justice, it is difficult for them to provide medical care in a totally independent
manner.
Recommendations(i) Transfer the management of prison healthcare to the Ministry of Health, Labor, andWelfare.
(ii) Increase the number of doctors in places of detention and make active use of
external medical care, including medical examinations by appointed doctors.
(iii) Increase the use of compassionate releases.

17

Ministry of Justice, “Kyosei Tokei Nennpo” [Annual Correctional Statistics]

23

4.4

Restrictions on access to the outside world

LoIPR, para.17
Please respond to reports of restrictions of contact with the outside world on broadly
formulated grounds, censorship of correspondence from lawyers and prison staff
attending interviews conducted with prisoners by lawyers from the human rights
protection committees and local bar associations, and report on measures taken to
ensure the confidentiality of such meetings.
Correctional institutions have continued the practice of opening and reading thecontents of letters in any circumstances, as the case detailed below illustrates. Therefore,
the confidentiality of correspondence between lawyers and prisoners is not guaranteed.
In addition, if a prisoner is confined to a protection cell, even a lawyer who has taken up
the case regarding the prisoner’s treatment or a defense counsel involved in the criminalcase is prohibited from visiting the prisoner and exchanging correspondence.
(1) Censorship of letters
A lawyer was retained by a prisoner to file a lawsuit against
the government to seek compensation for the treatment
the prisoner experienced in the correctional institution.
The lawyer sent a letter about the compensation case to
the prisoner, but the envelope was opened and the letter
was read by the prison staff. Inside the envelope was a
letter wrapped with a cover paper, which said "Do not
open: A letter regarding the compensation lawsuit against
Akita Prison (this letter falls under Article 127(2)(iii) of the2005 Prison Act)". It was easily recognizable by glancing
through the cover’s slit that the envelope did not containany prohibited items. In addition, it could be confirmed
from the description on the cover that it was a correspondence from a lawyer who hadtaken up a case regarding the treatment of the prisoner (i.e., a letter which falls under
Article 127(2)(iii) of the Prison Act). Nonetheless, the prison staff opened the envelope
and read the letter. The prisoner filed a lawsuit against the state to seek compensation,
claiming the examination of the letter was illegal. The Akita District Court ruled that themeasure taken by the warden of Akita Prison to remove the cover paper and to examine
the contents of the letter was illegal. However, the Akita Branch of the Sendai High Court,
the appellate court, ruled that the examination was legal and approved the correctional
authorities’ action of reading the content of the letter, stating that even if the cover24

paper stated that the letter fell under Article 127(2)(iii) of the Prison Act, it was
nonetheless necessary to confirm that such statement was true and that a possibility
existed that a letter unrelated to the case would be exchanged. Prior to this case, thesame court had issued a similar ruling, in which it found that opening and reading a letter
was lawful.
(2) Restriction of external communications by prisoners confined to protection cells
The Prison Act stipulates that inmate may be confined to protection cell when they shoutor make noise and when it is particularly necessary for maintaining discipline in thecorrectional institution. However, the Act does not stipulate any restriction on meetings
between an inmate confined to a protection cell and a defense counsel or prospective
defense counsel. In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that “even if a request to visit
an un-sentenced person being confined to a protection cell has been made by a defense
counsel or prospective defense counsel, the warden of the penal institution may rejectsuch request in order to maintain discipline and order in the penal institution if the unsentenced person falls under category (ii) of paragraph (1) of said Article at the time of
deciding whether to allow such visit.” Given this Supreme Court ruling, even a defense
counsel can be restricted from visiting an inmate confined to a protection cell. In addition,
as mentioned above, Justice Masayuki Ikegami stated in his opinion to a Supreme Court's
ruling that if inmates protest the treatment carried out in a correctional institution, they
are not only placed in a protection cell but also denied access to a criminal defense
counsel or a lawyer retained to file a complaint regarding the treatment. The following
cases illustrate these restrictions:a) The case of Tochigi Prison
A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment and detained in Tochigi Prison filed a civil
lawsuit regarding the treatment to which she had been subjected in a correctional
institution and appointed a lawyer to represent her in the case. Subsequently, the inmate
was confined to a protection cell and was no longer allowed to meet with the lawyer,
after their last meeting on 20 December 2018. On 2 July 2019, the lawyer submitted an
application for human rights relief to the Tochigi Bar Association, alleging that external
communication with the prisoner had been blocked for more than six months. The caseis currently under investigation by the Tochigi Bar Association.
b) A prisoner confined to a protection cell was not allowed to meet the criminal defense
counselA criminal defense counsel made a request unsuccessfully on three occasions to visit a
prisoner who was being confined to a protection cell in Akita Prison. The Akita District
25

Court held that not suspending the confinement in the protection cell and not allowing
the criminal defense counsel to meet with the prisoner were not illegal, because therequirements for the confinement to a protection cell were satisfied when such requests
were made.
Recommendations(i) Amend legislation to ensure there is no censorship of, and interference with, lawyerinmates correspondence.
(ii) Amend legislation to ensure that inmates in protection cells can meet or
correspond with their lawyers.
4.5

