111th Session of the Human Rights Committee
7–25 July 2014
Report submitted by
The Center for Prisoners’ Rights; the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and The
Advocates for Human Rights (both NGOs with special consultative status); and the World
Coalition Against the Death Penalty
This report is submitted by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan, the International Federation for Human
Rights (FIDH), The Advocates for Human Rights, and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, in
conjunction with the Human Rights Committee’s 6th Periodic Review of Japan. Japan will be subject toreview during the Committee’s 111th session (7–25 July 2014). This report examines prison conditions
and the imposition of the death penalty in Japan in light of international human rights standards.
FIDH represents 178 human rights organisations on 5 continents. It takes action for the protection of
victims of human rights violations, for the prevention of violations and to bring perpetrators to justice.
A broad mandate
FIDH works for the respect of all the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: civil
and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
A universal movement
FIDH was established in 1922, and today unites 178 member organisations in more than 100 countries
around the world. FIDH coordinates and supports their activities and provides them with a voice at theinternational level.
An independent organisation
Like its member organisations, FIDH is not linked to any party or religion and is independent of all
governments.
The Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) was established in March 1995 as the first Japanese NGO
specializing in prison reform. CPR's goal is to reform Japanese prison conditions in accordance withinternational human rights standards and to abolish the death penalty.
CPR is a member of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), a correspondent memberof the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN).
Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan (CPR)
Founded in 1983, The Advocates for Human Rights is a volunteer-based NGO committed to theimpartial promotion and protection of international human rights standards and the rule of law. The
Advocates conducts a range of programs to promote human rights in the United States and around theCenter for Prisoners’ Rights Japan • c/o Amicus Law Office • Raffine Shinjuku #902, 1-36-5, Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku • Tokyo 160-0022 • Japan
Tel/Fax: 81 3 5379 5055 • Email: cpr@cpr.jca.apc.org • www.cpr.jca.apc.org
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) • Rue du Grand-Pré 53 • 1202 Geneva • Switzerland
Tel: 41 (0)22 700 12 88 • Fax: 41 (0)22 321 54 88 • Email: Geneva@fidh.org • www.fidh.org
The Advocates for Human Rights • 330 Second Avenue South • Suite 800 • Minneapolis, MN 55401 • USA
Tel: 612.341.3302 • Fax: 612.341.2971 • Email: hrights@advrights.org • www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty • 69 rue Michelet • 93100 Montreuil • France
Tel: 0033 1 80 87 70 49 • Fax: 0033 1 57 63 89 25 • www.worldcoalition.org

world, including monitoring and fact finding, direct legal representation, education and training, andpublications. In 1991, The Advocates adopted a formal commitment to oppose the death penalty
worldwide and organized a Death Penalty Project to provide pro bono assistance on post-conviction
appeals, as well as education and advocacy to end capital punishment. The Advocates currently holds aseat on the Steering Committee of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, an alliance of more than 150 NGOs, bar associations,
local authorities and unions, was created in Rome on 13 May 2002. The aim of the World Coalition is tostrengthen the international dimension of the fight against the death penalty. Its ultimate objective is toobtain the universal abolition of the death penalty. To achieve its goal, the World Coalition advocates for adefinitive end to death sentences and executions in those countries where the death penalty is in force. In
some countries, it is seeking to obtain a reduction in the use of capital punishment as a first step towards
abolition.

Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan • c/o Amicus Law Office • Raffine Shinjuku #902, 1-36-5, Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku • Tokyo 160-0022 • Japan
Tel/Fax: 81 3 5379 5055 • Email: cpr@cpr.jca.apc.org • www.cpr.jca.apc.org
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) • Rue du Grand-Pré 53 • 1202 Geneva • Switzerland
Tel: 41 (0)22 700 12 88 • Fax: 41 (0)22 321 54 88 • Email: Geneva@fidh.org • www.fidh.org
The Advocates for Human Rights • 330 Second Avenue South • Suite 800 • Minneapolis, MN 55401 • USA
Tel: 612.341.3302 • Fax: 612.341.2971 • Email: hrights@advrights.org • www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty • 69 rue Michelet • 93100 Montreuil • France
Tel: 0033 1 80 87 70 49 • Fax: 0033 1 57 63 89 25 • www.worldcoalition.org

