A Statement of Demand for the Securement of Human Dignity, from Immigration Detention
Sites in Humanitarian Crisis
On June 24, 2019, at the Omura Immigration Center, an immigration detention center locatedin Omura City, Nagasaki Prefecture, a Nigerian man in his 40s known as “Sunny-san” died.
Sunny-san, who was detained in November 2015, had a child with a Japanese woman.
According to those who knew him, Sunny-san had been saying, “If I leave this country, I
won’t be able to see my child.”
According to a study report that was made public by the Immigration and Residence Control
Agency on the 1st day of this month, the cause of death of Sunny-san was “death bystarvation.” The fact that a death by starvation occurred within a state institution in presentday Japan leaves one at a loss for words.
Despite the occurrence of such an extremely serious and grave abnormal situation, theImmigration and Residence Control Agency has been content to issue only an internalinvestigation report, in the same manner as with previous cases of death. Furthermore, thereport’s content only states that there was no problem with the handling of the case, without
performing thorough investigation or determination of cause.1
We humbly express our condolences here. And, to the Immigration and Residence Control
Agency, we demand that a thorough investigation be conducted by a third party agency todetermine the true facts of the case.
In Japan in recent years, many irregular residents have been held in detention for extremelylong periods.
As of June 2019, of the 316 detainees held at the Higashi Nihon Immigration Center, 301
were in detention for 6 months or longer, and 279 for 1 year or longer. Similarly, of the 128
detainees at the Omura Immigration Center, 110 were detained for 6 months or longer, and92 for 1 year or longer. Many of the detainees have been in detention for two years, threeyears, or even longer.2
As a background to such long-term detentions, there is the fact that, under the Immigration
Control Act, there is no stipulation regarding the limit of period of detention based on adeportation order, and all authority over procedures are in the hands of administrative
institutions without evaluation by judicial body regarding the need for detention, period ofdetention, approval of provisional release, need for re-detention, etc.
What should further be pointed out is, immigration authorities have adopted an extremely
strict stance toward provisional releases in recent years. Especially, in the Ministry of Justice
Immigration Bureau instruction of February 18, 2018, titled “Regarding further thoroughenforcement of appropriate operation of provisional release measures and the strengtheningof movement surveillance against persons to whom deportation orders have been issued,”eight types of “persons not recognized as appropriate for approval of provisional release” are1

Immigration and Residence Control Agency web page 「大村入国管理センター被収容者死亡事案に関する調査報告について」(“Regarding the Investigation Report Concerning the Death of an Omura Immigration CenterDetainee”); October 1, 2019. http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyuukokukanri09_00050.html
2Resource materials found on House of Counsillors Member FUKUSHIMA Mizuho website; August 29, 2019.
http://mizuhoto.org/2091

1listed, and further instruction states, “As a general rule, even in cases of persons for whomthere is no prospect of deportation, unless the person suffers from illness that would make it
difficult to withstand detention, detention shall continue and effort shall be made to
implement deportation until deportation becomes possible.” The above-mentioned strict
stance of immigration authorities toward provisional releases is graphically illustrated by thenumbers and percentages of provisional release approvals, which have fallen sharply in thelast few years, from 1160 persons/approx. 46% approval rate (2016) to 822 persons/approx.
26% (2017) to 523 persons/approx. 17% (2018).
Extremely long detentions have become normalized since this instruction was issued, causing
the situation to fall into what should be called a humanitarian crisis.
Such a state of detention, where absolutely no consideration is given to necessity, fairness
and proportionality, is not only “arbitrary detention” (Universal Declaration of HumanRights, Article 9, Par.1),3 but constitutes “torture” (see Convention Against Torture Article 1,Par.1) and is clearly illegal.
These points are evident from the fact that this state of Japanese detention has been thesubject of repeated recommendations from U.N. institutions4, and from the fact that limits are
typically applied to the lengths of detention periods in other advanced nations.
Hunger strikes to protest against long-term detention have been held in the past, too, but thehunger strike which began in May of this year was undertaken against a backdrop of suchextremely long detention periods, and it was large in scale, with over 100 participants andspreading to facilities across the country. Furthermore, the situation has become grave, withsome participants refusing even to drink water, experiencing drastic weight loss, becoming
dependent of wheelchair for mobility, and/or losing control of egestion functions andrequiring paper diapers.
The death of Sunny-san occurred amid such circumstances and, as such, is a problem thatmust not be squared away as a random, or peculiar event.
And yet, despite these circumstances, the Immigration and Residence Control Agency has
shown no sign of changing its behavior. Rather, it acted to approve a shorter-than-usual 2week provisional release for one person who was granted permission for provisional release
after a hunger strike, then re-detained the person without reason or explanation.
We are very concerned that another victim might arise.
The Immigration and Residence Control Agency announced on September 19 of this yearthat it will establish an expert panel on detentions and deportations within the “Immigration
Policy Council,” a private council of the Justice Minister, in which learned persons will3