De facto life imprisonment without possibility of parole

LoIPR, para.17
Please clarify the criteria for release on parole of prisoners serving life sentences andprovide information on the number of such releases since July 2014.
(1) Criteria for parole
According to Article 28 of the Penal Code, in order for a person sentenced to life
imprisonment to be granted parole, it is necessary for that person to satisfy the two
requirements that 10 years have passed since the commencement of their sentence, andthat the sentenced person “evinces signs of substantial reformation.” In addition, a
Ministry of justice regulation 18 enumerates additional specific requirement that
prisoners must meet in order to be granted parole. The regulation stipulates that parole
may be granted “when it is recognized that the person has a feeling of repentance andwillingness to make improvements and reform him/herself, there is no risk that he/shewill commit a crime again, and putting the person on probation is appropriate for theirimprovement and reform. However, this shall not apply when it cannot be recognizedthat the feelings of society endorse this [emphasis added].”
There is a serious concern that the parole can be denied on the grounds of “feelings ofsociety,” even if the sentenced person has been sufficiently rehabilitated and is no longer
at risk of reoffending. The “feelings of society” should be irrelevant if the prisoner has
served a sufficient period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. In
18

Ministry of Justice Ordinance, Regulations on treatment against those who have committed crimes and delinquentjuveniles in society, adopted on 23 April 2008, last amended on 24 April 2020.

26

addition, the "feelings of repentance" mentioned above presupposes an admission of
guilt, and in cases in which prisoners deny the criminal charges and seeks a retrial evenafter the sentence becomes final, “signs of substantial reformation” are likely to beabsent. What is required by international standards is whether the prisoner can safely
return to society. For this purpose, "feelings of repentance" - which consists of anadmission of guilt and repentance on the part of the prisoner – should not be required.
There are also problems with the procedure for obtaining parole. In particular, Article 92of the Offenders Rehabilitation Act permits an appeal under the Administrative Appeal
Act against a decision by the Regional Parole Board, but the parole board does not issue
decisions when it does not grant parole. Therefore, a prisoner may not request a reviewof the denial of parole. In addition, the reason for the denial of parole is notcommunicated to the prisoner. In this regard, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures (the “Tokyo Rules”) stipulate that the decision on post-sentencing
dispositions (such as parole) should be subject to review by a judicial or other competent
independent authority.19(2) Number of parolees since 2014
The number of prisoners sentenced to life who were granted parole was seven in 2014,
11 in 2015, nine in 2016, 11 in 2017, and 25 in 2018. Each year, only around 10 prisoners
are paroled. The number of parolees excluding “those who were allowed to be releasedon parole again after the revocation of their parole” was six in 2014, nine in 2015, sevenin 2016, eight in 2017, and 10 in 2018. Below is a table detailing the number of prisoners
sentenced to life from an official document published by the Ministry of Justice.
Year

NumberNumber of

Number of

Number of

Average length

Numberof lifenew inmates

life

new

of

of lifeprisoners

sentenced toprisoners

parolees

imprisonment

sentencein prisonlife

paroledsentenced

in category

inmates

at theto lifewho diedend ofthe year
2009

1772

81

6

6

30 years and 2

14months
2010

1796

50

9

7

35 years and 3

21months19

Tokyo Rules, 9.3; available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/tokyorules.pdf

27

2011

1812

43

8

3

35 years and 2

21months
2012

1826

34

8

6

31 years and 9

14months
2013

1843

39

10

8

31 years and 2

14months
2014

1842

26

7

6

31 years and 4

23months
2015

1835

25

11

9

31 years and 6

22months
2016

1815

14

9

7

31 years and 927months
2017

1795

18

11

8

33 years and 2

30

months
2018

1789

25

25

10

31 years and 6

24months
sum

355

104

70

210

total

Note: New parolees sentenced to life are defined as parolees who are sentenced to life
imprisonment, excluding those who are allowed to be paroled again after revocation ofparole.
From 2014 to 2018, the number of life prisoners at the end of each year has remained
almost unchanged, ranging between 1,842 and 1,789. Nevertheless, the number ofparolees is only about 10 each year. And the average length of imprisonment for newparolees serving life sentences ranges from 31 to 33 years. It is clear that the period ofincarceration before parole is granted is a long one. Additionally, the number of life
prisoners who died was 23 in 2014, 22 in 2015, 27 in 2016, 30 in 2017, and 24 in 2018.
More than twice the number of prisoners eligible for parole have died in prison. Thereis a considerable number of elderly life prisoners in Japan. At the end of 2018, thenumber of life prisoners in their 70s was 358 (20%), and 97 (5.4%) were in their 80s, orolder. The low number of parolees sentenced to life poses a serious problem on the aging
population of life-sentenced prisoners.
(3) Lack of transparency in the parole process: The case of Fumiaki Hoshino
The extreme uncertainty of Japanese parole procedures is illustrated by the case of
Fumiaki Hoshino, a life prisoner in Tokushima Prison. Mr. Hoshino was sentenced to life
for murder, arson, obstruction of justice, assault, and assault with a deadly weapon, and28