Part 1: Prison Conditions
A. Life Imprisonment and Parole
1. During 2012, 38 new prisoners were sentenced to life, having exhausted or waived their rights toappeal, while the number of prisoners released on parole in the same year was only 6. The average
period of time actually served by released “lifers” is becoming longer, while the number of lifers
released on parole remains low. Since April 2009, prisoners serving more than 30 years in prison arescheduled to be examined for parole automatically. However, this practice has made little impact on
the number of prisoners released on parole. Accordingly, the total number of imprisoned lifers is
steadily growing, and even prisoners released on parole usually serve more than 30 years in prison
before being released. (See Table 1, Graphs 1 and 2).
2. Consequently, for an increasing number of prisoners, a life sentence in Japan means actual
imprisonment for life. During the decade from 2003 to 2012, 54 lifers were released on parole(excluding prisoners who were granted parole more than once, owing to revocation of previous
parole). On the other hand, the number of lifers who died in prison during the same period was 143.
At the end of 2012, there were 8 lifers who had been imprisoned for more than 50 years, and 21 otherprisoners who served more than 40 years in prison. Long imprisonment deteriorates prisoners’ healthphysically and mentally.
3. There are no clear and substantive criteria for parole disclosed to prisoners. Also, the evaluation ofparole candidates is carried out only by Ministry officials behind closed doors, and prisoners are notallowed to be represented by attorneys. Because of such practice, many prisoners become hopelessand give up rehabilitation into the society.
(Table 1) Terms Served for Prisoners with Life Sentences（2003–2012)1
lifers releasedYear
lifers at year end
new lifers
on parole
2003
1,242
114
13
2004
1,352
119
1
2005
1,467
134
10
2006
1,596
136
3
2007
1,670
89
1
2008
1,711
53
4
2009
1,772
81
6
2010
1,796
50
7
2011
1,812
43
3
2012
1,826
38
6
Total
853
54

1

Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice (http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000114951.pdf).
3

lifers who died inprison
11
15
12
15
13
7
14
21
21
14
143

(Graph 1) Average Period of Imprisonment Served by Released Lifers(Graph 2) Lifers Imprisoned at Year end

Recommendations to the Japanese Government(a) Establish specific and objective criteria for permission of parole.
(b) Conduct regular and systematic parole evaluations for all prisoners serving more than 10 years inprison.
(c) Establish parole evaluation procedures which allow prisoners to be actively involved in the processwith assistance from legal representatives, as well as an opportunity to request a review of any
decisions by the parole board denying a prisoner’s release.
B. Solitary Confinement
4. During Japan’s ICCPR review in 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that “thestate party should discontinue… the practice of segregating certain inmates in ‘accommodating
blocks’ without clearly defined criteria or possibilities of appeal.” Although the number of prisoners
who are completely isolated from other inmates has decreased from 148 in October 2006 to 16 in
4April 2012, the government has not taken any effective measures to respond the Committee’s
recommendation.
5. Even today, many prisoners who do not meet the criteria for ‘isolation’ are placed in quite a similar
situation by being classified into Security Category 4, which is one of the four categories created byan ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, not by law. The only differences between treatment under
Category 4 and isolation are: 1) there are possibilities of exercising with other inmates and bathing,and 2) the inmates can, in accordance with a directive, come in contact with others twice a month(which was just once a month until 2011).
6. There are, however, no articulated criteria for this category. Many prisoners complain that they wereclassified into Category 4 as a result of filing lawsuits against the prison authorities. As of 10 April
2012, 2190 prisoners were classified into Category 4, accounting for 4.01% of the total population ofsentenced inmates in Japan. However, some prisons use Category 4 punishment very aggressively,
and have between 8 and 25% of their inmate population subjected to the Category 4 punishment.
(See Table2.)
7. Unlike inmates in “isolation,” Category 4 inmates cannot file “Claims for Review” to request areview of why they were classified as Category 4. Although Filing of Complaints, another type ofgrievance mechanism, is available, this mechanism is ineffective in practice, for the authorities’
decision on such complaints is never reviewed by higher authorities or the third parties.
(Table 2) Prisons holding more than twice the national average of Category 4 Prisoners
Name of Prison
Prison Population
Category 4 Prisoners
Percentage
Kitakyusyu Medical
Gifu
Asahikawa
Tokushima
Saijo Branch
MiyagiOkazaki Medical
Hachioji Medical
Kakogawa
Kumamoto
Fuchu
Himeji Juvenile
Akita