References: U.N. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.35, on the prohibition against arbitrary
detention (Article 9, Par.1); U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Compilation of Deliberations,
Deliberation No.5 on situation regarding deprivation of liberty of immigrants; etc.
4Examples: Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations on the 6th Periodic Review of Japan, Paragraph
19; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Concluding Observations on the 7 th, 8th and9th (2014) Periodic Reviews of Japan, Paragraph 23; CERD Concluding Observations on the 10th and 11th (2018)
Periodic Review of Japan, Par.35 and 36; Committee on the Elimination of Torture Concluding Observations onthe 2nd (2013) Periodic Review of Japan, Par.9.

2

consider solution policies concerning long term detentions, and that recommendations will beissued by the end of March next year.
The Ministry of Justice states, in its Basic Plan for Immigration Control, “We will furtherconsider, from the perspectives of both the legal system and of operations, introducing as afurther measure restrictions on reasons for re-application, especially as a control measureagainst abuses and misuses of application procedures, and introducing certain exceptions tothe effect to suspend deportation effect for egregious illegal remainers that are not the subjectof “further revision of operations”, who try to avoid forcible deportation by repeatedly
submitting applications.”
However, among those who apply repeatedly for refugee status, there are considerable
numbers who are refugees under the Convention, but cannot receive recognition as refugees
because Japan maintains its own, unique interpretation of the Refugee Convention. This isevident from the fact that the UNHCR has pointed out that Japan’s “refugee approval
standards are quite strict, compared with other advanced nations”5 and uniquely identifies
Japan by name as a nation with a remarkably low rate of refugee approvals, and also from themany cases where persons who were denied refugee status in Japan were recognized asrefugees in another country. One can only say, it is the Ministry of Justice that is misusing therefugee recognition system.
If the government seeks only to promote deportations without going through self-reflection
and careful consideration on the point above,, it is as clear as day that the humanitarian crisis
will only deepen.
Japan is a signatory to the International Convention on the Status of Refugees. Given the fact,
we strongly oppose Japan’s efforts to implement only restrictions on re-applications andeffect to suspend deportation, while ignoring measures and policies for true protection ofrefugees, such as accuracy of refugee recognition, or improvement of fairness andtransparency of the system.
The Ministry of Justice is the ministry responsible for “law. “Law” includes international
treaties that Japan is a signatory to. However, Japan’s detention of irregular residents
contravenes every principle demanded by international human rights treaties concerning
detention, and we can only say of the situation that the “rule of law” is absent in the area ofimmigration. As a result, the detention of irregular residents has fallen into a condition thatshould be called a humanitarian crisis.
We can no longer overlook the Ministry of Justice’s stance of trampling upon the law.
We strongly demand of the Ministry of Justice that it respect treaties, establish rule of lawand secure human dignity in the area of immigration and, as organizations engaged in thesupport of irregular residents, including applicants for refugee status, we vow to make every
effort to improve this situation as soon as possible.
October 25, 2019

Kyodo News article, 「日本の低難民認定率に懸念 国連弁務官、法整備も 要請」(“Concerned about Japan’s
low rate of refugee approvals, U.N. High Commissioner demands law improvements”) : August 30, 2019.
53

≪Signing Organizations (alphabetical order)≫Catholic Commission of Japan for Migrants, Refugees and People on the Move
Hammersmith Promise (Attorneys Fighting against Mandatory Detention Policy)
Immigration Review Task ForceJapan Lawyers Network for Refugees
Japan Network towards Human Right Legislation for Non-Japanese Nationals and EthnicMinorities
Japan NGO Network for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination （ERD Net）
National Christian Conference for Promotion of a Basic Law for Foreign Residents
Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan
Ushiku no Kai (Ushiku Detention Centre Problem Study Group)4