was transferred to Tokushima Prison on 30 October 1987. Mr. Hoshino served more than
30 years in Tokushima Prison, but, on 25 March 2019, the Shikoku Regional Parole Board
did not grant him parole. On 18 April 2019, Mr. Hoshino was transferred to the East Japan
Adult Correctional Medical Centre, where he died of liver cancer on 30 May. Since 2018,
the defense lawyers had been aware of Mr. Hoshino’s deteriorating health and had
requested that Tokushima Prison to conduct a medical examination. However,Tokushima Prison did not respond to their request. On 20 March 2019, defense lawyers
submitted a written opinion to the Shikoku Regional Parole Board that Mr. Hoshino
should be released on parole in order to allow him to receive appropriate medical care,but the board refused to grant him parole. On 15 April 2019, the defense team requested
that the Shikoku Regional Parole Board clarify its reasons for refusing to grant Mr.
Hoshino parole. However, the Shikoku Regional Parole Board did not respond to thisrequests. Mr. Hoshino's behavior was extremely favorable, and he was punished only
seven times during his 32 years of imprisonment. The acts and punishments for which
he was punished are listed in the Appendix. None of the disciplinary actions affected thediscipline and order of the prison. Support groups have criticized this type of punishment
because it negatively impacted the outcome of parole hearings.
Recommendations(i) Establish objective requirements for parole eligibility and remove subjective
requirements such as “feelings of society” and “repentance.”(ii) Provide periodic parole reviews.
(iii) Review the local parole board members to strengthen their independence in orderto ensure proper and impartial decisions.
(iv) Issue a decision when the board denies parole; notify the decision in writing to theprisoner himself, together with the reasons for it; and allow for an appeal against thedenial decision.
5.

Compulsory labor in prisons

LoIPR, para.19
With reference to the previous concluding observations (para. 15), please report on
measures taken to combat trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation and forcedlabor.
Prisoners in Japan’s correctional facilities are forced to work for extremely low andinadequate wages. Article 12 of the Penal Code provides that prisoners who have beensentenced to imprisonment with labor must be engaged in the assigned work. Articles
29

74 and 150 of the Prison Act prescribe that the failure to meet the obligation of work
can be punished. In Fiscal Year 2017, the average monthly remuneration per prisoner
was JP¥4,340 (about US$41) - a very small amount to ensure an adequate standard ofliving after the release. In May 2013, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR), after the review of Japan’s third periodic report under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), recommended that Japan“abolish forced labor either as corrective measure or as penal sentence, and amend or
repeal relevant provisions in line with its obligation under article 6 of the Covenant.” TheCESCR also encouraged Japan to consider ratifying ILO Convention No. 105 on theabolition of forced labor. Regrettably, the government has not taken any measures toaddress and implement the CESCR recommendations.
Recommendations(i) Abolish imprisonment with assigned work and provide meaningful work
opportunities for prisoners.
(ii) Introduce a wage system that provides for an adequate remuneration for prison
labor.
Appendix: Disciplinary punishment against Fumiaki Hoshino, from February 1989 to
May 2018.
- February 1989, one week of “minor solitary confinement”
Mr. Hoshino’s prison labor at that time was making plastic flowers. One day he warmed
plastic material with a kettle in his bed in order to prevent it go brittle in the freezingroom. The prison authority caught him and imposed a punishment called “Keiheikin”[minor solitary confinement].
- From 15 to 23 August 1990, “minor solitary confinement”
The prison authority placed him in “minor solitary confinement” because he washed his
towel, with which he had wiped his feet after they got dirty during exercising without
socks.
- November 1996, 20 days of “minor solitary confinement”
He was placed in “minor solitary confinement” because he washed his foot after heinadvertently stepped on a cockroach in his cell.
- February 2010, “admonition”
On 26 February 2010, Tatsuo Suzuki, Hoshino’s attorney, visited him and informed that30

the Tokyo High Court had set 31 March as the deadline for the submission of his opinion
letter for a retrial. On 28 February, he spent the whole day writing his opinion letter.
After the lights-out, he corrected one line - the “reason” for the admonition.
- March 2010, one week of “disciplinary confinement”“Heikyo batsu” [disciplinary confinement] was imposed because he had put zenzai (hotsweet Japanese soup) in the case for his artificial tooth in order to cool it down.
- April 2011, demotion from the third privilege grade to the fourth, because ofaccumulation of two “yellow cards” as follows:(i) During the work time, Hoshino, speaking to a prisoner, asked him: “Do you have apermit to talk to me?” The authorities ruled Hoshino’s expression as “irregularconversation.”(ii) After the authorities changed his cell, he stood on the table in order to clean up thecell.
- 8 May 2018, three punishments:(i) Handing back of JP¥500 (US$4.7) cash reward.
(ii) Handing back of one of four pins, each of which honored his three-year no accident
record.
(iii) Demotion from the second privilege grade to the third.
On the 3 May national holiday, he overlooked the notice that instructed that dessert
must be eaten before the supper and instead consumed it one hour after. His behavior
was ruled “irregular consumption.”31