263
846
298
741
39
993
214
229
983
607
2,667
300
497

64
139
44
74
4
92
21
21
86
52
218
25
38

25.50%
16.75%
16.18%
10.32%
10.26%
10.20%
10.10%
9.33%
9.06%
9.03%
8.61%
8.42%
8.05%

8. We are especially concerned that there has been an average of 26 prisoners each year who have beendetained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years. Several prisoners have been detained forover 30 years and the longest one has been for 49 years (Table 3).

5

(Table 3) Prisoners in Solitary Confinement for more than 10 years2
July 10,October 1, November 1,
Date of Research November
10, 2000
2001
2002
2005
1
37y 00m
37y 08m
38y 11m
42y 00m
2
36y 07m
37y 03m
38y 05m
41y 06m
Period of3
35y 06m
35y 07m
36y 07m
39y 08m
Isolation
4
34y 11m
35y 05m
29y 01m
38y 07m
5
34y 09m
27y 10m
24y 00m
27y 01m
6
27y 10m
22y 10m
23y 07my=year26y 08m
7
22y 06m
22y 04m
22y 10m
m= month
26y 00m
8
22y 02m
21y 07m
22y 04m
25y 05m
9
21y 05m
21y 01m
22y 02m
25y 00m
10
20y 11m
21y 00m
21y 01m
24y 10m
11
20y 05m
19y 10m
21y 00m≥30y
23y 11m
12
20y 04m
19y 09m
21y 00m
20y–29y23y 11m
13
19y 04m
19y 09m
20y 10m
11m
23y 06m
14
19y 03m
19y 07m
20y 09m
10y–19y
21y 07m
15
19y 01m
19y 06m
18y 10m
11m
20y 03m
16
18y 11m
17y 07m
18y 06m
19 y 08m
17
18y 10m
17y 03m
16y 01m
18 y 05m
18
17y 00m
15y 10m
15y 09m
17 y 01m
19
16y 07m
14y 10m
13y 10m
16 y 01m
20
15y 02m
14y 07m
13y 10m
15 y 09m
21
14y 05m
12y 10m
12y 12m
15 y 03m
22
14y 02m
12y 07m
12y 02m
15 y 02m
23
13y 11m
11y 09m
12y 01m
14 y 01m
24
12y 02m
11y 00m
11y 06m
13 y 07m
25
11y 11m
10y 10m
11y 00m
13 y 05m
26
11y 01m
10y 05m
10y 06m
13 y 04m
27
10y 04m
10y 04m
13 y 04m
28
10y 02m
10y 04m
13 y 01m
29
10y 03m
10 y 06m
30
10y 00m
10 y 00m
No. of Prisoners
28
26
30
30

April 10,2008
52y 03m
43y 00m
39y 01m
35y 10m
26y 06m
26y 05m
25y 06m
23y 11m
23y 05m
20y 05m
20y 01m
16y 05m
16y 02m
16y 00m
15y 11m
15y 09m
13y 01m
12y 08m
12y 06m
11y 11m
11y 09m
11y 03m

April 10,2012
49y 08m
47y 00m
30y 06m
30y 04m
27y 10m
27y 04m
23y 10m
22y 05m
21y 11m
20y 05m
20y 01m
19y 11m
16y 07m
15y 09m
15y 02m
13y 03m
12y 07m
11y 07m
11y 02m
10y 05m
10y 03m

22

21

Recommendation to the Japanese Government(a) Reduce or abolish the use of the inhumanely strict discipline of solitary confinement.
C. Disciplinary Measures / Punishment
9. Japanese law does not clarify which conduct should be subject to disciplinary measures in prison.
Whether a prisoner should be punished and which punishment should be imposed are solely
dependent on the prison governor’s discretion.
10. The procedure to impose disciplinary measures is unfair. Prisoners do not have access to the evidenceof their own cases and are not allowed to call witnesses or have counsel (or other representatives) for
their defense. Grievances are decided by a panel consisting of only prison officers. A prison officer is
2

These data are based on surveys conducted by a Diet member on six different occasions between 2000 and 2012.
6

assigned to assist the defense, but the defense is limited to a plea for leniency. In fact, according to asurvey conducted by a legislator in 2002, there was no case where an officer assigned for defense
argued that punishment should not be imposed on the prisoner, and this practice continues to this day.
Just as the Human Rights Committee raised concerns about “lack of fair and open procedures for
deciding on disciplinary measures” in its Concluding Observation of 1998 (para.27(c)), current
procedures still lack fairness and transparency.
11. The most severe disciplinary measure is almost the same as ‘isolation,’ but with limited opportunities
for bathing and exercise. Quite often, more restrictions such as prohibition of work and external
contacts, are also imposed. During Japan’s ICCPR review in 2008, the Human Rights Committee
expressed concerns about “use of harsh punitive measures, including frequent resort to solitaryconfinement,” but solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure continues.
12. Practically, it is understood that many of those who are punished repeatedly are long term prisoners,
foreigners and prisoners with mental disorders, all of whom have difficulties with communication. It
is thus doubtful whether these prisoners are given adequate treatment.
Recommendations to the Japanese Government(a) Establish specific and clear criteria for punishment.
(b) Establish transparency in application of punishments.
(a) Provide prisoners facing punishment assistance from lawyers and other supporting organizations
independent of prison authorities.
D. Health, Sanitation, and Medical Treatment in Prisons
13. During Japan’s ICCPR review in 2008, the Human Rights Committee recommended that “the State
party should ensure that adequate, independent and prompt medical assistance be provided to all
inmates at all times. The State party should consider placing medical facilities and staff under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.”
14. Despite the entry into force in 2007 of the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmatesand Detainees (hereinafter referred to as “the New Prison Law”), problems with health, sanitationand medical treatment in prisons remain. Medical service is subordinate to the security system of
each penal institution. Security requirements are prioritized over anything else, making it extremely
difficult to provide adequate medical services.
15. There is also a serious lack of medical staff in prisons, particularly doctors. As of December 2013,
penal institutions were expected to have 332 doctors in full time employment, however only 260 of
those positions were filled. There are 31 institutions which have no full time doctor (Asahi Shimbun,
19 Dec. 2013).
16. As a result of the lack of doctors, assistant nurses are charged with the responsibility of determining
necessity and urgency of medical examinations by doctors. Since assistant nurses are themselvesprison guards who acquired their qualifications at the prison's medical facility, they have a naturaltendency to favor security requirements over health concerns.
17. Medical examination by a doctor is frequently deemed unnecessary, causing delay in medical
attention, and resulting in symptoms that cannot then be treated at the penal institution.
7

18. When medical facilities and treatment are available at an institution but are inadequate, the decision
to transfer the inmate to an outside hospital is often not made, leading to worsening symptoms, oreven death. In February 2012, a male prisoner in his seventies detained at Toyama Prison died of
disease because of the unreasonable delay in sending him to an outside facility where he could
receive adequate medical treatment.
19. In order to secure an adequate number of prison doctors, the Ministry of Justice is trying to reformworking conditions, especially by increasing wages. But the fundamental problem remains: medical
service is not independent from the security requirements.
Recommendations to the Japanese Government:(a) Inmates should receive adequate medical treatment without any undue hindrance by reason of
security issues.
(b) The State party should consider placing medical facilities and staff under the Ministry of Health.
E. Grievance Mechanisms
20. Prison Law provides the following 3 types of grievance mechanisms for prisoners: (a) Claim for
Review, (b) Report of Cases, and (c) Filing of a Complaint:a.
Claim for Review can be filed against only 16 types of dispositions made by theauthorities, which are set out by Art.157.
b.
Report of Cases can be filed against (i) illegal use of physical force; (ii) illegal or
unjust use of arresting ropes, handcuffs, or restraint suits; and (iii) illegal or unjust confinement in a
protection cell.
c.
Filing of Complaints is available with regard to treatment in general. However,Filing of Complaints is not subject to review by the Study Group on Review of Appeals Filed by
Inmates of Penal Facilities (see below).
21. Claim for Review and Report of Cases:- must be filed within 30 days from disposition or illegal use of force;- must be filed by prisoners themselves and representation by third party is not allowed;- are examined by Regional Correction Headquarters.
22. If prisoners are dissatisfied with the results of examination by Headquarters, they may request review
by the Minister of Justice within 30 days from the notification of the results.
23. When the Minister finds a request unlawful (e.g., a request was filed after a statutory period of 30days or filed against an act which is not listed by law), he/she can simply reject the request.
24. When the Minister finds that a request lacks its grounds and should be dismissed, he/she refers thecase to the Study Group on Review of Appeals Filed by Inmates of Penal Facilities (hereinafterreferred to as “the Study Group”).
25. The Study Group- is a provisional and de-facto mechanism until National Human Rights Institution is established;- consists of five members from outside the Ministry, including one lawyer, one medical doctor
and two academics; and- is expected to review each case and submit its opinions to the Minister but the opinions are not8legally binding.
26. The following tables show that the current grievance mechanisms do not work efficiently (Tables 4& 5).
(Table 4) Results of Claim for Review filed during 2011
Prisoner’s
7
Claim Upheld(0.176%)
1,014
Dismissed(25.6%)
Decision madeClaim
Decision madeby Regional
2,789
deemedby Minister ofCorrection(70.4%)
unlawfulJustice
Headquarters
Others(withdrawn/p
148
ending)Total
3,958(Table 5) Results of Report of Cases filed during 2011
Prisoner’s
0Claim Upheld
(0%)
Claim
455
Decision madeDismissed(45.7%)
Decision madeby Regional
Claimby Minister ofCorrection
467
deemedJustice
Headquarters(48.8%)
unlawful
Others
35
Total
957

Prisoner’s
Claim Upheld
Dismissed
Claim deemedunlawful
Others(withdrawn/pending)
Total

Prisoner’s
Claim Upheld
Dismissed

2(0.17%)
154(13.1%)
888(75.7%)
129
1.173

0
(0%)
102
(36.8%)

Claim deemedunlawful

139(50.18%)Others
Total

36
277

Recommendation to the Japanese Government(a) The State party should reform the grievance mechanisms so that prisoners’ complaints will be duly
addressed by responsible authorities.
Part 2: The Death Penalty
A. Facts and Figures
27. Since 2008 when the Human Rights Committee last reviewed Japan’s ICCPR report, Japan has
executed 39 people, including one female (Table 6). On 30 August 2009, the Democratic Party ofJapan (DPJ) won the general election and seized political power for the first time. But three years
later, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won the election in December 2012. Among the 39
prisoners executed during this time, 30 were executed by a LDP-led government, and 9 by the DPJ.
28. Although no execution was carried out in 2011(Graph 1), on 29 March 2012, Justice Minister Toshio
Ogawa ordered the execution of three inmates. Since then, executions have been carried out on
regular basis.
929. The current Justice Minister, Sadakazu Tanigaki, a lawyer and politician, assumed office on 26
December 2012. Since then, he has ordered executions of eight inmates.
(Table 6）Changes in the Number of Executions 2007–2013
Year

2007

2008

2009
2010
2011
2012

2013

Date

Execution Annual total

April 27

3

August 23

3

December 7

3

February 1

3April 10

4

June 17
September 11
October 28
January 29
July 28
July 28
N/A
March 29
August 3
September 27
February21
April 26
September 12
December 12

3
3
2
4
3
2
0
3
2
2
3
2
1
2

9

Justice Minister

Prime Minister

Jinen Nagase(LDP)

Shinzo Abe

Kunio Hatoyama(LDP)

Yasuo Fukuda

15
Koji Yasuoka(LDP)
Eisuke Mori(LDP)720

Keiko Chiba(DPJ)N/AToshio Ogawa(DPJ)

78Taro Aso

Naoto Kan
N/A
Yoshihiko Noda

Makoto Taki(DPJ)

Sadakazu Tanigaki(LDP)

10

Shinzo Abe(Graph 3) Annual Executions 1993 – 2013

30. Despite the regular executions, death row populations grew compared to the level of 2008. At the endof 2013, the number of death row prisoners who had exhausted or waived their rights to appeal
slightly dropped to 130, from 133 of 2012. Even so, the number still remains at the highest level since1945, and thus it is anticipated other executions might take place in the near future.
(Table 7) Death Sentence and Inmates on Death Row
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Finalized death Death sentence imposed
sentencesby the court of first instance
14
11
21
23
10
17
9
22
10
8

14
13
13
14
5
9
4
10
3
5

11

Inmates with finalized death
sentencesat year end
66
77
94
107
100
104
111
128
133
130

B. Lack of a System of Mandatory Appeal
31. During Japan’s ICCPR review in 2008, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concern that anincreasing number of defendants are convicted and sentenced to death without exercising their rightof appeal. Lack of mandatory review by higher courts increases the risk of execution of the innocent,and data from 1993 to 2014 show that many prisoners continue to be executed despite not having
exhausted their right to appeal (see Graph 4).
32. In February 2013, Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki ordered the executions of three prisoners: twoof the three—Masahiro Kanagawa and Kaoru Kobayashi—had withdrawn their appeals at the High
Courts and allowed their sentences to become final. The other prisoner, Keiki Kanoh, had originallybeen sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court overturned that sentence after an appeal by
public prosecutors. Since these executions, Minister Tanigaki has not ordered the execution of any
prisoner who had not fully exhausted all appeal rights. This change in the Justice Ministry’s practice
may be closely related to the fact that several death sentences given under the Lay Judge System havebecome final without review by the uppoer courts, which has received considerable criticism (seebelow). This recent positive trend has, however, brought with it another negative tendency inexecutions: more prisoners’ sentences have become final recently and their executions are now able
to be carried out.
(Graph 4) Executions and Right of Appeal

C. Lay Judge Trial and the Death Penalty
33. In May 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials examined under the Lay Judge System was enacted, alongwith the new system of the Lay Judge trial.
34. So far, there has not been an increase in the number of death sentences under the new system, but itshould be also noted that the number of homicides has been decreasing since 2008 (graph 5).
1235. On the other hand, an apparent new trend can be seen. Under the Lay Judge System, prosecutors havesought death sentences for 28 defendants, and as of May 10, 2014, 21 defendants out of 28 have beensentenced to death. This means that in 75% of all the capital cases, prosecutors achieved the death
penalty. This is much higher than the corresponding rate of death sentences handed down in the trials
by only professional judges between 1980 and 2009, which is 55.7%.
36. Furthermore, out of 21 individuals sentenced to death under the Lay Judge System, 4 defendants(19.04%) let their death sentences become final by withdrawal of appeals. The lack of a mandatory
appeals system is becoming more and more problematic under the new system.
37. Under the new Lay Judge System, in order to determine the punishment (including a sentence ofdeath), a simple majority vote (including at least one professional judge) is enough. Furthermore, as
there are no sentencing guidelines to be followed by either professional judges or lay judges,
considerable fluctuations in sentencing can be seen. Among these four people whose sentences havealready become final, there was a man who did not have any prior criminal record. Many observers
questioned his harsh sentence.
38. The Tokyo High Court has overruled three death sentences rendered in lay judge trials andresentenced the defendants to life imprisonment. However, in all three cases, public prosecutors haveappealed to the Supreme Court and currently the cases are under review. These reversals at the High
Court suggest an overly punitive tendency in lay judge trials. Although the High Court has attempted
to rectify these sentences, the fact that prosecutors are entitled to appeal means that defendants still
may face the death penalty.
(Graph 5) Annual Total of Reported Murder Cases

D. Prisoners with Mental Disorders
39. During Japan’s ICCPR review in 2008, the Human Rights Committee recommended that Japanconsider adopting a more humane approach with regard to the treatment of death row inmates andthe execution of persons at an advanced age or with mental disabilities. However, no systematicreform has been made in this regard.
40. Japan’s Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the execution of an inmate in a state of insanity(Article 479 paragraph 1). However, inmates’ status of “insanity” has been impossible to verify
13because even inmates themselves cannot get access to their own medical records, and medical
specialists from outside of prison have not been admitted to visit them for medical examination. The
government admits that there is no case where this provision of the Code has been applied.
41. In 2013, the Committee Against Torture recommended that the government of Japan should ensure
an independent review of all cases when there is credible evidence that a death row inmate ismentally ill and ensure that a detainee with mental illness is not executed (in accordance with article
479(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedures). However, the government has not shown any intention
to establish such a review mechanism.
42. There are several death row prisoners who are suffering from serious mental illness and who do notreceive proper medical treatment. The case of Iwao Hakamada serves not only as strong evidence ofwrongful conviction but also as an eminent example of mental disorders on death row. Hakamada,
who was arrested in August 1966, was placed on death row following the confirmation of his death
sentence in 1989. Shortly thereafter, he started to show signs of mental disorder, and several outside
psychiatrists diagnosed him with a mental illness. However, Tokyo Detention Center insisted that
there was no need for psychiatric treatment. On 27 March 2014—48 years after he was firstarrested—he was granted a retrial by the Shizuoka District Court and released, based on allegationsof falsified evidence during his first trial. His mental illness remained untreated throughout his
imprisonment.
43. It is believed that Hakamada’s case is just the tip of the iceberg and there are many other death row
prisoners with serious mental disorders; these prisoners include Shoko Asahara, a guru of the Aum
Shinrikyo cultist group, and Matsuzo Ohama, who has been on death row since 1977, when hewithdrew his appeal and allowed his sentence to become final.
E. “Peace of Mind” Principle
44. As stipulated in Article 32 of the New Prison Law, the idea underlying inhumanely restrictive
treatment of death row prisoners is “to maintain a peace of mind.” Section 1 of the Article states:“upon treatment of an inmate sentenced to death, attention shall be paid to help him/her maintainpeace of mind.”
45. During the Diet session in which the New Prison Bill was discussed, the Ministry of Justice said that“to maintain peace of mind” should not be interpreted as a tool for restriction of prisoners’ rights, butshould be used to give assistance to the prisoners. In practice, however, “peace of mind” is used as an
excuse to restrict the prisoners’ rights, especially rights to have contact with the outside world. The
government has claimed that such contacts may disturb the “peace of mind” of prisoners who arefacing death and therefore whose mental states are so unstable and vulnerable and that such contacts
with outside people must be strictly restricted.
F. Restricted Communication with the Outside World
46. Under the New Prison Law, relatives of an inmate sentenced to death and people who have a special
need to contact death row prisoners have legal rights to contact them3, but in reality people other than
3

According to Article 120 (1), if persons outside the prison meet the following requirements, they can meet the inmate sentenced
to death: (ii) A person with the necessity to have a visit in order to carry out a business pertaining to personally, legally, or
occupationally important concern of the inmate sentenced to death, such as reconciliation of marital relations, pursuance of a14

family members are often not allowed to do so. As for non-relatives (e.g. friends), the number of theoutside people who are allowed to get in touch with a prisoner is limited to three to five and eventhose who are allowed to exchange letters with a prisoner are not necessarily permitted to meet with aprisoner.
47. If a prisoner wants to add a new person to a list of visitors, because a previously approved visitor canno longer visit him anymore, such changes to a visitors’ list are never approved. This means that the
number of visitors would never increase, but only decrease.
48. The practice of attendance by prison guards at meetings between prisoners and their legal
representatives has slightly changed. On December 10th, 2013, the Supreme Court decided thathaving a meeting between an inmate sentenced to death and his lawyers for a retrial case without
attendance by a prison guard is in the ‘legitimate interest of both of the inmate and his lawyers’ andunless there are special circumstances, a guard’s attendance at such a meeting should not be allowed.
After the ruling, the Ministry of Justice amended its ordinance and started to allow unobserved
meetings between death row prisoners and their lawyers, but still in considerable number of cases,
meetings are monitored by officials and prisoners are never allowed to see their lawyers in private.
G. Other Issues
49. The New Prison Law provides that each death row prisoner shall be detained in a single cell andseparated from the other prisoners day and night. Under the law, contact between death row prisoners
is legally possible, where deemed advantageous in light of the principle of treatment prescribed inparagraph (1) of Article 32, which provides that “(u)pon treatment of an inmate sentenced to death,attention shall be paid to help him/her maintain peace of mind.” However, the Ministry of Justiceadmits that such treatment has never been allowed. Such circumstances contribute to deterioration ofprisoners’ mental conditions.
50. Pardon, commutation, and reprieve for death row inmates have never been allowed, even after
Japan’s 2008 review by the Human Rights Committee.
51. As of May 10 2014, there are 18 death row prisoners age 70 and older, excluding Mr. Iwao
Hakamada.
52. In Japan, death row inmates are not informed of the date and time of execution until just an hour
before it actually takes place. This practice gives great sufferings to inmates themselves as well as totheir families. Moreover, a lack of prior announcement totally deprives inmates of the opportunities
to challenge the legitimacy of executions.
53. On March 11, 2014 the Quaker United Nations Office held a meeting and issued a report concerning
the “children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed.” The panel recognized thatchildren of people sentenced to death and children of executed inmates have long been invisible andneglected and that they have benefited from little or no assistance or care from any institutions. The
panel recommended an improvement in the rights of children to information, and an improvement inlawsuit, or maintenance of a business.
If letters meet the following article, their sending and receiving are permitted.
Article 139 (1) (ii) Letters which the inmate sentenced to death sends and receives in order to carry out a business pertaining topersonally, legally, or occupationally important concern of the inmate sentenced to death, such as reconciliation of marital
relations, pursuance of a lawsuit, or maintenance of a business.
15

opportunities for last visits or other communications, as well as increased rights to a return of the
body without payment. In addition, the report recommended an assessment of the best interests of achild when sentencing a parent.
54. Akari Maeda, professor at the Tokyo Zokei University, recounted the current difficulties in Japanesechildren visiting inmate sentenced to death owing to the general geographical remoteness of theprisons and a lack of facilities for such visits. In addition, Professor Maeda reported the widespreadlack of notice of execution given either to the inmate or his family and the effects of this practice onchildren.
Recommendations to the Japanese Government(a) Introduce a moratorium on executions and consider abolition of the death penalty.
(b) Establish an independent body which probes into causes of wrongful convictions.
(c) Introduce a requirement of a unanimous verdict for death sentences.
(d) Adopt a mandatory review and appeal system for capital cases.
(e) Reform the current pardon system in order that the system can truly function for those facing thedeath penalty.
(f) Establish a reliable and independent review mechanism to identify death row inmates who may besuffering from mental illness.
(g) Facilitate independent mental health examinations of prisoners to determine the effects of “peace ofmind” provisions.
(h) Ensure that death row prisoners will have more opportunities for contact with outside parties.
(i) Guarantee the confidentiality of meetings between prisoners and their lawyers.
(j) Require a prisoner on death row to be notified of the date of his/her execution well before thescheduled date.
(k) Ensure the rights of children to information about the prisoner, including sufficient prior notice of thedate and time of execution.
(l) Consider the best interests of the minor children of prisoners sentenced to death in sentencing, indecisions to allow family visits to prisoners on death row, and in carrying out the death penalty.
(m) Allow children and other family members reasonable access to the prisoner before execution, andprovide sufficient time for the family’s to receive the body of the executed family member if itwishes to do so.

16